Post by: Antigen on August 22, 2006, 07:38:46 PM
But if you think the drug war has been a failure, you?re missing the underlying reality. Ok, miss it. You can?t take people there. We have to maintain the illusion that everyone is well-intentioned, just a)incompetent b)stupid c)misguided d)taking orders e)not responsible for unintended consequences. What you can?t do is point out that the drug war has been a tremendous success, in the same way Lapham described Iraq as a success. We talk about cost, we don?t point out that one man?s cost is another man?s pay. We talk about incarceration. We avoid confronting what a brilliant tactic it is. We defeated the Indians and the Russians with alcohol. The lesson wasn?t lost. Without drugs, how would we have run our Latin America policy, how would we have marginalized the Left, how would we decimated Black society? You think it?s been a failure?! You?re missing the point.
Nonetheless:
LEAP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0T ... %5Fdish%2F (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftime%2Eblogs%2Ecom%2Fdaily%5Fdish%2F)
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 22, 2006, 09:04:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AD29jsr ... ed&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AD29jsrB1I&mode=related&search=)
Post by: Megalomania on August 22, 2006, 09:10:09 PM
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 22, 2006, 09:19:09 PM
Even Uncle Walter approves of this message!
"Anyone concerned about the failure of our $69 billion-a-year War on Drugs should watch this 12-minute program. You will meet front line, ranking police officers who give us a devastating report on why it cannot work. It is a must-see for any journalist or public official dealing with this issue."
-- Walter Cronkite
Post by: Megalomania on August 22, 2006, 09:20:16 PM
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 22, 2006, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: ""Ace of Spades""
I'm gonna try to spark up with the first cop I see tomorrow! :rofl:
::bwahaha2:: Let us know how that works out.
Speaking of sparking, it's about that time. :smokin:
Post by: Megalomania on August 22, 2006, 09:27:55 PM
Sparked earlier. Had a beer & there's no more so now it's vodka.
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 22, 2006, 09:37:03 PM
Think I'm gonna go down to this little bar in a bit with one of my kids. It's really cool. Hippie place, very laid back, has a garden area with hammocks and swings. There's always a sweet smell wafting through that place and no one ever gets hassled. :D
Post by: Megalomania on August 22, 2006, 09:37:58 PM
Post by: 001010 on August 22, 2006, 09:44:31 PM
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 22, 2006, 09:45:43 PM
Post by: Oz girl on August 23, 2006, 07:45:06 PM
Even if the police arrested the kid, the court system is at fault here too in it's extreme sentencing. If they are serious about stopping the availablity of drugs why would they not focus their energies on big time dealers and trafficers? The whole point of law enforcement is to serve and protect the community.
A sideline tangent story. In the smaller cities here policing is much different when it comes to dealing with small time issues. I grew up in a provincial city. When i was 16 a girlfriend and i got obscenely drunk and she got stoned as well. We decided to forgo a cab and walk home through a dangerous park late at night. The cops who were patrolling found us and made us get in the car and drove us home. We were both feeling a little paranoind about what they would seach and find! They parked down the street and lectured us on doing stupid things that could get ourselves hurt & mentioned that drinking underage was illegal and then watched us safely go inside the house and drove off. They told us that if there was a next time they would escort us to the door which would not impress our parents. We were not even searched. Police are supposed to keep the community safe from harm and catch actual crims!
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 23, 2006, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
If they are serious about stopping the availablity of drugs why would they not focus their energies on big time dealers and trafficers?
Why not just take it out of the criminal element completely? The reason there is crime surrounding drugs is not due to drug use, it's because of prohibition (Al Capone). Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Same as alcohol or tobacco.
And to head off the inevitable........kids already have access to drugs, legalizing won't make it more available, it'll make it less. Marijuana is not, I repeat NOT a gateway drug. That's a myth.
Post by: Antigen on August 23, 2006, 08:04:33 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2006, 08:05:20 PM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
one thing I dont get. The cops are mentioing that 19 yr old students who I assume had fairly clean records could be put away for years for offering a joit to their friends. Why on earth would any judge send a kid that young to jail for such a small matter?
Maybe because they're "niggers"?.. just a guess...
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2006, 08:59:56 PM
Post by: Carmel on August 23, 2006, 11:13:29 PM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
one thing I dont get. The cops are mentioing that 19 yr old students who I assume had fairly clean records could be put away for years for offering a joint to their friends. Why on earth would any judge send a kid that young to jail for such a small matter?
Even if the police arrested the kid, the court system is at fault here too in it's extreme sentencing. If they are serious about stopping the availablity of drugs why would they not focus their energies on big time dealers and trafficers? The whole point of law enforcement is to serve and protect the community.
A sideline tangent story. In the smaller cities here policing is much different when it comes to dealing with small time issues. I grew up in a provincial city. When i was 16 a girlfriend and i got obscenely drunk and she got stoned as well. We decided to forgo a cab and walk home through a dangerous park late at night. The cops who were patrolling found us and made us get in the car and drove us home. We were both feeling a little paranoind about what they would seach and find! They parked down the street and lectured us on doing stupid things that could get ourselves hurt & mentioned that drinking underage was illegal and then watched us safely go inside the house and drove off. They told us that if there was a next time they would escort us to the door which would not impress our parents. We were not even searched. Police are supposed to keep the community safe from harm and catch actual crims!
As i understand it, whether this still applies or not, some states have/had mandatory minimum sentences for drug possesion. That would make it so that wether the judge thought the sentence was irrational or not, it would make little difference. You hear tell of convicts who have been in for 10-20 years on a marijuana charge, based on mandatory minimum sentences. if you do a little research you can find lots of info on individuals still fighting to get reduced time based on these excessive laws that in some places arent even in effect any longer. Didnt seem to change the sentences of the convicts though.
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2006, 11:41:52 PM
The was is about criminalizing a whole subculture, about drug testing in the workplace and probation offices, big $$$$ from seizures and forfeitures, a continuous supply of inmates for the now-prvatized prison industry, a bunch of clients for the drug treatment industry and the subsequent $$$ it generates, the ability to go fuck with other countries under the guise of "keeping drugs out of America" and other horseshit like that. It ain't about keeping little Janie off the shit, hell they want her to do 'em! THen she enters the whole system I described above.......
Do you think the government gives a flying fuck about your kids health? Yeah, that's why they fucking subsidize tobacco and let fast food chains advertise on TV during kid's shows. These are the same people that won't test beef cattle for mad cow disease, weakened environmental laws, etc. Trust me, they don't care if your kid is on hard drugs or not, they'd actually kind of prefer they were, then sought "treatment" at a state-approved reeducation center.
Look at how much money changes hands over DRUGS.....not the drugs themselves, or even the money spent on drugs themselves, but the money that changes hands because of drugs....the prison industry, the lawyers, the drug testing, the drug treatment, the ability to deny workman's comp insurance because of a positive test for marijuana, etc. etc. If you think those assholes are just gonna go away over somethng as trivial as YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS, well, I got a bridge in NY that I'd like you to invest in.
And let's look at how the government has used the "war on Drugs" to subvert or eliminate the constitution of the United States.....warantless searches and seizures, wiretaps, etc. , etc. All of that shit was going on per-9/11, as a pretext to "keep you safe from drugs", now, with the "WAr on Terror", they 've got even more power. Give 'em an inch.....
A little word on mandatory minimums---back in the 80s, the feds were weighing the carrier the acid came on (paper, sugar cube, liquid) when it came to determining the amount of LSD for sentencing purposes. A few hits of thick blotter paper, let's say 10 hits, just became a gram of LSD (the equivalent of 10,000 hits), and if you put a few drops of liquid in a gallon jug, well, fuck , you just create deight pounds of LSD!!!! enough to get everyone on the planet high about six times!! This completely fucked-up method of determining sentencing guidlines was eliminated after enough rich kids and yuppies with money got busted and were able to enact a change. I believe Sen. Joe Biden had something to do with overturning those guidlines.
Post by: Oz girl on August 24, 2006, 01:48:46 AM
15 years! No wonder parents send their kids to these gulag schools. If I feared my kid was potentially going to end up in Jail for that long perhaps I would consider putting them in some such place. Surely middle america is not in favour of sentencing so extreme?
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2006, 03:14:04 AM
Post by: Oz girl on August 24, 2006, 04:36:12 AM
Post by: RTP2003 on August 24, 2006, 04:40:09 AM
Post by: Oz girl on August 24, 2006, 06:32:23 AM
Given that this is the Stragh board i assume many of you are alumni fron there so I dont know how extreme the situation was in the 80s. However my question is: Do you think that fear that you would be in Jail was a motivating factor for your parents? The Deadinsanejail catchcry seems popular but perhaps the big nerve programmes hit with parents is In Jail.This is not afterall such an unreasonable fear. Is this why your parents sent you? Afterall straight was about drugs not necessarily other misbhaviour.
Post by: mushymom on August 24, 2006, 06:47:25 AM
In the school system here, they are alot tougher on kids than when I was in school. I am thankful that my kids have programs in the schools and that I have the awareness.
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 24, 2006, 07:53:42 AM
Others have said it and they're right. The drug was is nothing more than politicians drumming up votes. It serves no useful purpose and destroys people, families and sometimes entire communities (Google Tulia). I hope more people will check into LEAP. Smart group of good people. Wow. Didn't think I'd hear myself say that about cops.
Post by: Oz girl on August 24, 2006, 08:39:46 AM
i agree that LEAP seem great. I also think that a group of people as conservative & respected as cops can really get a wide audience to listen to the message.
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2006, 09:10:47 AM
For instance, if heroine or cocaine is legal, would it create other public health/safety issues say that alcohol can/does? Do you want someone driving while on certain drugs? While one industry would be shut down (i.e. DEA) another may be created to deal with side affects of this decriminalization. Should only certain drugs be legalized? Would there be an education campaign created to explain the affects of these drugs while the decriminalization is phased in? Would decriminalization take the mystification of doing drugs by children?
I'd be very interested to read one of these types of studies if they exist.
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2006, 09:27:35 AM
Post by: Carmel on August 24, 2006, 09:27:58 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
While I agree that decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is one approach to changing the "drug war" philosophy, has there been any research or studies that think decriminalization through to its end?
For instance, if heroine or cocaine is legal, would it create other public health/safety issues say that alcohol can/does? Do you want someone driving while on certain drugs? While one industry would be shut down (i.e. DEA) another may be created to deal with side affects of this decriminalization. Should only certain drugs be legalized? Would there be an education campaign created to explain the affects of these drugs while the decriminalization is phased in? Would decriminalization take the mystification of doing drugs by children?
I'd be very interested to read one of these types of studies if they exist.
Good point, however....we are already dealing with these issues as side effects of drug use. Do you think that more people will drive while on coke if it were legal, than they do now? Whether a drug is legal or not, makes little bearing on whether people are going to make poor decisions on a personal level. Attempting to control drug use at this level is what got us into this mess to begin with. Why should we exchange one bad policy for another? We dont go around convicting people of a felony if they dont make proper choices in eating food or obtaining medical care. It wouldnt be unlike putting people in jail for being obese.
As i see it this person making this poor choice to partake and drive, is unchangeable....what is manageable is the fact that when he gets pulled over for being under the influence, my tax dollars arent used in excess to convict this person of a victimless crime, send them through the prison system and ultimately support them for the next 6-10. Probably getting a diploma or completed degree at my expense while they are at it. Something i cant afford for myself or my children at this point.
I dont think that it would be all that useful to merely project a scenario on what the effects would be, all i know is that its getting worse by the minute in its current state. At this point the only way to go is up.
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2006, 09:29:11 AM
Post by: Carmel on August 24, 2006, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
perhaps you are on to something with the puritan angle. I am from a country which was founded as a penal colony for petty english & irish crims. There is a healthy cynicism when it comes to the rule of law.
Given that this is the Stragh board i assume many of you are alumni fron there so I dont know how extreme the situation was in the 80s. However my question is: Do you think that fear that you would be in Jail was a motivating factor for your parents? The Deadinsanejail catchcry seems popular but perhaps the big nerve programmes hit with parents is In Jail.This is not afterall such an unreasonable fear. Is this why your parents sent you? Afterall straight was about drugs not necessarily other misbhaviour.
I think its important to understand that firstly, the idea that was the Straight modality was never just a good idea gone bad. It was a bad idea gone worse. There was/is no rationality in the concept to begin with.
Whether or not fear of their children being sent to jail was a motivation or not, its important to understand that at the root of the issue is an irrational regulation policy that is the War on Drugs that fostered the entire idea to begin with. There are no loopholes here to try and make sense of "why". Staright was about drugs yes, but the basis for its concept was a flawed one to start....not to mention that a good 60-70 percent of children placed in the program were not drug addicts in the least. What Straight was supposed to be "about" is irrelevent, it was an abusive system based on a corrupt policy.
Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.
How many times does someone have to show you a beaten and abused child before you start to worry about the welfare of your own? Apparently quite a few times more than simply telling you your kid has a chance of getting thrown in the slammer. Thats the reality of what happened to us. there is no foundation of rationality to define, it never existed to begin with.
Ive always loved Eudora's quote......"A shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich, and no pickle on the side is ever going to change it."
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 24, 2006, 09:50:15 AM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
i dont doubt the horror that was straight. But did your parents put you in there because of the legal aspect (19 yr olds being jailed etc) or because they felt you had an addiction? Which angle was sold to them?
i agree that LEAP seem great. I also think that a group of people as conservative & respected as cops can really get a wide audience to listen to the message.
I was 16, just turned. I wasn't an addict, far from it but I guess my parents were convinced that I either was or would be very soon. My dad fell for Miller's bullshit hook, line and sinker. There was no threat of jail, I was never in any legal trouble. Got drunk, smoked pot, took a couple of quaaludes and got in a car accident (someone else driving). That was it.
I love the fact that LEAP goes to a lot of the Rotary clubs. Those conservative fuckers can't dismiss current and retired cops and judges. It's about fucking time people woke up and understood wtf the whole drug war is really about. It's all been said above by others and I agree.
Post by: Rumpofsteelskin on August 24, 2006, 11:37:06 AM
Quote from: ""Carmel""
Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.
I know what yo sayin'. Welfare fo' yo' kids ain't a unreasonable emoshun, like yo said, but dis ain't complex enough t'justify de abuse and irresponsible medodology dat wuz t'happen BIGTIME as some consequence uh de choice made by parents t'givvup dey kids t'dese honky programs.
Post by: teachback on August 24, 2006, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: ""Anne Bonney""
I love the fact that LEAP goes to a lot of the Rotary clubs. Those conservative fuckers can't dismiss current and retired cops and judges. It's about fucking time people woke up and understood wtf the whole drug war is really about. It's all been said above by others and I agree.
:tup:
Post by: Carmel on August 24, 2006, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: ""Rumpofsteelskin""
Quote from: ""Carmel""Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.I know what yo sayin'. Welfare fo' yo' kids ain't a unreasonable emoshun, like yo said, but dis ain't complex enough t'justify de abuse and irresponsible medodology dat wuz t'happen BIGTIME as some consequence uh de choice made by parents t'givvup dey kids t'dese honky programs.
Word.
Post by: Anne Bonney on August 24, 2006, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: ""Carmel""
Good point, however....we are already dealing with these issues as side effects of drug use. Do you think that more people will drive while on coke if it were legal, than they do now? Whether a drug is legal or not, makes little bearing on whether people are going to make poor decisions on a personal level. Attempting to control drug use at this level is what got us into this mess to begin with. Why should we exchange one bad policy for another? We dont go around convicting people of a felony if they dont make proper choices in eating food or obtaining medical care. It wouldnt be unlike putting people in jail for being obese.
:tup: Absolutely!
The main undesirable by-product of drugs is the criminal element. (See Al Capone and Prohibition) Legalize, regulate as booze/cigs, tax and you take away the 'black market' so to speak. There may be a slight spike initially due to the curiosity and novelty factor, but it's not like everyone's going to run out and start slamming smack just because it's been legalized. The people who want to do that are already doing it. We're just talking about making it safer, not only for the user but society in general.
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on August 24, 2006, 01:47:40 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2006, 05:39:54 PM
Post by: Antigen on August 26, 2006, 06:57:45 PM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
i dont doubt the horror that was straight. But did your parents put you in there because of the legal aspect (19 yr olds being jailed etc) or because they felt you had an addiction? Which angle was sold to them?
i agree that LEAP seem great. I also think that a group of people as conservative & respected as cops can really get a wide audience to listen to the message.
I think it is/was whatever works. In the `70's when my parents put my older brothers and sister in the Seed, it was the irrationally exagerated fear of the power of the drugs themselves. This was the Summer of Manson and Woodstock and all that. They had ppl believing that one hit off a joint would render a kid insane and insensible and set us on an inextricable path to junkiedome.
Now some of the advertising is different because people fear different things. Just check into the various recruiting websites and their lists of "warning signs" for an indication of which buttons and levers they're pushing and switching these days.
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2006, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: ""Anne Bonney""
it's not like everyone's going to run out and start slamming smack just because it's been legalized. The people who want to do that are already doing it.
Damn right we are, and no fucking police force in the world can stop it. The Beast ain't going nowhere, baby!
Post by: Oz girl on August 26, 2006, 10:09:06 PM
And this is my point. I really dont understand the programme mentality much and i am from a country were the law is fairly lenient on the indiscresions of kids. Particularly middle class white kids who seem to be the main target group of programmes. I would not want my kid to ever go to one because they are pretty much jail under a nicer name. By the same token though, if a young person can genuinely end up in serious legal trouble for doing what all kids do from time to time I really do get why parents feel a programme may be the answer. i feel for parents in this respect. The difference is that the idea that your kid will become addicted from the first joint is not factually correct. Apparently though giving a joint to another kid is trafficing. therefore the idea that they may end up is Jail is not unreasonable.
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2006, 10:16:09 PM
Post by: Oz girl on August 26, 2006, 10:43:52 PM
I also agree that it seems for profit programmes dont give a shit as to whether they are able to help the kid or the family & use techniqes which are harmful. Moreover the attitude of most programmes seems to be spiteful.
Having said all this, if the laws on kids are so tough that they could potentially have criminal records for the most minor of things then some parental fears are legitimate. If a kid who is out past midnight, smoking drugs with their friends who are intoxicated can actually get into real trouble with the law then it stands to reason that their parents will be concerned about what will happen to them. Therefore a legal system which is unreasonably strict on kids contributes to the problem. The blame can not rest with parents alone.
As a sideline what is most troubling about all this is it does not keep kids safe or protected. It seems in lots of cases gone are the days when parents would say something to the effect of " i dont care what time it is or what you did call me" and actually have the kids do it because to the kid it is the difference between being read the riot act in the morning but ultimately being safe and assisted and being escorted to somewhere frightening and damaging. If kids can't turn to any of the adult authority figures in their lives when thhey get into some minor scrape then they are becoming by default more at risk.
Post by: teachback on August 26, 2006, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
Therefore a legal system which is unreasonably strict on kids contributes to the problem. The blame can not rest with parents alone.
True!
Post by: Antigen on August 27, 2006, 01:04:15 PM
Post by: teachback on August 27, 2006, 01:49:57 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2006, 01:53:14 PM
Post by: teachback on August 27, 2006, 01:59:02 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2006, 02:03:28 PM
Post by: teachback on August 27, 2006, 02:06:30 PM
Post by: Oz girl on August 27, 2006, 10:48:02 PM
Quote from: ""Eudora""
True, but missing an important point. Who owns and operates the legal system? We do now as our parents did then.
TO a certain extent all adult citizens do. And it is a wider social issue that everyone needs take ownership of. But I dont think that helps the individual parent who may personally not have voted for tough laws but who faces a kid who is getting into mild to moderate trouble and who legitimately has serious concerns for the kids future.
For instance this is not drug related but I read the other day that in some US states a 17 yr old kid having consensual sex with a 14 yr old partner can be registered as child sex offender well into adulthood. How are laws like this not meant to terrify parents about the unreasonable consequences of their kids actions? If the judge also has no choice because of a fucked up mandatory sentencing system what then? No wonder these places are such a growth industry.
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2006, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
While I agree that decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is one approach to changing the "drug war" philosophy, has there been any research or studies that think decriminalization through to its end?
For instance, if heroine or cocaine is legal, would it create other public health/safety issues say that alcohol can/does? Do you want someone driving while on certain drugs? While one industry would be shut down (i.e. DEA) another may be created to deal with side affects of this decriminalization. Should only certain drugs be legalized? Would there be an education campaign created to explain the affects of these drugs while the decriminalization is phased in? Would decriminalization take the mystification of doing drugs by children?
I'd be very interested to read one of these types of studies if they exist.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-ratpark.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-ratpark.html)
There is a myth going around that dope is such a huge joy that if you try just one dose of it, it will be so pleasurable that you will get hooked for life. We have all heard of the experiments with the lab rats, where rats were put in cages and given levers to press. Each time they pressed the lever, they got a dose of dope. And the rats just pressed the levers all of the time, and stayed high until they died. They wouldn't even stop to eat; they just doped themselves to death. The implication was that the dope was so good, so pleasurable, such an ecstatic high, that the rats couldn't help but get addicted and kill themselves on the stuff.
It turns out that those experiments were all wrong. The researchers who conducted them weren't cheating; they were honest men trying to get good results. They just made one huge mistake: they ignored the true nature of rats. It turns out that rats are very sociable animals, and they just can't stand being held in solitary confinement, like the rats in those experiments were. For both rats and humans, solitary confinement is pure torture.
Some other researchers tried a new experiment: they created a "Rat Park". They fenced a big, natural area, with shrubs and grass, and plenty of space, and put in a small tribe of rats. Then they gave the rats two bowls of water that they could drink from. One contained morphine, and the other didn't. They could drink all they wanted, at any time they wanted. After a few tries, to see what was what, the rats would never drink from the morphine bowl. The researchers even tried bribing the rats, to get them to drink morphine, by dosing the morphine solution with sugar. It should have worked, because rats just love sugar. But it didn't work. The rats wouldn't drink it. The rats just didn't want to get loaded on morphine.6
So it turns out that rats will choose to stay high and whacked out all of the time if they are trapped in solitary confinement, but they don't like being dopey when they are in a better environment, hanging out with their friends, fooling around and fighting and fucking and scaring the hell out of the cat, and doing all of the usual fun rat things. Rats have their own agenda, and it doesn't include being locked up alone in a steel cage in a laboratory, pressing a lever.
It turns out that most humans are like that too. It is an old stereotype that it is the poorest people, in the slums and ghettos, who stay drunk or stoned all day long. Alas, that's also the truth, to a great extent. Most people, in better environments, don't really want to stay doped out all of the time. .................
........................When people talk about not legalizing drugs because of their children, what they are really saying is that they believe that everybody will turn into a dope addict if they can just get their hands on some drugs. Not true, not even vaguely true. Dope is already everywhere, and is almost as readily available as alcohol. And yet, most people do manage to save their kids from becoming addicted to either alcohol or drugs.[/i]
Post by: Antigen on August 28, 2006, 03:03:08 AM
People are driving, fucking, fighting and raising kids on these illegal and them other legal drugs right now, even though some of them are illegal. That hasn't changed either, with prohibition. The only thing that has changed since the day when anyone, even a minor, could purchase heroin, laudinum, cannabis preparations or cocaine w/o a rx or question from the local soda fountain or Sears catalog is that now we have a drug war budget, drug crime, drug cartels and drug corruption.
Post by: Oz girl on August 28, 2006, 07:52:16 AM
Post by: Oz girl on August 28, 2006, 07:55:03 AM
I also have another question in this discussion. What is the wider mood in the US toward these laws. Are many fmailies all for them. Are the horrified by the level of scrutiny their kids face or is it a mix depending on the state you live in?
IS there anywhere in the US where kids can enjoy the cheap adolescent thrills of Sex Drugs and Rock and roll without it being something they can go to jail for?
Post by: teachback on August 28, 2006, 10:27:53 AM
Quote from: ""Pls help""
I also have another question in this discussion. What is the wider mood in the US toward these laws. Are many fmailies all for them. Are the horrified by the level of scrutiny their kids face or is it a mix depending on the state you live in?
IS there anywhere in the US where kids can enjoy the cheap adolescent thrills of Sex Drugs and Rock and roll without it being something they can go to jail for?
Good questions! I can only speculate, but I think that americans (in general) tend to 'buy the horseshit' more often than not these days. Even more often than they'd like to think that they do, if that makes sense..