Why the drug war is a legitimate war against terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

Bon bons are not fast food technically because they do not come from fast food joins. I have never heard any place say "would you like chocolate bon bons with your order, sir?" Marijuana does hurt people indirectly though due to the driving problems and it is not good for feti and marijuana tends to negatively affect ambition and other things.

Law is what governs what is meant to be done. There is a distinct distinction between medicinal purposes and non-medicinal and this it is not a creation by the law either. It is a creation by purposes, goals, and methods. Both over the counter and prescribed medicine are medicinal because of the fact that neither is really harmful if used properly and both are meant to address a problem. Much of self-medication is self-prescribed and thus aimless. Besides, I think that your libertarian beliefs tend to be wrong as well because even though many can govern themselves well without law and legislation many more can't. We have seen the problems brought on by the industrial revolution with corporate corruption and groups allying to monopolize and quite simply this is not a sign that capitalism is evil or that some level of freedom is evil, it is a sign that the government needs some level of control through law.

Weight gain is a result of both the munchies and the sluggishness brought on by marijuana. It can be avoided because it is brought on only by extra consumption and by a lowered metabolism caused by what the smoker physically does.

If you need therapy then go to a therapist. I have looked and I could find nothing for marijuana and psychological therapy. There may be some euphoria and anxiety reduction and such but no group was promoting marijuana's use for therapy.

I do support the medical use of marijuana in prescriptions given by doctors. However, I do not support self-medication. Nobody said that the law necessarily does the best thing but it is not doing the worst thing and no matter what it needs to be abided by unless it is a direct threat to your actual physical well-being or the well being of others. If you do not like the law then leave the country and live by the laws that govern where you choose to live or accept the hard pill and live within the confines of the laws that society gives to you. There is no harsh and unfair crackdown occuring on your rights that has suddenly happened.

The psychological effects do hamper judgement, affect driving, cause sedation, affect working abilities and stuff such as that. Stoners act weird when stoned. Technically you do not have the right to choose something that is banned by the government. Also, I disagree with the idea that marijuana is the right choice, it is a drug used to get a cheap high and not much more. I doubt you smoke it for the health affects, you simply use those to excuse your decision. I don't think that society should allow these drugs and if trying to have my society, the society I live in, reflect my values means imposing something you don't want upon you then so be it. You want society to reflect your values as well and that is what is at the heart of the matter.

Many sites have mentioned the negative affects of marijuana on the heart, even a site that was pro-marijuana where the increased heart beats were described as being similar to drums or some odd analogy. In other words it is relatively common knowledge that marijuana use can be stressful on the heart and I have found it on many websites that have different takes on the situation.

Again. diffeent strains have different effects - some do not trigger the appetite and cause alertness, not sluggishness. I personally, have hardly ever noticed 'the munchies'. Apart from a few occasions out of probably thousands, i have eaten normally.



Why should i pay $100's to see some 'expert' i dont know when i can pay $5 and do it myself?

Cannabis is a mild psychedelic (entheogen) and as such, can act as a therapeutic catalyst. There is plenty written about therapy and psychedelics in general.



Every single right you have; the right not be sold into slavery, the right to vote, the right to free speech, a fair trial etc etc. These were brought about over many centuries by civil disobedience, revolution and protest. You owe EVERYTHING to the fact your ancestors (or perhaps my ancestors ) refused to live within the 'confines' they were given. Like it or not, you owe everything to the people who question and challenge authority.




Increased heartbeat, if and when it occurs is accompanied by a slight drop in blood pressure, which evens it out. Its drugs like speed which raise heart-beat and pressure which can be dangerous.

I suppose there are different strains of marijuana but the marijuana munchies are something commonly known and commonly felt by many.

I pay zero dollars for my good feelings. However, in there are links between long term marijuana use and clinical depression. There is a belief that marijuana does not really cure the depression but rather gives good feelings but leaves the user with amotivational syndrome where the user feels unmotivated. Whether marijuana is a good cure for depression is unknown but I would rather attempt to work my problems out myself if at all possible.

The right to use whatever drug that you want is not a right that I am willing to fight for. I might be more willing to fight for something that I believe to be important for my success as an organism or something. However, the right to stick yourself with whatever needle you want is not something that I consider important at all and being denied that right does not even come close to oppression.

Marijuana is less dangerous than speed but is still not good and heart attack risk increases a bit after smoking.

I wonder how many times I am going to have to explain it to you, "Awesome." Hempseed oil is extremely productive per acre. It is the oldest vegetable oil known to humans, in fact. The seeds can actually be crushed between your fingers. Their hulls are quite fragile. This means that the processing involves a press made of any material as sturdy as wood or sturdier. After it is filtered to remove any solids, the oil is usable as is in a diesel engine. It even has superior lubricating properties, so superior that it has been used to lubricate aircraft engines, so it does not need any additives for lubrication in diesl engines. This kind of fuel will also work very well in an oil furnace.

I really wish that people who advocate prohibitions would bother to learn their subject, but those who did often no longer advocate prohibition.

Bravo. That's true, but it's called free thinking young feller and that isnt encouraged by conformists from both sides of the political spectrum.

But in order to "protect" people from this, you have to disparage and violate a lot of basic rights. You seem all too willing to do this. You are also willing to ignore the benefits of marijuana. One question on my mind is why people have let a destructive mindset such as yours become so dominant, when they should have sent them packing.

If you are not willing to fight for my right to choose my lifestyle, I wish that you would not help fight against it. It is far too easy for many people to decide that a lifestyle that does not intentionally intrude on theirs is harmful, then to decide that this justifies deliberately intruding, then destroying that person's life. The paranoia against marijuana users is harmful. The deeds done that this paranoia is used to justify are harmful. They are far more harmful than the drug ever could have been.

Mostly while I was offline I thought about how to fight the war on drugs. Some think its just smoke, all over a smoke these laws are created. However in the chains of distribution there are dangers to national securities. Even poisonings have been known to happen.

I have ideas, some ideas might seem counter productive, I'm unsure if I should write them or not. They are good, but I do not know. Thinking...

I have been to busy to keep up with this topic..


-No spell check used.

SC, if anyone important actually cared about the national security, we would all be able to get decent jobs. Frankly, if 10,000 of us got blowed up once every ten years, it would not hurt us nearly as much as the enforced poverty of the last thirty years has. If we have a lousy economy, we simply do not have national security no matter how many countries our country is blowing up at any given time.

The war on drugs is not worth fighting. We don't need new ideas on how to fight it. We need ideas on how to stop fighting it. Give addicts their drugs and let them go sit in a daze or work if they can, I really don't care enough to fight it. Reduce the harm it does to them, and those who want to stop, let them have their therapy and let them back into society. They can't be any worse than drunks and users of caffein and nicotine. I think we'll find that practically overnight the level of drug use will drop tremendously. There is also no substantial difference between people who use addictive and dangerous street drugs and people who use psychopharmaceuticals, except that I have been around users of crack and crank and found them to be no better and no worse than the usual run of humanity. Some users of some of the psychopharmaceuticals are really weird, and often it's the drugs. That's an honest assessment.

Don't let yourself be led around and blinded by the truisms about drugs. Even without the implication that you personally are someone who is looking for someone to be aggressive against, this stuff does lead to a form of bigotry that a lot of people don't know is wrong. So you think that someone makes a choice to drink or to use drugs. The first drinkers I knew were veterans of World War II. They drank to take their minds off what they saw, and a lot of people numbed themselves to that. You go to the psychiatrist, he or she gives you something to alter your brainwaves, and that's a choice, and the big difference is whether someone who does not have to live your life approves of it.

Again we are not that different in thought...

Here is the proposed policy that would be classified. Even if it was implemented no one would know.

The ethics of this electronic document are highly ethical, yet disturbing.

1. Microscopic or extraordinarily small satellite tracking devices in all distributed drugs (those replacing the current dealers and undercutting them).

2. All illegal substances would be produced by a black-op governmental facilities in key locations nationwide, likely regional for mass manufacturing.

3. Undercutting the international black market and putting them out of business with plentiful supply for 1-8 years. Cutting funds to terrorists and criminals domestically and internationally.

4. Drug abusers would be tracked via satellite automatically electronically the profits would go into programs and drug abusers would choose to go to jail or go to a treatment facility. The war on drugs would cost less and be funded by the drugs instead of tax payers.

1. smoking electronic bugs might release toxic compounds, injecting them might kill.

2. something like this has been done before. crack has been distributed round ghetto america by the authorities. This has been admitted on video.

3. As soon as you withdraw the states supply, the traffickers take over again in as much time as it takes to grow a poppy.

4. Not everyone who uses illegal drugs needs any treatment. In fact, relatively few are actually addicted.
Its mostly casual and non-problematic use of cannabis, MDMA, speed, cocaine, psychedelics etc (probably in that order)
Crack/heroin are worse, but there are still occasional users who manage to keep their use infrequent & under control.

Then there time duration for the program would not end. M.J is really more of a domestic product (ex Mexico) and I think less of the time weapons are involved, yet gangs are. It's important to cut funding for these groups.

When in the military my dad help to stop traffickers incoming from overseas. Cutting those folks funds are important as well as domestic groups which are commonly violent.

The compounds can be a small amount, likely using nano-tech. Depending on the substance, but the tracking device can be made to be human safe including being lodged in the body.

There needs to be a way to off-set tax payers money in the war on drugs and a way of stopping the funding. The reduced cost would increase use I think.. The programs would be funded including social service programs and the cost of the war on drugs.

Homing devices, nothing tech advanced.. Enough to get a signal, I do not know.

Nano Angel hehe

Politics

Drug Abusers To Me Are:

1. Mentally ill and cannot really be imprisoned (forced treatment is ok). Unless selling it.

2. Are still criminal, when you are a criminal forget about civil liberties in this context. Meaning if Nano-Tracking was a violation of civil liberties the exchange is the great cost burdan on tax-payers.

3. A possible risk to the safety of others including you, great cost to the tax payers, risking future generations and criminally funding potentially dangerous criminals.

4. Commonly lacks productivity and stability, reduced functionality and a cost to society.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nano-Tracking and the "POLICY" would not violate civil liberties, human rights and could save tax payers billions of dollars, cut funding to criminals and possibly terrorists. Would increase the quality of society and well being as well as put more money in everyone’s pockets because of the reduced drug abuse.

Will hold liable, destroy distribution chains and make criminal activity of it's kind not profitable. So people will try to get real jobs and be healthy.

Countless billions or trillions would be saved...

Bit too hard on crime, sowwy

As one of the original responders on this topic, I'm going to add 2 more cents to it.

I find sc's proposed policy to deal with drugs questionably ethical and extremely disturbing. I'd rather go to a Scientology center and get "clear" of drug use than have my body unknowingly invaded by nanites simply because I freely choose to smoke marijuana.

I choose to smoke marijuana because, having done my own cost-benefit analysis, I believe that, for myself, the benefits outweighs any cost. Given that, I am careful in my usage. I do not smoke every day. I do not smoke on the job or while driving. I do not smoke when I am upset or angry. As Burroughs wrote, "Miss Green (pot) gives you more of what you've got." I usually save it for the weekend or after I've had a hard and satisfying day of work.

I was on-topic with my original response. I was met with a pejorative ad hominem attack. I'm used to that, so it didn't bother me. By the way, OatWillie, thanks for the Dr. Bronner suggestion---that was a good one. I've been using his soap for twenty-five years. Good soap. Good man. So is his grandson, who currently runs the company.

The Bush adminstration has linked the War on Some Terrorists and the War on Some People with Some Drugs. Some people see that as a good thing. I see it as an attack on our civil liberties in order to create a police state in America, which current technology makes easier and easier. And the Northern Alliance seems to be looking the other way when it comes to opium crops.

It is my informed opinion that the US Government DOES care what you do, esp. if you are using entheogens and/or psychotropics to enhance your consciousness, because then you might decide that a) the USG is mostly full of s**t and b) you are perfectly capable of deciding for yourself whether or not to use entheogens and /or psychotropics. And then, you might decide that you don't need the government to tell you what you can or cannot do. By the way, "they" are the US Government, i.e., "The Man."

In my experience, it seems harder to kick caffeine than pot. I once inadvertently went without caff for several days and felt absolutely awful: depression, brain fog, body pains and other symptoms of withdrawl. I have not found marijuana withdrawl harmful or painful, but some people do because it seems to be psychologically addicitive.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

"When I am King you will be first against the wall/with your opinions which are of no consequence at all."-radiohead, "Paranoid Android" (1997)

Further, deponent sayeth not.

the way ive heard it goes; "..deserves neither and will lose both"

top quote anyway

Well done, wandrew!