Opinion Talk

By candide

March 28, 2006 07:20 AM | Link to this

Yes, people should be allowed to abuse their bodies and minds if they wish.

By Brian Curtis

March 28, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Heck no! After all, we’re winning the war on drugs, right? And there’s plenty of rooom in our prisons for nonviolent offenders! We should lock up twice as many people as we do now, for twice as long.

Yessir, there’s only one direction to go in law enforcement—angrier. Everybody in prison needs to be punished a whole lot more, regardless of offense! And longer sentences, too! Maybe hard labor and no reading or exercise privileges—enforced homosexual gang rape! That’s the key to corrections.

And what’s with all this “appeals” process, while we’re at it? If you’re found guilty once, that should be the end of it. Quit costing the taxpayers money, dam-mit!

By Van

March 28, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Recreational drug use! Is that like slightly pregnant.

IF the law isn’t doing what it should, then start a campaign to change it instead of whining about it.

After we legalize the “recreational user”, then lets start thinking about the cornor drug dealer. After that we can decriminalized the supplier that provides the merchandize the drug dealer sells to the recreational drug user and the hardcore addict.

Heck, and lets tell the state and the feds, that the taxes they are not collecting are unimportant.

Lets see, on that $20 dollar bag of crack, thats $1.20 in sales tax. Multiply that by all the “recreational drug users” in Georgia and we are talking about real money now. We all know that drug dealer on the cornor isn’t reporting his profits to the IRS either.

But your right, probation and community service was too harsh a punishment, now petition the State to restore your rights and realize there is no such thing as a “recreational drug user”. Either it is or it isn’t, no shades of gray.

By Hot_Mama

March 28, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Pot should be legal, its rediculous that it isn’t. (I am NOT a pot smoker!)

By Ben

March 28, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

We don’t throw alcoholics in jail unless they commit an actual crime. The fact that just smoking a little pot is a crime is the height of hypocrisy. If you want pot to be illegal, then bring back alcohol prohibition. The current situation is immoral, unbalanced, and sufering from mass hysteria and ignorance.

By Thomas

March 28, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Yes.

By Nikole

March 28, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Why is it that we don’t focus on suppliers? Only petty users and corner dealers? Shouldn’t our efforts be at getting to the source?

By kimberly

March 28, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Van, that’s RIGHT! You TELL ‘em! While we’re at it, let’s make YOUR Prilosec, Lipitor, Ibuprofen, Cialis, Xanax, blood-pressure medication, cholesterol medication, anti-biotics, NSAIDs, acid-reflux reducers, blood-thinners, thyroid pills, and prostate-shrinkers illegal TOO!

As a citizen of the land of the free and the home of the brave, founded on the principles of individual liberty, and a small, essentials-only government, you have NO RIGHT to decide what to put in your body to get you through the day or night. NONE! Live and die with the body God gave you, and do it cheerfully under intense government regulation and taxation! Now THAT’s the 21st Century America we all love, right?

By Van

March 28, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

You are equating drugs taken on orders from a Doctor to something picked up on the street?

Do you really think the people that make the crack are good upstanding people in their community.

With the rant from the far left of its my body and I can do with it as I want is devoid of reason and logic.

I pity you kimberly, you are too immature to understand how society works or too ignorant.

The drugs you listed are made to high standards and tested, some are well tested and some are rushed through for profit.

Crack cocaine is made in where some low life lives, eats and excretes.

Take what you want to take, but you must live with the results, a wasted life, jail time and little hope of recovery. At least the person in the article was tryin to get help.

By kimberly

March 28, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Van, it’s called sarcasm. I’m sorry it was lost on you. What has the “war on drugs” accomplished? Nothing. I agree that there are some substances that we SHOULD try to keep away from the public. I disagree with the pointless criminalization and incarceration of users & addicts in places where they might dry out, but they get NO resources for dealing with their addiction or what led them to it. It’s a waste of tax dollars at BEST, and a grave injustice to the American people. RICH people who are stressed & depressed can get Buspar, Xanax, Valium, Wellbutrin, Ambien, and anything else they want to ease their troubles. Ask Rush Limbaugh; he can tell you exactly what it costs to take the edge off.

I completely disagree that the government should dictate what indiginous plants you can put next to your tomatoes & peppers in your own garden, for your own use. That violates the principles of freedom, self-determination, and individualism that once made this country a great place. You can grow enough tobacco to kill thousands. You cannot grow two pot plants to see yourself through an arthritic winter. Go figure.

By Suzanne

March 28, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

I could retire in luxury today if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that line from someone sitting in my office for substance abuse counseling. The writer informs us his use is a “personal addiction,” an oxymoron that he desribes in detailing the account of his arrest. I would probably be the next person in the chain of his “personal addiction”: the addiction counselor, a non-lucrative job. From my perspective, this is a textbook example of the characteristic denial that is the cardinal and defining feature of any addictive disorder. He knew the repercussions of use but continued to seek out the drug. The fact that he is 65 years old and smoking crack is a near-death sentence in and of itself. I’m talking brain anyuerisms, hypertension, stroke, not to mention the mental anguish and depression that accompanies such a foray into the high produced by smoking such a powerful stimulant. There is reason possession of crack is a felony; I see lives and families destoyed daily by those who thought their use was personal and recreational. It’s just a matter of time. In the writer’s defense, he made a strong point for instituting more drug courts that have been shown to effectively reduce recidivism in drug offenders and unclog the court system.

By John Corry

March 28, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

I don’t use drugs (except coffee) and find it extremely offensive that we have stood idly by while the government assumed it’s right to force prohibition of certain substances on the people.

Whatever happened to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’?

Don’t want to use drugs? OK…don’t. Don’t want your kids to use drugs? Fine, teach them not to. Don’t want drug-users working for you? Don’t hire them. Don’t want taxes to pay for drug abusers health care? Lobby for state sponsored health care reform.

I’m sick of draconian, nanny-state, malum prohibitum laws eroding our rights to just BE PEOPLE, while at the same time giving the police (who are more like a military force these days) more and more reasons to kick down our doors in the middle of the night.

By Will

March 28, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

In Mr. Jackson’s article he states “we’re not talking here about kilos carried by Uzi-carrying thugs”. Why are there Uzi-carrying thugs that are cocaine dealers? Because of people like you, Mr. Jackson.

By Van

March 28, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Sorry, it is a hair trigger subject for me. over the last 40 years, 1 have seen too many people screw up their lives with recreational drugs.

By Sue

March 28, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Recreational drug use is like playing with matches; you are eventually going to get burnt. Decriminalize it? Sure, collect those taxes on it, that’s way the addict thinks. If there were no repercussions of use, we could all just smoke and drink and live forever.

By Patty

March 28, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Charles Jackson answered his own question, “Should I be treated like a felon”, when he wrote, “I obtained a lawyer, pleaded guilty and received first offender probation — two years — with community service and drug counseling. I haven’t used drugs since my arrest last year.” The key phrase is “I haven’t used drugs since my arrest last year.” If we are to believe Mr. Jackson, and I’m not necessarily inclined to do so, his arrest and conviction served as a deterrant, one of the many reasons for laws.
So maybe he should keep his smug assertions to himself.

By kimberly

March 28, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Van, me too. We all have. Suzuanne knows a lot about it too. I think the questions to address should include what is the BEST and most appropriate use of government resources (tax dollars) when addressing this issue? The build-more-prisons approach creates an additional set of problems that affect society, including ridiculous legal and prison costs, clogged courts, and (Lord please help) the children who are shuffled around in the foster care system, only to turn to drugs and crime themselves. A hardline, crime & punishment approach is appropriate for certain crimes. Its use on the issue of substance use and abuse (not the same) has been an expensive failure at best.

By Jonathan

March 28, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

People that use drugs are not criminals, they might be sick, but they’re not criminals. Jail doesn’t rehabilitate anyone, and I am tired of paying taxes to support this endless, win-less “war on drugs”. It’s really a war on personal choice and personal freedom. Last time I checked, marijuana hasn’t killed anyone. It’s non-toxic, non-lethal, and it grows on God’s green earth. Did God make a mistake? The reason there is violence surrounding drugs is because it’s on the black-market. Wake up people, the government is using you to pay for the imprisonment of your friends and family members. I’m pro-freedom. if you don’t like drugs, don’t use them, but don’t tell me that I can’t make that choice for myself.

By Van

March 28, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Jonathan, you sound like someone from the tobacco industry.

Pot is as lethal as cigarettes when smoked.

kimberly, we could adopt some of the punishments that Thailand uses or some other country that has a large drug problem.

Patty, yes Charles does seem to be trying to get his life back. It takes more intestial fortitute to quit, than sitting back and complaining.

The military has a different approach, bad conduct discharge and your kicked out. At least back in the 60’s it was.

Folks, wake up, a driver under the influence (fill in your drug of choice) can kill. Whether it is a little pot to calm the nerves or a belt to calm the nerves. Being late on Monday morning for work whether it is a hang over or you haven’t come down yet, has the same result.

In this society we punish those that abuse a substance (your choice). Some stuff is legal to purchase and some isn’t. Your choice, it is your life, your work and your family. What is it worth to you.

By Patricia

March 28, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Is this a real question? Of course not!!! Isn’t it bad enough that people can go to restaurants and bars and drink and drive? Then, if you have enough money to hire a “good” attorney, you can get off with a slap on the wrist for endangering yourself and others. If recreational drugs were legalized then people would do the same with them. I wish people could be responsible and use good judgement but that is NOT a reality.

By kimberly

March 28, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

we could adopt some of the punishments that Thailand uses or some other country that has a large drug problem

Should we adopt the Constitution, culture, laws, religions, and societal foundations of Thailand as well? Would that force us all to be the people YOU think we should be? What a disgusting thought, but no surprise that you’d offer it.

By Beverly Wittler

March 28, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Here’s my solution for all offenses; if they’ve hurt or killed someone, go to jail, do not ever get out. (But no air conditioning, keep the thermostat on 66 like we have to, do all cleaning & maintainence, raise your own food.) If a man sexually abuses or rapes, castrate him, let him wear an anklet that reports his whereabouts and pay back all court costs, plus medical costs. The drug users don’t need to be fed and bedded by the tax payers; again, anklets, probation, pay all costs associated with the arrest, pay the attorney fees, live in old crack houses seized by the government and get locked in every night. I’m amazed too that a 65 year old man takes street drugs! As my grandparents would say “what’s this world coming to!”

By Van

March 28, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

kimberly, the point of this was that we have very light punishments for substance abuse, it could be worse. In Thailand they hang you.

By West

March 28, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Charles Jackson may not be a “uzi-carrying thug,” but his “personal addiction” is the reason the rest of us have to live with the thugs.

I agree that there shouldn’t be the disparity in punishment for drug arrest vs. DUI, but I think that the downward trend in both is a direct result of better education and tougher penalties, so I would vote for making the penalties for both tougher rather than less severe.

By Dan

March 28, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Like most subjects people use extremes as their examples to justify their position. First off nobody gets thrown in jail for having a joint or a couple of pot plants in the yard there aren’t enough police or prosecuters to handle it. Conversely I do think a ban against pot is kind of silly, but its natural and you can grown it in your yard argument is just as silly. Same can be said for cocaine and heroin both from plants you could grown in your yard. So where do you draw the line. If we make it all legal we would save millions now spent on the war on drugs, but we may spend twice as much on social programs and health care taking care of the new host of addicts. Or we could let darwin settle the whole thing

By Van

March 28, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

Now that I think of it, Didn’t several of the Supreme Court Justices refer to foreign law for their decisions? Sandra Day O’Connor did and I think Souter did. So in keeping with the Supreme Court, let look to Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia on how to control drug use. (This was tongue in cheek.)

By kimberly

March 28, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Van, some people spend all day sucking on the pipe of self-righteous indignation. They prefer this drug of choice to other activities, like, finding RATIONAL solutions to REAL problems, for example. Should we make THAT pipe illegal too?

By Van

March 28, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

I go back to what I said earlier -

In this society we punish those that abuse a substance (your choice). Some stuff is legal to purchase and some isn’t. Your choice, it is your life, your work and your family. What is it worth to you.

By Suzanne

March 28, 2006 08:23 PM | Link to this

Dan, you do get thrown in jail if you are on parole or probation if you get caught with a couple of pot plants! I do agree with you on the legalization stuff. I might get rich and retire yet!

By Jennifer

March 28, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this

So much money could be saved and made if drugs were legal.

We would no longer pay to fight the losing battle and we could tax the crap out of people that want to use them.
For that matter, harder drugs could be tracked. It would eliminate a large part of the criminal element - the shootings over drug deals gone bad - the car accidents from dealers/users fleeing because they have drugs in the car, etc…

I do think that drugs should only be legal in a private home and never around children.

By Niklas Moran

March 28, 2006 11:37 PM | Link to this

First off I’m glad that Mr. Jackson wrote this piece as the media often fails to report sobering facts and rather carry stories that appeal to the emotions. The story about the 8 year-old heroin user in DC as reported by the Washington Post comes to mind. Guess what? It was fabricated! Now back to the subject at hand. Crack cocaine is the same thing as cocaine with baking powder. Crack is considered a “black” drug and cocaine a “white” mans drug. The users of the former are usually poor and the users of the latter often wealthy. Yet when you get caught with one gram of crack you are looking at sentencing that is much harsher than if caught with same amount of cocaine. Crack is sold on the streets and virtually anyone can make it. This tempts people in poverty to start selling crack because it can be lucrative albeit dangerous. Crack dealers are usually young black men who are trying to fulfill the American dream. As a result of prohibition and low entry cost into the crack business one has turf wars and violence that is the result of prohibition. No law means violence. Furthermore, when a policeman arrests a low-level dealer the options are for that dealer to rat people out or do a mandatory minimum without parole. Usually the low-level dealer does not have what the government is looking for and gets thrown in jail, whereas the high-up drug dealer can get out by providing names. So users and low-level dealers do time and rapists get parole. Mr. Jackson is an example of a “recreational crack user”. There is use and there is abuse and we need to differentiate between the two! Read “Crack in America” by Craig Reinarman.

By Bruce Brown

March 29, 2006 06:38 AM | Link to this

Drug users are the reason illegal growers, manufacturers and pushers are in business, without the users you have no demand. Also though I believe they’re not hardtime criminals. The first offense should carry alot of community service work, a few thousand hours. No one likes to give up their free time. If they cannot prove that they have a job they’ll also have to complete community service while they’re unemployed and show at least two job applications a day until they are employed.That ought to be a good start, keep them busy and away from drugs.

By Thomas

March 29, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

If an adult wants to smoke marijuana in the privacy of his own home he should be able.

By Van

March 29, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Thomas, I don’t think there is much arguement on what you are saying, it is the production, distrbution and purchasing that is causing problems.

That and the side effects of drug use, ask Whitney Houston.

By pat

March 29, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Yes, the drugs should be legal and controlled like alcohol. The “war” on drugs has beyond failed miserably, it’s a joke. Legalize and control. I find it ironic that pharmaceutical companies can advertise their wares in public and on television for drugs like Viagra, yet we have a problem with marijuana? It just sounds plain stupid to me. Here are some drugs designed to make you feel good and they are legal, yet here are some others for the purpose of feeling good, and they are bad? Who made that decision? Did you know the word marijuana was a term coined by the government at the turn of the century? It is not a Spanish word, it’s American. Also, the purpose of making it illegal was designed to give southwestern states the ability to deport illegal immigrants, that what the marijuana tax stamp was designed for. Don’t have the stamp? You are here illegally? You broke our laws, get out of our country. The whole thing is a sham…You want a sober country? The soberest countries in the world are also the most violent, see the Middle East. Everything is illegal so they kill each other and us if they are able for entertainment. I’d rather they be strung out on heroin myself.

By I'm Right

March 29, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Yes, there should be more leniency. What I do in my own home is my own business. I don’t drive or put anyone else in danger when i’m smoking it, so why should it be any concern to anyone else? It’s only considered “wrong” because that’s someone’s opinion. How is me smoking a joint at home, after work, any different than someone else having a glass of wine at the end of the day? It’s not. And using law enforcement resources and money for busting people like me is ridiculous.

By Bill Glass

March 29, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Why should the government’s War On Drugs make any sense? What else is our government doing that makes sense?

The easiest way to understand the War On Drugs is to know that it is coming to you from the same folks that brought you the Vietnam War, Waco, the Irag War, FEMA and so on.

My suggestion is that we all just take a break from all this, go to lunch, have a beer or two (alcohol is not a drug is it) and take the afternoon off to do some hunting.

By Van

March 29, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

pat, hate to tell you, but you are wrong on so many counts.

Websters defines marijuana as a Mexican/Spanish word.

Main Entry: mar·i·jua·na Variant(s): also mar·i·hua·na /”mar-&-‘wä-n& also -‘hwä-/ Function: noun Etymology: Mexican Spanish mariguana, marihuana 1 : HEMP 1a, c 2 : the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plant that yield THC and are smoked in cigarettes for their intoxicating effect — compare BHANG, CANNABIS, HASHISH

Second, the drug companies create drugs in response to research. If a medicine can help the heart muscle, the drug companies make the drug - a cause and effect.

Marijuana MAY have medical use. I do not know, not my field. Heroin as a base for other opiates has a use, cocaine as a base chemical has a use. These are controled substances and are available in refined forms from a doctor.

The junk on the street - who know what is in it.

Third, the tax on marijuana was to regulate. People buying marijuana and not paying the taxes can be arrested, not deported.

It is obvious that you are a typical pot smoker, a slacker, lazy and too stoned to be logical and rational. Repeat after me, “Do you want fries with that?”

By pat

March 29, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Van, you are wrong. Do your research and study history for a change. The word is of course spanish origin, Cannibas, however, was not called that until the U.S. government did so. See Harry Anslinger…. The tax did not regulate either. It was illegal to grow it or posses it with out the stamp, yet you could not get the stamp with out possesing it. Hence, not one single stamp was ever obtained. It was there for over turned by the supreme court in 1968 or 1969. So it was actually federally legal (still illegal at the state level however) for a year until Nixon got his grubby little corrupted paws on it. Second, since when has being able to sustain an errction for 4 hour been a medical necessity? Or lowering your colesterol 2 points when eating right would fix the problem. Got a sniffle buy this drug. Got toe jam? Don’t bathe, buy our drug. Got pregnant? Need a drug to kill your baby? We got it right here for ya! Yea, guys in lab coats really care about our best interest. Heroin the base for opiates? Since when? Heroin IS an opiate along with morphine, codiene etc. Opium is base all natural opiates, not herion, it’s a derivative. Most opiates are synthetically derived these days anyway. Heroin is the only real purpose for opium poppy anymore.

So as you sit there with your beef-apron hanging over your belt at your desk with not much else to do, look up some history, silly.

By J&J Ranch

March 29, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

When I was young (a long time ago), I read about drug laws.
Alaska allowed persons to grow up to four plants in their household, legally. I don’t know the current laws on Alaska. No one ever read about pot dealers in Alaska, the pot grown was for use in that home, not to sale.

In the early 70’s in GA, under an ounce of pot was a misdemeanor, pot had been de-criminalized at that time. Seems like all of the sudden, people I had known were being locked up for such small amounts of pot that it was ridiculous.

Like I said that was many, many years ago. I don’t really know at this time if people are locked up for having a “roach”, growing a couple of plants, etc.

My stepfather had glaucoma. It was extreme, I always wondered if he had smoked pot, which medically is supposed to help glaucoma, would he have had to have the “detached retina operations? He did not smoke pot to see, it was illegal and he would not break the law. We will never know, he took his life in 1990.

My mom died of cancer in 2002. I have read many places and even Neal Boortz agrees that pot use may help while on Chemo. I suggested this to Mama when she told me she could no longer go through the Chemo, it was too much for her to live with. Would pot have helped? We will never know, pot is illegal, Mama would not even try it. Her attitude: “Can’t you see someone of my age and health getting locked up for pot?”

There is a place in the medical world for pot. Too many cancer patients and glaucoma patients have survived their illnesses and treatments due to pot.

Recreational drug use is different. But pot has shown to be useful for more than just recreation.

By Niklas Moran

March 29, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Humans have been altering their consciousness with the help of drugs for thousands of years. Animals do it as well. While some substances may be harmful, we should minimize the harm that these substances do, not maximize it. If you are going to drink alcohol, don’t drive. If you are going to shoot up, use a clean needle. The “War on Drugs” goes against basic economic principles and is racist in execution. It may not have been designed to be racist, but in practice it is. Drugs will always be around and so will users, denying that is irrational and delusional. We should look at why people do drugs and the social conditions that increase drug use. There is a reason why crack is used in the inner-city by minorities and cocaine in the suburbs by whites. Same drug, two different reasons to do it and two different routes of administration. Again, an interesting book on crack cocaine and American social policy is a book title “Crack in America” by Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine. It includes studies from other countries and how their drug policies are much more effective. Just my 2cents.

By Van

March 29, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Pat,

Cannibas is derived from the biological name for the plant.

During WWII, hemp was grown for the fibers used in makeing rope, I think you must be smoking the rope instead.

Some things are legal and something are not. The people decided, at this point - you lost, it is illegal.

By pat

March 29, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Abortion is legal and drugs are not. I’d say we all lost.

By some guy

March 29, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

van wrote: “It is obvious that you are a typical pot smoker, a slacker, lazy and too stoned to be logical and rational. Repeat after me, “Do you want fries with that?””

Some of my good friends smoke pot recreationally and make a quarter mil a year. Try again with your straw man attack.

By Amy

March 29, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Years ago, I fell in love with a 32 year old man. I found out very quickly that he was a crack addict when he had taken my car and traded it to one of his dealers for crack.

So, he was arrested, went to trial and was convicted of the felony - Theft by conversion. He went to jail for 8 months.

During the trial, I found out from his family that he had once been a great person with a fantastic future. He did exceptionally well on his SAT’s, was offered a full scholarship to UGA, was a star baseball player, great work ethic, etc. His downhill slide began when one of his brothers, a recreational user of crack himself, introduced it to him.

That brother continues to this day to be a well functioning member of society. Married, has children, good job, goes to church, nice home, etc. However, the man I once loved has been in jail twice for Theft by conversion and once for violation of parole.

The point I am making here is, while it’s nice to smoke a joint once in a while, the real truth is no one knows how the drug will effect the user. No one knows if that hit off the crack pipe is the one that will set the user into the downward spiral of addiction.

There are different classifications of drugs. Perhaps we should consider legalizing the use of marijuana according to it’s class. However, I will never agree that crack or cocaine should be legal under any circumstances, recreational or otherwise.

Thanks for reading.

By Amy

March 29, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Pat, what does your statement “Abortion is legal and drugs are not. I’d say we all lost.” have to do with recreational drug use?

I personally am not interested in your opinion on abortion when I’m reading about recreational drug use.

By pat

March 29, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

To Amy, I retract that statement. You are right, I had no intention of trying to hijack the thread. If I could delete it I would. It didn’t make much sense to me after I submitted it; must be to stoned!

By Ben

March 29, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

We don’t really know the long-term effects of ritalin, yet we forcefeed it to our kids like it’s candy. On the other hand, people have been smoking pot for thousands of years, and there’s not one recorded incidence of it directly causing death. We know the long-term effects of pot, and it affects behavior far less than ritalin. “Magic” mushrooms are also a fairly benign drug. Heroin, crack, PCP, those are a different story, but pot at least should not be put in the same category. Heck, even cocaine is categorized as having some medical use, yet they won’t do the same for pot, despite thousands of doctors and patients swearing it helps.

And as far as recreational use of pot… There’s a big difference between smoking for fun or medical reasons, and abusing it. Most pot smokers don’t abuse it, and stop using it after college. It’s victimless. Again, crack and heroin are not victimless, as the people around the user are affected, but pot? It only breaks up families when another family member gets sucked in by government sponsered hysteria. Stop the lies, and it just won’t be that big a deal. And will bring in tons of tax money.

By Si

March 29, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Drugs… interesting issue.

ALL DRUGS ARE BAD in the sense that they affect your body in sometimes unpredictable ways, can lead to dependency, and definitely lead to side effects and long-term complications. As such a responsible society, it could be argued, should control their use.

Lately, though, I’ve seen the crazy side effects of Ambien make more headlines than any ‘illegal drug’ busts or problems lately.. and the history of prescription drugs throughout has been riddled with disasters, tragedies, addictions and unforeseen side effects. Like all those Ambien users who’ve found themselves driving on the wrong side of the freeway.

Thalidomide in the 70’s, the early antipsychotics that resulted in tardive dyskinesia, the gamut of antidepressants and the potential for sudden suicides/homicides, many heart and cholesterol and high blood pressure, etc etc etc - all these quick-fix drugs we’ve all seen at some pt in recent history touted as the Real Deal have ended up being more harmful than the original problem.

Which is why I have to laugh at those anti-marihuana commercials playing side-by-side the antideppresant/pain reliever/sleeping aide du jour because, as it turns out, the War on Drugs is just another example of the marketplace’s imperative over any real public interest or even moral concern.

To me there’s no big difference between the person who waits on a dark alley to get their fix of a familiar substance and buzz, and the person who runs to their GP the minute they see a new medication ad that will, this time for sure, solve all their problems.

Both exhibit lack of judgment, both try to solve problems through controlled substances, both end up more often than not with destroyed livers, nonexistent libidos and depressed immune systems.

The big difference is, of course, that the former is pretty much making an informed if reckless choice in that he knows full well what he/she is getting into and understands the consequences of her choice (IE addiction, social ostracism, jail, etc), whereas the latter is naive, suspending his/her better judgment in his quest for a panacea, under the sad illusion that he’s IMPROVING his health by blindly agreeing to whatever the media (and the doctors) tell him, opting to indulge in a sedentary, unhealthy lifestyle that is pretty much the source of most of those problems the drugs try to cure.

I say the day they take those drug ads off primetime will be the day that I personally will go round up all the baseheads and throw them in the cell myself.

By J&J Ranch

March 30, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Si has a very good point.

This for my man James….

My man, who grew up in the 60’s, is on several different prescription medications. He’ll laugh and tell you, “Don’t get run over by a car”. He tries to keep humor in his present situation, he is 100% legally disabled.

The prescription drugs for arthritis, my man has osteoarthritis, are legal yet many of theses drugs cause heart attacks. The “fine print” mentions “could be fatal”. You take one drug to help with lets say arthritis. The arthritis medication causes “rage” (Celebrex side effect). They give you another drug for rage. That drug may cause something else for which you are given yet another drug.

Now not only does my beloved have knee, hip, back, elbow and wrist problems (from getting run over 1990 – the police did not ticket the man so the lawsuit was BS – don’t get hit in DeKalb County!)
He was diagnose in 1992 with severe Polar Disorder (manic depression from not being able to work) To the list over the last ten years: Fibromylgia, glaucoma, osteoarthritis, heart murmur, Dyspnea (aortic heart valve leak), Hyperlipidemia ( enzymes cannot properly process proteins therefore causes cholesterol problems), electrolyte problems and a few others have popped up as late.

He takes nothing for the Bi-Polar, thank goodness, he would have most likely killed himself by now. When he talks about what is wrong with him the first thing he says: “Don’t get hit by a car.” When he talks about medications and side effects, possibly fatal, he laughs and says:
“Well when I was growing up they always told us that drugs were bad for us.” “Side effects are they proof, drugs ARE bad for you.”

A good sense of humor. I guess we’ll get the ole wheelchair out.

By Frankie

March 30, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

YES, there should be leniency for recreational drug users. Put them in jail and allow them and the alcoholics to get as high as they want behind bars. This will solve a majority of the accidents that occur on Georgia streets.

By Thomas

March 30, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Frankie, don’t be stupid. I know it’s hard.

The question is referencing the use of recreational drugs, not driving while intoxicated.

By L. Nathaniel Rock

March 30, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

3/30/2006

Duke, rape and racism

Ok folks the facts are not all in, but there are some things we do know.

A Black exotic dancer alleged several White members of the lacrosse squad gang-raped her while calling her racial slurs. The alleged victim, a student at nearby historically Black North Carolina Central University, told police that she had been hired to perform at a private party on March 13. She said that showed up at a wood-frame house on a quiet tree-lined street when she was pulled into a bathroom by three members of the team, who choked her and raped her. It is reported All but one – an African American – of the 47 members of the team were asked to submit to DNA tests. The alleged victim, whose name is being withheld because she is charging that she was sexually assaulted – said that the assailants were all White.

Ok, there are a few questions that we must ask ourselves.

Let me answer it again for you. No! No one has the right to rape another person.

Just because the rape victim happens to be African American should have no effect on the prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of her attacker, but the reality is it does.

So let’s be honest with ourselves, the alleged Duke rape is a story lingers in many ways from the disparate treatment of African American rape victims during slavery. As Elizabeth Kennedy, Research Analyst wrote in her research paper, Victim Race and Rape “While the connection is not necessarily clear cut, slavery and its legacy of bigotry and sexual violence likely play key roles in the continuing discrimination against black rape victims.”

I agree with her conclusions when she wrote, “this history plays out in rape prosecutions today: a number of studies have shown that the experience of an African American rape victim varies in critical ways from that of her white counterpart.”

Here is what is scary, and how racism may have impact with the allege rape at Duke.

Ms. Kennedy’s research has found that, “Where a black man was convicted of raping a white woman, he was more likely to be charged with a felony, more likely to receive a jail term, more likely to serve his time in a state penitentiary than in a local facility, and received a longer sentence on average than defendants in cases with a different defendant-victim racial dyad.”

She also has found that “When the jury does find the assailant of an African American woman guilty of rape, her race continues to play a role in the proceedings. As she writes” A study of actual trial outcomes indicates that, in combination with defendant race, victim race affects the seriousness of the defendant’s charge and the severity, location, and length of his sentence.”

I guess the balls in the University Police, University Administration and Prosecutors court.

Well folks, Let’s wait and see if an African Women who was allegedly raped by white athletes on the Duke University campus, gets the justice she deserves.

L. Nathaniel Rock

L. Nathaniel Rock is publisher of the Blog, http://AfricanAmericanOpinion.com and gan be reached at: AfricanAmericanOpinion@Gmail.com

By rob

March 31, 2006 07:56 AM | Link to this

Nathaniel, how many years did Marcus Vick spend in jail? for two rapes?

By J&J Ranch

March 31, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

When did the subject matter change to rape?

Did I miss something?

By MrLiberty

April 4, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

The question is simple. Do you own your own body or does the state?

In one situation, you are free. In another, you are not. We in america are not free.

There are two sides to the coin. On one is freedom, on the other is personal responsibility. The government of the united states believes in neither.

The use of drugs that the government has not given special license to is simply an issue of self-medication. It is your body, and you should be allowed to medicate it any way you wish, even if the ultimate result is your death. Either you own your body or the state does.

Smoking a joint, doing a line, shooting up, or popping a pill is no different than taking a drink, smoking a cigarrette, drinking a cup of coffee, taking a prozac, valium, xanex, or whatever the government-approved drug of choice may be. Don’t kid yourselves. There is no fundamental difference. We can discuss degree of change from completely “sober,” but reality has been altered by all.

Laws against unsafe activities that endanger others are appropriate, no matter what the drug. There must first and foremost be personal responsibility.

All drugs in this country were legal before 1915. There were minor problems, but they were handled medically, not criminally. All drugs are incredibly inexpensive to manufacture, grow, etc. They are only expensive because they are illegal. Naturally occurring versions of most “hard drugs” have been used by native cultures for thousands of years with little or no problems. Plant materials are heavy and bulky and difficult to smuggle. Concentrated versions like cocaine, hashish, and heroin deliver more potency for their weight and are thus preferred by smugglers.

Thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, police and government agencies can seize your car, your house, your boat, or any other piece of personal property, never charge you with a crime, keep the stuff, and make you prove your innocence in order to get it back. Check - those who know, already know this is true.

Government at all levels (Federal, state, local) takes in billions through this unconstitutional process. They also take in billions more in tax money to “fight” this war on drugs. Certain individuals at all levels take in even more in bribes to look the other way. Others take in millions participating in the drug trade itself. Don’t kid yourself, this kind of corruption is going on every day (in every country).

Every drug imaginable is already being made in pure form in a safe and environmentally responsible manner by chemical and drug companies all over this country and the world. These drugs are used as calibrator and control materials in drug test kits. These factories don’t blow up neighborhoods, put families at risk, or pollute the environment with their waste (that I know of).

The only people more afraid of legalization than the government are the drug dealers. Both would lose billions of dollars that only come to them because drugs are illegal.

Before prohibition of alcohol there was little or no organized crime in america. During prohibition organized crime fluorished. There were killings in the streets, innocent people died in drive-bys, people died from “bad” booze, police agencies were corrupted by the money, and alcoholism became an epidemic, driven behind closed doors by the threat of criminal sanction. After prohibition, alcohol use went up for a very brief time and has been on the decline ever since. People now feel open about discussing and getting help for the problem.

Nearly 1/2 the american prison population is there because of non-violent drug offenses. Meanwhile murderers, rapists, and the like are freed to make space. The #1 drug involved in violent crime cases is alcohol. The top contributors to the Partnership for a Drug Free America are all in the alcohol or prescription drug business. Maybe they are afraid of the competition from far safer products (45,000 deaths annually from prescription drugs - 0 deaths ever from marijuana).

For a solid 30 years we have been waging the so called War on Drugs with only failure to show. We only waited 11 years to wake up to the stupidity of alcohol prohibition. Why are we still continuing with this failure?

By Van

April 4, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

MrLiberty, it is simple, if you don’t like the law, start a campaign to get it changed.

Until then you can be a responsible adult and obey the laws.

The logic of you post is a bit faulty. Taking a drink and driving is a crime and punishment will be handed down.

Doing a line and driving is also a crime, I don’t see the difference.

Both are not responsible things to do.

We have laws as guides to society. We, as a collective group, have decided that certian things are unacceptable.

The easy stuff, robbery, murder - no brainers.

Using fraud to get money, or pimping your sister is also not allowed.

But the rules are for everyone. Yes, bad behavior is not allowed. Society does not allow you to run down the center of the street naked. Society will stop you from driving a car on the sidewalk.

If you do not agree with these rules that society deems necessary, you can either work to get them changed or abide by the responce from society.

By MrLiberty

April 4, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Everybody keeps blaming Mr.Jackson’s desire to self-medicate for the problem of drug dealers, uzi’s, and all the rest. If Mr. Jackson could go to CVS, walk up to the pharmacy counter (certainly one alternative way to legalize) and purchase something he knows is crack cocaine for a reasonable amount of money (as is well documented - drugs are very inexpensive to produce legally), why would he ever patronize some criminal on his block. No customers, no uzi-toting crack dealer.

There are no turf wars with guns between coke and pepsi. Nor between Bud and Miller beers. The government has caused all of these problems with their laws that created the black market. First government causes the problems, then they want money from you to solve the problems, then they want more money, more money, etc. without ever having an honest discussion as to whether or not the money spent is achieving its goals or is even being well spent.

People have been altering their consciousness since the beginning of time. Don’t blame Mr. Jackson. He is a free sentient being who should be allowed to put into his body whatever he wants, so long as it doesn’t directly hurt anyone else.

As to the damage drugs do to families, lets really look at that.

Any damage you attribute to prison or similar consequences is all government caused again by the law.

Any damage you attribute to costs and financial issues is at least aggravated by grossly inflated drug prices that again come from their being illegal, not inherently expensive.

As for breaking up families. This one is tough. Is the family breaking up because someone uses or is someone using because the family has already broken up?? Be careful where you place the blame. And while were at it, how many families are broken by alcohol. I know that’s why my mom and dad split. I know plenty of families in which drugs are present, used “recreationally”, and things are basically normal. One big difference. Admitting to a drinking problem doesn’t mean admitting to being a criminal.

Let’s drop the laws, drop the stigma, and help people get away from the problems if they want help.

By MrLiberty

April 5, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Van,

First of all, I contribute significantly to groups that are working to change the laws. I am a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party - the only party committed to ending this failed war on drug, and I helped gather signatures to get California’s medical marijuana initiative on the ballot (you have to take your victories where you can), only to see the feds unconstitutionally block it at every turn.

One important point. First the government itself must obey the laws. Prohibition of alcohol took a constitutional amendment. That was the appropriate step because there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that permits the federal government to make alcohol illegal. How they managed to get the courts to believe that they can make drugs illegal in violation of the constitution is beyond me. So to begin with these federal restrictions are unconstitutional.

Additionally, other crimes such as rape and murder involve a victim. If you believe that you own your own body, then you are technically the only victim of drug use (yes, friends, family, etc. but this argument could be made against thousands of risky activities and I think I already made comments along those lines).

Bottom line is that most americans are ignorant of how we got into this mess, who is REALLY responsible for the problems, how the problems could be solved (no promises of utopia, but this certainly isn’t utopia), and who really is standing in the way of change and why.

Until americans wake up and get educated and then start voting for candidates with the courage to speak out against this War on People’s Freedom, nothing will ever change.

By Van

April 5, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

MrLiberty, the problem with California’s medical marijuana initiative, is it is a thinly veiled plan helping suppliers of pot, and has little to do with medical use. No prescription needed, just a note from a “doctor”.

It would be nice if the medical community would recognize the need with cancer patients.

That said, I do not think that state law can trump federal law and tax codes.

Like booze, pot and other “recreational drugs” is only a method for people to hide from reality. Something in their life makes it difficult for them to face the real world, cancer and other patients are a different catagory, they have real pain and discomfort to control.

By MrLiberty

April 5, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Call it whatever you want. Again, either you own your own body or you don’t. And by the way, the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution (though ignored by our federal government) specifically mean that state law trumps federal. Back before Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR destroyed our wonderful republic, these amendments meant something.

Your final comments about “real pain”, etc. in comparing casual drug users with cancer patients may be valid, but it presupposes that you or any government have the constitutional right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body.

We could have a long discourse about the fact that banning drugs is nothing but a pathetic bandaid that ignores the real problems that have brought each individual to the decision that an altered reality is “better” than an “unaltered” one.

I mean look at this reality. Schools that many feel are more like prisons, kids forced onto speed-like drugs to “control” their behavior; taxes that eat up 40% percent of everyone’s income (serfs in mideval england only paid 30%); government debt so high that everyone is now born owning $20,000 (and rising); a dollar that has lost 95% of its value since the beginning of the 20th century (thus destroying savings and retirement plans); a 50% divorce rate; invasion of privacy by everyone in the government; loss of identity and personal information by criminals; a never ending war against a “tactic” rather than a nation; loss of faith in god and religion accompanied by elevation of faith in government; and the list could go on and on.

Freedom is self-ownership and personal responsibility. Any deviation from that, regardless of one’s intentions to do good, violate the right’s of the individual. More importantly though, prohibition and the inherent black market cause far more problems then they are typically set up to solve. This is certainly the case with the war on drugs.

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

“the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution (though ignored by our federal government) specifically mean that state law trumps federal.”

But the 14th admendment overrides that and establishes that Constitutional rights, protected at the federal level, cannot be denied at the local or state level either—no matter how big the majority vote at those levels.

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Which is pretty freakin’ sweet when your hometown or home state is dominated by superstition or bigotry.

By Van

April 6, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

MrLiberty, I actually think we agree in part. Yes, it is my body. However, my responsibilities dictate that I preserver it from harm and lead a productive life for my families sake.

In this society we punish those that abuse a substance (pick one). Some stuff is legal to purchase and some isn’t. Your choice, it is your life, your work and your family. What is it worth to you.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

When jobs are removed from a neighborhood its residents do not leave but find income from other sources. Because of the War on Drugs selling illegal drugs is one of the ways the American entrepreneur made enough money to buy wheels, phones, guns, homes, planes, whatever else. As manufacturing jobs are removed from America more and more Americans will rely on drug selling for their source of income. It is well known among farmers that a house-grown crop of pot can bring 80,000 in 5 months and a crop of wheat 15,000 for 8 months.

The War on Drugs has done little to control or eradicate drug use and is responsible for the escalation of criminal activity both in the USA and in countries where our policy had been forced. Why did we tell the Columbian government to eradicate all cocoa-leaf farming to have them grow LEGAL fruits and food—then not follow through and BUY it? Why do we tell nations who manufacture cocaine that THEY ARE OPERATING AGAINST THE LAW and yet the USA remains the largest buyer of illegal drugs? Why are Americans now obsessed with legal pills—why do pharmaceutical companies score such tremendous profits?

We are a nation of addicts and nothing will change unless America faces its own addiction problems!