A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
New documentary on the subject may we well worth watching. From the SF Chron's review:
<<What do the Holocaust, discrimination against Chinese laborers in 19th century California and a kindly old housekeeper have to do with America's war on drugs? In "The House I Live In," documentarian Eugene Jarecki takes a highly original approach to create a compelling, thought-provoking look at a highly relevant and controversial topic.
Since President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" four decades ago, the United States has spent $1 trillion. Where do we stand now: Drugs are as abundant as ever, and prisons are jam-packed. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's imprisoned population....>>
gh wrote:Where do we stand now: Drugs are as abundant as ever, and prisons are jam-packed. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's imprisoned population.
Even I, a most strident anti-drug crusader, have to admit we've gotten no where on this issue. But on the other hand, even if we were to legalize pot, and other 'soft', 'recreational' drugs, we'd still be in the same mess we are now. Harder drugs would come still be a huge issue and a detriment to us all. That's how I can stay so anti-alcohol for minors. Any time you're trying to 'alter your consciousness', problems abound for yourself and others, despite the FACT that some people can handle it just fine.
gh wrote:Where do we stand now: Drugs are as abundant as ever, and prisons are jam-packed. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's imprisoned population.
Even I, a most strident anti-drug crusader, have to admit we've gotten no where on this issue. But on the other hand, even if we were to legalize pot, and other 'soft', 'recreational' drugs, we'd still be in the same mess we are now. Harder drugs would come still be a huge issue and a detriment to us all. That's how I can stay so anti-alcohol for minors. Any time you're trying to 'alter your consciousness', problems abound for yourself and others, despite the FACT that some people can handle it just fine.
Prohibition has been an abysmal failure. Decriminalize all of them and take it from there. Oh yes, don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things. That would remain illegal for other drugs just as it is with alcohol.
How is this NOT a political issue that will ultimately lead to the locking of this thread? This has nearly every hot-button bugaboo: United States of America Government involvement - Iran/Contra, Afghanistan (political); race; powder v. rock; rural (meth) v. cities (crack); sentencing disparities; mandatory minimums...
Pego wrote:don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things.
Oh yes, I will! And they do them mostly BECAUSE they're on drugs. I've almost (!) given up on the marijuana thing, but virtually every other drug has much more harmful effects on an individual's ability to harness his id.
Pego wrote:don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things.
Oh yes, I will! And they do them mostly BECAUSE they're on drugs. I've almost (!) given up on the marijuana thing, but virtually every other drug has much more harmful effects on an individual's ability to harness his id.
Ain't that nice to take my statement out of the context, ignoring the other half? This is what I said.
" Oh yes, don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things. That would remain illegal for other drugs just as it is with alcohol."
Pego wrote:don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things.
Oh yes, I will! And they do them mostly BECAUSE they're on drugs. I've almost (!) given up on the marijuana thing, but virtually every other drug has much more harmful effects on an individual's ability to harness his id.
Having had no end of acquaintences through the years who have done crazy things on drugs, I'd add two qualifiers.
1. most of them were "crazy" to begin with and didn't need drugs to do anything stupid (although it may well have increased the seriousness thereof).
2. virtually all of them are combining drugs with alcohol, and guess which of the two is responsible for the craziness?
(disclaimer: I've been blessed not to have spent much time with meth-heads; I'll guess that No. 2 comes off the table in that regard)
Pego wrote:Ain't that nice to take my statement out of the context, ignoring the other half? This is what I said. " Oh yes, don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things. That would remain illegal for other drugs just as it is with alcohol."
I think you missed my point: many of them would NOT be committing the crime unless they were under the uninhibitory influence of the drug.
Pego wrote:Ain't that nice to take my statement out of the context, ignoring the other half? This is what I said. " Oh yes, don't tell me that people on drugs do crazy, bad things. That would remain illegal for other drugs just as it is with alcohol."
I think you missed my point: many of them would NOT be committing the crime unless they were under the uninhibitory influence of the drug.
Fine, prosecute the ones that caused car accidents, injured/killed somebody, raped etc. Prohibition assumes that every user is a potential criminal. How would you like to be considered potential rapist just because you are in a possession of rape equipment.
Pego wrote:Fine, prosecute the ones that caused car accidents, injured/killed somebody, raped etc. Prohibition assumes that every user is a potential criminal. How would you like to be considered potential rapist just because you are in a possession of rape equipment.
Exactly. Actual crime should be punished, period.
The larger problem lies in whether drug abuse ITSELF is seen as a "crime" or as a kind of "disability" or illness. And, thus, whether the proper response is punishment or treatment/rehabilitation. As far as I can see, that's the only "political" facet to this matter: whether users are seen, first and foremost, as criminal or as mentally/physically afflicted in some (often serious) way.
Last edited by kuha on Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pego wrote:Fine, prosecute the ones that caused car accidents, injured/killed somebody, raped etc. Prohibition assumes that every user is a potential criminal. How would you like to be considered potential rapist just because you are in a possession of rape equipment.
Oh, so we should ignore a contributory (as opposed to a 'potentiality) factor (your rape allusion) and just punish the act that is often preventable? This is what the NRA says: guns don't kill people; people do. No . . . it IS indeed the guns that kill people, because most murders would not have killed had they not had the facility of the gun doing it for them. One of my best friends died because a coward with a gun killed her in a hail of AK-47 fire. Without the gun, he wouldn't have even dared to try it.
Last edited by Marlow on Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pego wrote:Fine, prosecute the ones that caused car accidents, injured/killed somebody, raped etc. Prohibition assumes that every user is a potential criminal. How would you like to be considered potential rapist just because you are in a possession of rape equipment.
Oh, so we should ignore a contributory (as opposed to a 'potentiality) factor (your rape allusion) and just punish the act that is often preventable? This is what the NRA says: guns don't kill people; people do. No . . . it IS indeed the guns that kill people, because most murders would not have killed had they not had the facility of the gun doing it for them. One of my best friends died because a coward with a gun killed her in a hail of AK-47 fire. Without the gun, he wouldn't have even dared to try it.
P.S. I see this is going downhill fast, so I abstain from further debate in anticipation of the reaper's flail.
Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
jazzcyclist wrote:It's the old "nanny state" debate. Should adults be protected from themselves or should they be free to make bad choices?
Only when those bad choices do not affect anyone else... which is pretty much never.
You seem to be implying that you're a nanny state advocate. I'm surprised. I had you pegged for more of the libertarian type.
You were right in your "libertarian type" assumption, jazz. I certainly do not advocate a "nanny state", as I perceive one. I don't think the state should protect adults from themselves but should have draconian penalties for those who hurt/affect/influence innocent others by their selfish actions.
That is about as simple/succinct as I can sum up my instincts.
jazzcyclist wrote:It's the old "nanny state" debate. Should adults be protected from themselves or should they be free to make bad choices?
Only when those bad choices do not affect anyone else... which is pretty much never.
You seem to be implying that you're a nanny state advocate. I'm surprised. I had you pegged for more of the libertarian type.
You were right in your "libertarian type" assumption, jazz. I certainly do not advocate a "nanny state", as I perceive one. I don't think the state should protect adults from themselves but should have draconian penalties for those who hurt/affect/influence innocent others by their selfish actions.
That is about as simple/succinct as I can sum up my instincts.
That is what I said, "prosecute those that hurt others." It is totally irrelevant whether they were under influence or not.
jazzcyclist wrote:It's the old "nanny state" debate. Should adults be protected from themselves or should they be free to make bad choices?
Only when those bad choices do not affect anyone else... which is pretty much never.
You seem to be implying that you're a nanny state advocate. I'm surprised. I had you pegged for more of the libertarian type.
You were right in your "libertarian type" assumption, jazz. I certainly do not advocate a "nanny state", as I perceive one. I don't think the state should protect adults from themselves but should have draconian penalties for those who hurt/affect/influence innocent others by their selfish actions.
That is about as simple/succinct as I can sum up my instincts.
Given some of the other personal choices that are perfectly legal in the U.S., I can't fathom why we imprison large numbers of people for simple use of "illicit" substances.
Rehab, address the underlying issues that may have led to use, and then push them on to be more productive citizens. Don't toss them in jail.
Any harm done to others while under the influence of illegal/legal substances should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, disregarding the drug factor.
gm wrote:Given some of the other personal choices that are perfectly legal in the U.S., I can't fathom why we imprison large numbers of people for simple use of "illicit" substances.
Rehab, address the underlying issues that may have led to use, and then push them on to be more productive citizens. Don't toss them in jail.
Any harm done to others while under the influence of illegal/legal substances should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, disregarding the drug factor.
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am very sorry (I really am), but I hold this 'truth' to be self-evident: I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - drugs and guns fulfill that notion for me. It grieves me to know that I have offended you, but we all have to stick up for what we believe, and all my experience in the Navy compels me to this judgment.
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am very sorry (I really am), but I hold this 'truth' to be self-evident: I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - drugs and guns fulfill that notion for me. It grieves me to know that I have offended you, but we all have to stick up for what we believe, and all my experience in the Navy compels me to this judgment.
Do you support the repeal of the Second Amendment?
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am very sorry (I really am), but I hold this 'truth' to be self-evident: I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - drugs and guns fulfill that notion for me. It grieves me to know that I have offended you, but we all have to stick up for what we believe, and all my experience in the Navy compels me to this judgment.
Accepted. Just one question. Does not give you a pause to see the philosophical/political spectrum above (jc, lw, gh, gm, kuha, me) agreeing in principle?
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am very sorry (I really am), but I hold this 'truth' to be self-evident: I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - drugs and guns fulfill that notion for me. It grieves me to know that I have offended you, but we all have to stick up for what we believe, and all my experience in the Navy compels me to this judgment.
Do you support the repeal of the Second Amendment?
No, but I support certain restrictions and control.
Edit. I just noticed that the question was posed to Marlow. Oh well, I answered it, too .
agreement - succinctly state what it is that you think you all agree on and I'll tell you whether I agree or disagree. I very much doubt we do disagree in principle.
2nd Amendment. As a rhetorician, I feel on safe ground to say the 2nd amendment does NOT grant everyone the right to bear arms. It ONLY grants that right to properly authorized militia, which today is called the National Guard and Reserves.
lonewolf wrote:...I don't think the state should protect adults from themselves but should have draconian penalties for those who hurt/affect/influence innocent others by their selfish actions.
That is about as simple/succinct as I can sum up my instincts.
Do you stop at drugs and guns? Why not include money and intelligence in your qualifier for those who hurt "innocent" others by their selfish acts?
As a teetotaler by intellectual choice (not moral), I may have a LESS biased perspective.
Nothing grates on me more to hear somebody say, "you can't write about football/whatever because you never played it."
But this is not one of those situations. "Perspective" has nothing to do with it. You've either been there or you haven't.
All the outside observation in the world is worth bupkus if you've never felt the tug of looking for more after your pleasure centers have been stimulated, or knowing what happens when you combine two (or worse, more) disparate substances.
Or, most of all, have done something truly crazy and the next day said, "Oh shit, why did I do that?!"
If you've never been there and heard the siren song, I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea—and I can't stress this enough, no idea—how the thing works, and all the observation in the world won't do anything to change that.
agreement - succinctly state what it is that you think you all agree on and I'll tell you whether I agree or disagree. I very much doubt we do disagree in principle.
Stick to your guns. Your principles are more important than winning a popularity contest.
Marlow wrote:2nd Amendment. As a rhetorician, I feel on safe ground to say the 2nd amendment does NOT grant everyone the right to bear arms. It ONLY grants that right to properly authorized militia, which today is called the National Guard and Reserves.
Marlow wrote:2nd Amendment. As a rhetorician, I feel on safe ground to say the 2nd amendment does NOT grant everyone the right to bear arms. It ONLY grants that right to properly authorized militia, which today is called the National Guard and Reserves.
Not being a rhetorician ( I don't think, whatever that is. ) I was prompted to do a little research brushing up on and confirming my fuzzy recollection/understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
Books have been written debating and attempting to define the meaning and intent of a "well regulated militia." The jury is still out.
The right to "keep and bear arms" is rooted in English common law as defense against tyranny and has been well-tested and contested in US history.
The meaning and intent of a "well regulated militia", non-controversial in 1791, has been the subject of numerous state law suits and two US Supreme Court decisions, none of which resulted in decisions as narrow as our friend Marlow's interpretation.
There was no standing "militia" in 1791 equivalent to today's National Guard or Reserve, therefore the people had to be armed before called to militia duty.
While the several states had the authority to call able bodied white males between 18 and 45 to service, they were expected to report armed and supplied.. In fact a 1792 directive stipulated in detail the type firearm and kind and quantity of munitions with which every man over 18 was expected to equip himself prior to reporting for militia duty. It is interesting to note that when reporting for drills, they were not required to bring their knapsacks.
Pre-equipped may no longer be necessary but I cannot find where it was ever discarded as a tenet of preparedness for resistance to tyranny, an armed constituency being the greatest deterrant to government or dictatorial subjugation.
lonewolf wrote:...I don't think the state should protect adults from themselves but should have draconian penalties for those who hurt/affect/influence innocent others by their selfish actions.
That is about as simple/succinct as I can sum up my instincts.
Do you stop at drugs and guns? Why not include money and intelligence in your qualifier for those who hurt "innocent" others by their selfish acts?
Nope. I don't see where I limited my opinion to drugs and guns. I would drop a heavy hammer on all malfactors whose actions victimized others.
.
) I was prompted to do a little research brushing up on and confirming my fuzzy recollection/understanding of the 2nd Amendment.