Mary Jane

[DTO Luv]

The drugs effect on a persons brain and thought process leads to a LOT of crime.

What do you guys think will happen with all the cartels and drug dealers on the streets right now if we put them out of business? Users will be users and criminals will be criminals. They aren't just going to find a job working fast food because the sale of drugs is all of the sudden regulated.

You're missing the point. I'll say it again. Most drug use in this country is pot. All other drugs combined are a small percentage of total drug uses. Those number of those using heavy drugs is not going to increase drastically and if it does then it's still a small percent overall.

What do I think will happen if the cartels and dealers went out of business? I don't know. I guess they just wouldn't focus their efforts on the USA and go for another black market or ask Congress for a bailout.

[S33]

What do I think will happen if the cartels and dealers went out of business? I don't know. I guess they just wouldn't focus their efforts on the USA and go for another black market or ask Congress for a bailout.

What better way to re-distribute the wealth than to give the inner city crack dealers a bailout.

K, that was my parting shot, this is just another endless uncompromising eomaha thread and I should probably get something accomplished today.

[the1wags]

Ok so enough of what drug is more dangerous/addictive/where to draw the line etc?

The question remains, what to do about this? What do you guys that say "draw the line after marijuana" think we should do regarding the hard junk? It is clear that the current policy isn't stopping anything, so what is the solution? Please don't tell me pour more money at it and more jail time.

[DTO Luv]

Yes, it is the governments job to provide a safe and healthy environment for it's citizens. A never ending war on drugs or not. There is ZERO proof that legalizing those drugs would lower crime rates. As I said previously, the US crime network will exists in some fashion regardless if it's the sale of drugs, stolen goods, or weapons.

You're making a big jump. Small time dealers will be broke and it would be much harder for them to make money when the main source of their income is now on sale at Baker's. The dealers are the ones in the country now on the streets doing the drive bys and keeping turf wars alive.

Cartels are already probably involved in other sorts of illegal sales but if you make probably the biggest part of their income source non viable, then they are going to take a huge hit. They will still have stolen goods and weapons but what do you think is their biggest seller? And to who?

Americans account for almost 80% of the world's drug use. Think about that. If we legalized drugs the foreign and domestic cartels would virtually go bankrupt. I don't see where you think that they will make up the loss of income from.

[S33]

Ok so enough of what drug is more dangerous/addictive/where to draw the line etc?

The question remains, what to do about this? What do you guys that say "draw the line after marijuana" think we should do regarding the hard junk? It is clear that the current policy isn't stopping anything, so what is the solution? Please don't tell me pour more money at it and more jail time.

Sadly, there I don't think there is a 'solution' per say. I compare it to counter terrorism, it's never going to go away. Telling the non dealers it ok because we can't control it is pathetic though. The dealers/scientists is who created the demand and got the population hooked, now the government owns it to the people to change that.

[S33]

Yes, it is the governments job to provide a safe and healthy environment for it's citizens. A never ending war on drugs or not. There is ZERO proof that legalizing those drugs would lower crime rates. As I said previously, the US crime network will exists in some fashion regardless if it's the sale of drugs, stolen goods, or weapons.

You're making a big jump. Small time dealers will be broke and it would be much harder for them to make money when the main source of their income is now on sale at Baker's. The dealers are the ones in the country now on the streets doing the drive bys and keeping turf wars alive.

Cartels are already probably involved in other sorts of illegal sales but if you make probably the biggest part of their income source non viable, then they are going to take a huge hit. They will still have stolen goods and weapons but what do you think is their biggest seller? And to who?

Americans account for almost 80% of the world's drug use. Think about that. If we legalized drugs the foreign and domestic cartels would virtually go bankrupt. I don't see where you think that they will make up the loss of income from.

"80%" - NOT TRUE NOT TRUE. The US documents it's drug use where as most other countries do not have the resources to document nor fight the drug industry. Drug use is prevalent in every culture on earth. Whether is in the poppy fields of Afghanistan or the jungles in Africa, it's everywhere.

"Cartels are already probably involved in other sorts of illegal sales but if you make probably the biggest part of their income source non viable, then they are going to take a huge hit. "

I would think the last thing we need is cartels and dealers who are desperate for money. They should be in prison.

[mrdwhsr]

How long has the war on drugs been going on? IT DOES NOT WORK. You might as well pull the money out of your wallet and burn it, because that is all we are doing with the current policy.

At the Federal level, with the creation of the Food & Drug Administration. Those are the guys that create the 'controlled substances' list -- the stuff that only your doctor can prescribe and the stuff that even a doctor can't prescribe. (Gee that sounds like Government run health care!)

BTW S33 -- there are folks who can't control their alcohol intake anymore than some people can control their meth intake. Heck, I can't smoke one cigarette without a strong probability that I would be back on a pack a day habit.

There are also people who argue that heroin is not all that addictive. The 'rehab' industry just wants people to think it is true so they can make a dollar. I don't know about that. Maybe I should change my bong water.

[S33]

How long has the war on drugs been going on? IT DOES NOT WORK. You might as well pull the money out of your wallet and burn it, because that is all we are doing with the current policy.

At the Federal level, with the creation of the Food & Drug Administration. Those are the guys that create the 'controlled substances' list -- the stuff that only your doctor can prescribe and the stuff that even a doctor can't prescribe. (Gee that sounds like Government run health care!)

BTW S33 -- there are folks who can't control their alcohol intake anymore than some people can control their meth intake. Heck, I can't smoke one cigarette without a strong probability that I would be back on a pack a day habit.

There are also people who argue that heroin is not all that addictive. The 'rehab' industry just wants people to think it is true so they can make a dollar. I don't know about that. Maybe I should change my bong water.

"BTW S33 -- there are folks who can't control their alcohol intake anymore than some people can control their meth intake. Heck, I can't smoke one cigarette without a strong probability that I would be back on a pack a day habit. "

I made that point already and I stated a majority of alcohol users are able to control their intake and actions while using. However, there is no such thing as a responsible crack user. Those drug were designed to be addictive and comprise of highly toxic properties. There is a difference and some of you are splitting hairs now.

"There are also people who argue that heroin is not all that addictive. The 'rehab' industry just wants people to think it is true so they can make a dollar. I don't know about that. Maybe I should change my bong water"

Heroin has been proved addictive. Just like crack cocaine, it was designed to be so.

[the1wags]

Ok so enough of what drug is more dangerous/addictive/where to draw the line etc?

The question remains, what to do about this? What do you guys that say "draw the line after marijuana" think we should do regarding the hard junk? It is clear that the current policy isn't stopping anything, so what is the solution? Please don't tell me pour more money at it and more jail time.

Sadly, there I don't think there is a 'solution' per say. I compare it to counter terrorism, it's never going to go away. Telling the non dealers it ok because we can't control it is pathetic though. The dealers/scientists is who created the demand and got the population hooked, now the government owns it to the people to change that.

So we keep with the status quo? Let me make an analogy. You have a car that doesn't run right and breaks down frequently. You are paying a mechanic $200 a week in parts and labor, yet the car never runs right. How long do you keep paying the mechanic that $200 a week before you either get a new mechanic or a new car? Same thing. Drug prohibition is the car, but instead of $200 a week its 20 Billion a year. That's just the federal level.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

[S33]

Ok so enough of what drug is more dangerous/addictive/where to draw the line etc?

The question remains, what to do about this? What do you guys that say "draw the line after marijuana" think we should do regarding the hard junk? It is clear that the current policy isn't stopping anything, so what is the solution? Please don't tell me pour more money at it and more jail time.

Sadly, there I don't think there is a 'solution' per say. I compare it to counter terrorism, it's never going to go away. Telling the non dealers it ok because we can't control it is pathetic though. The dealers/scientists is who created the demand and got the population hooked, now the government owns it to the people to change that.

So we keep with the status quo? Let me make an analogy. You have a car that doesn't run right and breaks down frequently. You are paying a mechanic $200 a week in parts and labor, yet the car never runs right. How long do you keep paying the mechanic that $200 a week before you either get a new mechanic or a new car? Same thing. Drug prohibition is the car, but instead of $200 a week its 20 Billion a year. That's just the federal level.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Why do we have to just jump off the cliff in everything we do? i.e. healthcare...which I'm not going to get into.

I'm not saying stick with status quo, I'm saying you don't legalize drugs. That's absurd on so many levels. Just the thought of all the crack zombies roaming the streets because they no longer have to hide in obscurity in the inner city ghettos because now the government has deemed their behavior acceptable.

I appreciate your analogy, but it just doesn't fit this scenario. Change our methods, but don't just legalize the |expletive|.

[the1wags]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a wild west style free for all here. There would still be laws, just as there are public intox, drunk driving, etc.

There would need to be ways to test if someone is under the influence of drug X at the present time. There would be laws against using whatever in public and obviously while driving. I'm not advocating people being able to shoot up their H while driving down the road. :shock:

As absurd as legalizing drugs seems to you, changing nothing to the tune of 20 billion a year (federal money) sounds absurd to me. We need to think outside the box on this and many other issues. Perhaps your issue is with the term legalization? How about decriminalization? Not legal, but more like a speeding ticket. Fine-able offenses, you just aren't going to jail.

PS. What's with the crack zombies in the inner city? I'm sure someone in the suburbs can be a crackhead too. :;):

[S33]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a wild west style free for all here. There would still be laws, just as there are public intox, drunk driving, etc.

There would need to be ways to test if someone is under the influence of drug X at the present time. There would be laws against using whatever in public and obviously while driving. I'm not advocating people being able to shoot up their H while driving down the road. :shock:

As absurd as legalizing drugs seems to you, changing nothing to the tune of 20 billion a year (federal money) sounds absurd to me. We need to think outside the box on this and many other issues. Perhaps your issue is with the term legalization? How about decriminalization? Not legal, but more like a speeding ticket. Fine-able offenses, you just aren't going to jail.

Honestly, I have no |expletive| clue. I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of once close friends of mine who are killing themselves, once happy families who have been torn apart, and the amount of homicides and violent taking place while under the influence of those types of drugs. Obama won the Nobel Peice Prize, can't he fix it? lol

PS. What's with the crack zombies in the inner city? I'm sure someone in the suburbs can be a crackhead too. :;):

Did you even have to ask? You know how politically incorrect I am.

[Big E]

I'm not saying stick with status quo, I'm saying you don't legalize drugs. That's absurd on so many levels. Just the thought of all the crack zombies roaming the streets because they no longer have to hide in obscurity in the inner city ghettos because now the government has deemed their behavior acceptable.

Not quite an accurate analogy. Alcohol is legal. Drunk driving and public intoxication is not. Guns are legal. Shooting people is not. Cigarettes are legal. Smoking indoors in many places is not.

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I would be willing to wager that the VAST VAST VAST majority of crime involved around the drug trade is due to distribution - turf wars and smuggling. You take the criminal aspect away from it to where you could buy pot at the corner 7-11 and I would argue you'd damn near eliminate gangs. Obviously, you'll still have the petty crime from people robbing said 7-11, but you have that now anyway for people that need $20 for some Thunderbird.

I think the trick is to get crack and meth renamed something catchy like Ambien or Xanax, market it by showing some old people running around in a field in slow motion, and then have the pharmaceutical companies lobby the FDA to make it legal. Because as long as mind altering substances can be taxed and controlled by corporations, we're all good with it. That way, when you get Rush Limbaugh or Brett Favre hooked on it, it takes some of the stigma away for everyone else that's abusing it.

If you want to ban every substance or item that can, might, or will be abused or used improperly by some, there's a LOOOOOOONG list of things to start a federal war against. Come to think of it, most of those things already have some kind of failed war against them already. Ask MADD how well their teetotalling campaign worked to keep minors from drinking. All they managed to do was criminalize the legal behavior of people 18-20.

[Brad]

I think the trick is to get crack and meth renamed something catchy like Ambien or Xanax, market it by showing some old people running around in a field in slow motion, and then have the pharmaceutical companies lobby the FDA to make it legal. Because as long as mind altering substances can be taxed and controlled by corporations, we're all good with it. That way, when you get Rush Limbaugh or Brett Favre hooked on it, it takes some of the stigma away for everyone else that's abusing it.

[Omababe]

I think the trick is to get crack and meth renamed something catchy like Ambien or Xanax, ... and then have the pharmaceutical companies lobby the FDA to make it legal.

Meth(amphetamine) has been a prescription drug for the better part of a century. I'm sure it's still available by prescription.

That way, when you get Rush Limbaugh or Brett Favre hooked on it, it takes some of the stigma away for everyone else that's abusing it.

Yeah, Rush needs some uppers to go with his downers.

[Big E]

Meth(amphetamine) has been a prescription drug for the better part of a century. I'm sure it's still available by prescription.

Like I said: it's all about marketing. Crackwhores are just under-funded, misrepresented soccer moms.

[the1wags]

From CNN....

"If treating heroin addicts by giving them heroin seems counterintuitive, having the government fund that addiction to the tune of more than $22,000 per patient per year comes across as downright radical.

A newly released British study, however, found that daily heroin injections given to hard-to-treat addicts as part of a comprehensive program succeeded in treating those addicts and reducing crime. The use of street heroin was reduced by three quarters and the crimes committed trying to get drugs were cut by two-thirds, the study found."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/20/tr ... index.html

What? Giving drug addicts a legal means to get drugs drastically cuts crime? Couldn't be!

[S33]

From CNN....

"If treating heroin addicts by giving them heroin seems counterintuitive, having the government fund that addiction to the tune of more than $22,000 per patient per year comes across as downright radical.

A newly released British study, however, found that daily heroin injections given to hard-to-treat addicts as part of a comprehensive program succeeded in treating those addicts and reducing crime. The use of street heroin was reduced by three quarters and the crimes committed trying to get drugs were cut by two-thirds, the study found."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/20/tr ... index.html

What? Giving drug addicts a legal means to get drugs drastically cuts crime? Couldn't be!

Reduced crime... lets see. "The use of street heroin was reduced by three quarters and the crimes committed trying to get drugs"

Wow, who would have ever guessed giving a drug user drugs would reduce the residual crime resulting of that person trying to find the drugs...

Couldn't be!...

[the1wags]

You just agreed with me is all? How is reducing crime committed by people trying to get drugs (robbery, theft, etc) a bad thing again?

[S33]

You just agreed with me is all? How is reducing crime committed by people trying to get drugs (robbery, theft, etc) a bad thing again?

I don't know, it almost feels like blackmail on the part of the druggies. Like, "give me drugs or I will commit a crime". I just don't think it's right. They did something illegal, now they should be punished, not enabled. It's not our governments job to get someone stoned. Just my opinion of course...

[DTO Luv]

You're so off the point. No one is hijacking the government for a fix. It's illegal now and people are already circumventing the law to get what they want. Having people get high at home and spending billions of dollars to prevent that, not to mention the amount of death and violence around the "war", is a fantastic waste of government money.

If usage didn't go up or down for any drug if they all were legal right now nothing would change except we'd be saving and making money and crime would go down. It's that simple.

[Big E]

You just agreed with me is all? How is reducing crime committed by people trying to get drugs (robbery, theft, etc) a bad thing again?

I don't know, it almost feels like blackmail on the part of the druggies. Like, "give me drugs or I will commit a crime". I just don't think it's right. They did something illegal, now they should be punished, not enabled. It's not our governments job to get someone stoned. Just my opinion of course...

Druggies share needles. Needles get AIDS. AIDS spreads. Give clean needles to druggies. AIDS doesn't spread nearly anywhere as fast. Pretty simple band-aid.

But NOOOOOOOO... people lose their |expletive| minds because the government is helping druggies do drugs.

Hard core anti-drug stance? Sounds like pro-AIDS to me.

[Big E]

Methinks plenty of people support the 'controlled substance' restrictions because they make pretty good money writing or dispensing prescriptions, not to mention the people whose jobs depend on certain behaviors being labeled criminal so they can pursue, prosecute, and jail people who while not harming others any more than the alcoholic have gained governments disapproval.

There's a great line in American Gangster where Russell Crowe's character (name escapes me at the moment) talks about all the people employed in the anti-drug business. He says they have to keep the stuff coming into the country or millions of people would be out of jobs.

[S33]

You just agreed with me is all? How is reducing crime committed by people trying to get drugs (robbery, theft, etc) a bad thing again?

I don't know, it almost feels like blackmail on the part of the druggies. Like, "give me drugs or I will commit a crime". I just don't think it's right. They did something illegal, now they should be punished, not enabled. It's not our governments job to get someone stoned. Just my opinion of course...

Druggies share needles. Needles get AIDS. AIDS spreads. Give clean needles to druggies. AIDS doesn't spread nearly anywhere as fast. Pretty simple band-aid.

But NOOOOOOOO... people lose their |expletive| minds because the government is helping druggies do drugs.

Hard core anti-drug stance? Sounds like pro-AIDS to me.

When the |expletive| were we talking about aids and needles? I'm speaking of drugs and crime. I don't give a |expletive| it crack heads have access to needles. Their access to crack needs to be cut off. No drugs, no need for needles.

Have we all forgotten it was the introduction of crack cocaine that really destroyed the inner city? They hooked the locals and there communities nosedived. That's when the gangs came in. It was the introduction of drugs that destroyed cities. By allowing and legalizing the |expletive|, the only thing you are doing is perpetually contributing to the dismantling of the inner cities... and all those so-called soccer moms. (which I call bullshit on. Big difference between a soccer mom taking the kids to school and being a productive parent, maybe even holding a job where as some crack w-hore is on the corner sucking dick for a rock.)

If people weren't such pussies and overly sensitive, we could shut down the |expletive| border where that |expletive| originates. But no, that would be politically incorrect and/or racist to do so.

[Big E]

When the |expletive| were we talking about aids and needles? I'm speaking of drugs and crime.

It's called an analogy. In response to your statement:

I don't know, it almost feels like blackmail on the part of the druggies. Like, "give me drugs or I will commit a crime". I just don't think it's right. They did something illegal, now they should be punished, not enabled. It's not our governments job to get someone stoned. Just my opinion of course...

If all we're worried about doing is punishing illegal behavior, make the drugs legal and punish the behavior that is actually the problem: the muggings, shootings, prostitution (why that is still illegal is beyond me, but another thread entirely), etc.

The VAST VAST VAST majority of problems around illegal drug use that are the REAL problem only exist because the drugs are illegal. The reason the REAL problems around alcohol and prescription drugs are so minor is because the product is readily available and there's not a completely unnecessary and fabricated black market.

And yes, I agree with you about the border, if all we're talking about is border security. I'm always on the defensive when someone brings that up because I've found "secure the border" is often a euphemism for "get rid of the |expletive| Mexicans".

[DTO Luv]

Their access to crack needs to be cut off. No drugs, no need for needles.

Guess what? Access to crack is already cut off and it's not stopping any of the problems from happening. So in function it's already legal because it's accessible and we're ok with the status quo.

As far as the inner cities it wasn't just the introduction of drugs. Couldn't it maybe be that the whole prohibition of drugs (all kinds) and the turf wars over who could sell the illegal drugs in what area was more to blame than the actual use of the drug itself? What's more detrimental. Someone piping/shooting up in their own home or Toofus and Thug Nasty driving by each others places blasting shots from the car?

Drugs aren't bad. Making our inner cities the wild west with fundamentally flawed policy is bad.

[S33]

When the |expletive| were we talking about aids and needles? I'm speaking of drugs and crime.

It's called an analogy. In response to your statement:

I don't know, it almost feels like blackmail on the part of the druggies. Like, "give me drugs or I will commit a crime". I just don't think it's right. They did something illegal, now they should be punished, not enabled. It's not our governments job to get someone stoned. Just my opinion of course...

If all we're worried about doing is punishing illegal behavior, make the drugs legal and punish the behavior that is actually the problem: the muggings, shootings, prostitution (why that is still illegal is beyond me, but another thread entirely), etc.

The VAST VAST VAST majority of problems around illegal drug use that are the REAL problem only exist because the drugs are illegal. The reason the REAL problems around alcohol and prescription drugs are so minor is because the product is readily available and there's not a completely unnecessary and fabricated black market.

And yes, I agree with you about the border, if all we're talking about is border security. I'm always on the defensive when someone brings that up because I've found "secure the border" is often a euphemism for "get rid of the |expletive| Mexicans".

Well I'm exhausted with the drug talk. I have my opinions and you guys have yours.

As for the border, I mean 'close down the border'. Not deport 20 million Americans. A good friend of mine and his family came here illegally. They worked their |expletive| off, started a farm while having other jobs. Now they are pretty wealthy because of how hard they worked.

Illegal felony offenders should be tossed on a train straight to the border though. I've got no sympathy for them. We don't need to import anymore crime than we already have and it's not our responsibility to babysit Mexico's trash.

[Big E]

Toofus and Thug Nasty will be signing autographs at the boat show next weekend, btw. They're promoting their new afternoon drive time slot.

[S33]

Their access to crack needs to be cut off. No drugs, no need for needles.

Guess what? Access to crack is already cut off and it's not stopping any of the problems from happening. So in function it's already legal because it's accessible and we're ok with the status quo.

As far as the inner cities it wasn't just the introduction of drugs. Couldn't it maybe be that the whole prohibition of drugs (all kinds) and the turf wars over who could sell the illegal drugs in what area was more to blame than the actual use of the drug itself? What's more detrimental. Someone piping/shooting up in their own home or Toofus and Thug Nasty driving by each others places blasting shots from the car?

Drugs aren't bad. Making our inner cities the wild west with fundamentally flawed policy is bad.

If I hear the word "status quo" on this forum again I'm going to jump off the Missouri River pedestrian bridge :) .

The flow of cocaine has NOT been cut off. It's still coming from Latin/South America as much as ever.

[Big E]

Their access to crack needs to be cut off. No drugs, no need for needles.

That's the thing. Do you really think the people that smoke crack and shoot |expletive| into their veins are going to wake up one morning and go "What's that? No crank? Oh well. Guess it's back to my job as an actuary."

They WILL find something else to smoke, shoot, drink, snort, huff, or whatever to throw their lives away. People have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. People drink |expletive| gasoline because it has alcohol in it. You're simply never going to stop stupid. You can mitigate the disaster that happens around stupid, though.

[S33]

Their access to crack needs to be cut off. No drugs, no need for needles.

That's the thing. Do you really think the people that smoke crack and shoot |expletive| into their veins are going to wake up one morning and go "What's that? No crank? Oh well. Guess it's back to my job as an actuary."

They WILL find something else to smoke, shoot, drink, snort, huff, or whatever to throw their lives away. People have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. People drink |expletive| gasoline because it has alcohol in it. You're simply never going to stop stupid. You can mitigate the disaster that happens around stupid, though.

No, I get the reality of the way drug use works. There still is a difference between right and wrong. Nothing, absolutely nothing good, comes from drug use.

I could use your same logic with any sort of crime. Hey, why not legalize violent crime that way nobody ever really has to break the law. You know, because they will just find other crimes to commit.

Same logic can be used with crooked Wall St. traders and executives. They will always find loopholes and slip through criminal and civil courts. Lets just do away with the FTC that way we don't have to use resources to track and incarcerate those who break the law?

Making crime legal solves NOTHING...

[the1wags]

Wow you are really reaching now. Follow with me now. Drug addiction brings secondary crime, namely theft, robbery, etc. Stabbing someone or rape doesn't require you to go rob a liquor store to pay for it. You don't legalize drugs to get rid of them breaking the first law. You get rid of all of the secondary crime. This isn't rocket science.

[Big E]

BTW Josh... your avatar looks like a garden. (va-jay-jay)

[DTO Luv]

If I hear the word "status quo" on this forum again I'm going to jump off the Missouri River pedestrian bridge :) .

status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo JUMP status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo status quo



Absolutely nothing comes from drugs?

Booya!

[youtube][/youtube]

[the1wags]

Big E. You are hanging out with some strange ladies then my friend. So far, you are the only person who has said that. I can change it if you find vaginas shooting light beams offensive.

[S33]

Wow you are really reaching now. Follow with me now. Drug addiction brings secondary crime, namely theft, robbery, etc. Stabbing someone or rape doesn't require you to go rob a liquor store to pay for it. You don't legalize drugs to get rid of them breaking the first law. You get rid of all of the secondary crime. This isn't rocket science.

No reaching is you drawing that distinction. Crime is crime. Just because drugs cause various crimes doesn't mean the use of it itself shouldn't be criminalized.

Do you all snort |expletive| or something? lol, I meant *coke* not co ck

[Big E]

Vaginas... with freaking laser beams!

[DTO Luv]

Do you all snort |expletive| or something? lol, I meant *coke* not co ck

I have used c0ck but I did not inhale.

Why do you object to the more harsh substances? Why does the government have any business what you put in your body? What is so inherantly illegal about it? I would really like to know what you find so immoral about that itself. If your argument is that it leads to certain behaviors than why can't the same thing be said about alcohol?

[the1wags]

I tried Coke once but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose.

No really, I just recognize that the prohibition policy hasn't worked, doesn't work, and never will work.

[S33]

Do you all snort |expletive| or something? lol, I meant *coke* not co ck

I have used c0ck but I did not inhale.

Why do you object to the more harsh substances? Why does the government have any business what you put in your body? What is so inherantly illegal about it? I would really like to know what you find so immoral about that itself. If your argument is that it leads to certain behaviors than why can't the same thing be said about alcohol?

Alcohol is prohibited for many people who have abused it and broke the law. (probation)

The distinction I've tried to clarify between weed and alcohol to crack type substances is that there is no such thing as a responsible crack/heroin etc. user.

Once again these are just my opinions and the chance of you getting me to change my stance is about the same as me getting you to change yours...