If you were a cop

Discussion in 'General' started by cheebaa, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. I'm glad this thread is turning out pretty good. I need to think about this, You've got me thinking.
  2. i'd take it chill and just let them finish, maybe take a few hits and send them along their merry way
  3. haha ive been waiting all my gcity days (yea like ive been here a long time :rolleyes: ) for this post to pop up.

    laxphenom: i still think that would be too much discrimination...what if a few (insert race) people tested negative and were turned away and then started talking? they would sue the testers and or bad stuff would happen. i know youre not "living or dying" about this but i like your input.

  4. That's a good point. But you could always go to a different doctor (/tester) if you feel your current one is racist or something. I respect your passion about this. I don't think it would be too much, exactly. I just think appropriate steps should be taken to make sure people are doing it safely, ya know? Not putting innocent people at any risk...Pretty ironic because i'm normally pretty liberal. I don't usually like "big government" but i do think if legalization of everything were to occur, they'd have to do some role in restricting who has access to what. What i'm saying is you don't want some nomadic loner who's also mentally unstable to get some acid and freak out and run into a busy street trying to flag a car down and get help or something crazy like that. Crazy shit happens
  5. Letem finish

  6. again, the guy who wants acid is gonna get it legal or not....if he's gonna freak out he'll do it legal or not... btw...im not disrespecting but by definition liberals are in favor of "big goverment". its conservatives who want less government interaction. keep giving me other angles i like it.
  7. haha my bad. i only had one semester of poli sci, and that was a year ago....oh well. I suppose if someone wants it bad enough they'll get it somehow. I don't think there's any way to really eliminate that, though. Again, look at alcohol. Underage people drink all the time. I guess all we can do is set some limits, enforce them every so often, and hope no one fucks up too bad.
  8. I'd make him empty his pockets and take half of what he had and tell him to
    have a nice day.

  9. exactly dude, exactly. i wish lawmakers could see that. hell maybe they could boost the penalty for any offense that is done while under the influence of these newly legalized drugs. that would help make people think twice about "just getting fucked up" as opposed to using these tools for harmony and experiencing these keys to exaltation.
  10. does anyone think that not all drugs should be legal? and if so, why? i like this thread bunches.
  11. true. can you imagine how great it would be if people stayed home with a group of friends and just tripped like for a night instead of getting messed up and going out on the town and making a ruccus? just chilling, learning about themselves and doing no harm to anyone....that'd be chill
  12. exactly! what if someone's trip totally made them get their shit together (hmm thats sounds familiar :) ) and instead of hitting the bars and destroying their body (i do that too dont get me wrong) they enjoy a night of peace? what if. what if there are people who can continually use heroin and enjoy the effect without overdosing/becoming an addicted junkie and drain on our society? what if people who contribute to our society and are upstanding citizens werent looked down upon and ostracized because they choose to experience taboo things. what if these things werent taboo? what if the drug culture was embraced and there were shops and special theaters that accomodated and took care of those who wanted to partake in these drugs. what if.
  13. with that i say goodnight...i doubt this thread will be around when i get on tomorrow.
  14. it was good while it lasted
  15. man i wish i had my own lilttle town were weed was leagel and every other drug was and thats about it its the only drug that should be legeal and nothing else yea im sure there would be some black makret but there always is those are i dunno man im to stoned
  16. depends..if they were cheeky little cunts id take ther weed n go hav a sesh..but if they were sik cunts like me lol :D id look the other way..n ask dem for a couple tokes.
  17. Exactly. Native Americans live in such poverty now. WE used biological warfare on them. We raped their women and slaughtered their children.

    We had government agencies (something Indian Affairs) set up to whitewash Native Americans. We actually took their boys and girls away, sent them to military camps, where if they spoke their language, they were beaten. Or, if they even spoke of their culture, they were beaten.

    Its terrible. I'm a history nut. I guess I'm a little bit into anthropology and all that too. Our best theory claims these people were here for thousands of years before white europeans. And we basicly destroyed everythign they lived for for greed, and racism. It makes me sick to my stomache sometimes.

    Has anyone ever been to a Native American village or reservation? Its disgusting what we've done to these people. ITs like once you cross the line onto the reservation, you cross th eline onto a third world country. NExt time I go onto a reservation, I'm damn well sure going to buy some suveneirs that tey try so hard to sell.

    I wish so hard I could give an apology my my ancestors (4 generations ago on my mothers side was an englishmen) to theirs.

    So dont wonder why they can have casinos, dont wonder why they can eat peyote and stuff. These people are closer to any god then any other race, in my opinion. I'm not going to bash the christian church because I hold the utmost respect for someone who can give devotion to something that much (I know I can't).. Whatever.. Forget Imentioned religion.
  18. Man, I wish I would have returned to the City just a few days earlier so I could have caught this thread in it's hour of glory. So much to comment on in the last 4 pages! First let me get the quick comments out of the way:

    Peyote rituals are legal only for members of the Native American Church. Membership requires that you show proof that you are at least one-sixteenth (or maybe it's one-thirtysecond) Native American. Why are they legal for them and not the rest of society? Separation of church and state. That's what it boils down to. Besides, to them, it's a revered ritual not a recreational pasttime.

    "i want to apologize for the sand in my vagina earlier..." CLASSIC analogy! I must remember that one!

    Plans have been offered. Let me take a couple of pages from my research and post them here. All the italicized stuff was taken from researched sources. The non-italicized stuff is my own. Sorry for the length, but trying to say it all over again when I've already said it elsewhere would be too taxing on this aging brain of mine:

    "I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of good will may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse -- for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.

    "... Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?"
    -- Milton Freidman, senior research fellow, Hoover Institute

    In proposing the legalization of drugs, advocates invariably point to the advantages of crime reduction and increased budgetary revenues. As our national attention is currently focused on these two major issues, it is hopeful that these proposed advantages will lead to further discussion and ultimately a repeal of the repressive policy of prohibition.

    Before a repeal can be achieved, a plan must be worked out in which the shift of responsibility can be carried out smoothly and in an organized manner. Such a plan is proposed by Ethan Nadelmann in his article "Toward a Sane National Drug Policy." He proposes the following:

    1. Decriminalize marijuana
    2. Expand methadone treatment programs
    3. Implement needle exchange programs
    4. Repeal minimum sentences for drug offenses
    5. Steer legislative control of policy toward state, county, and city governments
    6. Provide legal distribution of drugs in conjunction with educational information
    7. Allow citizens to be responsible for their decisions concerning drug use

    He continues by suggesting the advantages that such a proposal will produce:

    1.The disintegration of the black market influence
    2. Benefits in the form of tax revenues and profits from sales
    3. Crime reduction due to the elimination of competition among gangs who sell drugs
    4 Reduced prison populations

    This "hands off" approach is intended to abolish the war on drugs in an attempt to allow citizens and communities to make responsible choices concerning drug use. The freedom of choice issue stands out as the only responsible course of action. Upon further observation, this tactic of self regulation will promote personal responsibility, which seems to be a more acceptable incentive than incarceration in the deterrence of drug abuse. When left to their own devices, people tend to make more responsible choices.

    In the course of researching this paper, Terence McKenna has emerged as the ultimate voice of reason in the eyes of this researcher. Although his voice at times appears to call from somewhere out in the cosmos, his opinions and ideas deserve an audience beyond that of the underground radicals and the obscurity of their followers. His ideas promote responsible drug use while, at the same time, preaching a message condemning drug abuse. His eclectic proposal concerning drug legalization is summarized here:

    -- Legal or illegal, from the highly addictive cocaine and heroin to the seemingly innocuous caffeine and sugar, drugs are drugs. When legalized, they should all be taxed - ranging from a 200% tax on the hard drugs to 20% on non-addictive ones.
    -- All drugs sold should carry warning labels regarding their true impact on health.
    -- All foreign aid should be withdrawn from countries that produce and traffic in hard drugs. Proof of compliance through international inspection could restore the aid.
    -- Gun control should be tightened and enforced to restrict the availability of firearms since violent crime and the drug abuse problem feed off of each other.
    -- Possession and cultivation of all plants should be legalized.
    -- Expand insurance coverage to include psychedelic therapy
    -- Financial institution regulation should be strengthened to avoid collusion and money laundering schemes.
    -- Make a national commitment to support scientific research of drug use and abuse. An equally committed stance regarding public education of the issues is also called for.

    One year after implementing the above goals:

    -- Decriminalize all illegal drugs. In doing so, we effectively cut out the middleman, government takes over as supplier and inspector, and the resulting income stays in the US and is applied toward the social, medical and educational costs of legalization.
    -- Pardon all prisoners convicted of drug related offenses except those involving firearms or felonious assault.

    In conclusion to his proposal, McKenna states: "At the foundation of the American theory of social polity is the notion that our inalienable rights include 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' To pretend that the right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to experiment with psychoactive plants and substances is to make an argument that is at best narrow and at worst ignorant and primitive." He has a point there.

    It seems, as I review my research, that the main objection to legalization stems from a fear of the unknown. Not only is the fear of the unknown dimensions of awareness apparent in the controversy, the fear of the unknown effects upon society is surely a concern. By legalizing drugs, aren't we setting the stage for our nation to become a nation of addicts? By repealing the existing drug laws, aren't we sending out a message to the public that we are condoning the use of drugs? The assumption prevalent in such fears is that we are a nation of idiots lacking the capacity for a rational assessment of information. The implication of such an attitude should be insulting to all Americans. Yet this is the attitude implied by the mere existence of our current laws.

    When being offered drugs, shouldn't we be allowed to make a choice based on the information we've gathered? If we answer 'yes', why is it that the choice is already made for us through the presense of existing laws? If our answer is 'no', what choices should we be allowed to make based on gathered information? The notion that we should control personal choice through the imposition of laws is dangerous indeed.

    A more rational course presents itself in the form of education. By supplying both the objective and subjective information on a national scale regarding the responsible use of drugs, it seems logical that we could create an adequately informed populace capable of making a rational choice when confronted with drugs.

    Therefore, I propose that, upon repeal of the existing laws, we initiate a program in which every citizen wll have access to a "drug mentor", a civil servant with an extensive background of responsible drug use. He would administer a program designed to supply the information that will allow for an informed choice regarding drug use. Successful completion of the program by a citizen would permit the issuance of a drug use "license" certifying that the bearer had completed the program and was legally allowed to take drugs responsibly. The details of this plan would take up more space than allowed in this paper. It should be noted, however, that the main emphasis of this plan is on education. Education seems to be the course leading to the desired goal of creating a civilized nation, a nation of truly free people.

    The alternative would be to allow the continued practice of spreading the current misleading propaganda, virtually guaranteeing that, eventually, we will blindly hand over all personal responsibility to a system eager to assume control over our every action. The result? Picture a nation of herded sheep.

    Information on the issue of legalization is plentiful. Information provided in the previous pages addresses a few of the issues contained in the original plans. Most important are the issues of rights and personal freedom, for these are the stakes in the current war. The thought of surrender leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
  19. nice tweech, im so glad someone else feels the way i do.

    yes surrender does leave a bitter taste in my mouth. i wish i just had the authority to make change happen.

Share This Page