Skip to main content

View Diary: Inaugural DK Elections Policy Weekly Open Thread: What Issues Are You Interested In? (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  These are interesting issues (0+ / 0-)

    I agree completely with #s 2 and 4 (except for the death penalty part, I really don't care either way on that one). As for #3, I'd be uncomfortable with shrinking the military by 50%, but I'd be okay with 20%.

    As for #1, could you please give a rational explanation on why you think marijuana should be legalized? I happen to disagree with you on that one, so I'm curious as to the reasoning behind your position.

    As for my niche issues, this is more of a local issue than a national issue, but municipal budget referenda need to end immediately. These referenda have crippled the public schools in many towns in Connecticut, including mine.

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  should alcohol and tobacco be banned? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, jncca

      People drank less during Prohibition, but most people view it as a policy failure. Marijuana has far more in common with alcohol and tobacco than with hard drugs. As such I think we'd be better off taxing and regulating it instead of criminalizing it. Let's get some money going in instead of going out.

      For the record, I think it's pathetic when people brag about smoking pot.

      SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 04:02:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Response (0+ / 0-)

        Tobacco should be phased out over a period of 25 years, eventually leading to its being banned. It would be impractical to ban alcohol, seeing as its use is not decreasing the way tobacco use is, however I think the alcohol tax should be increased significantly.

        I'm against marijuana use because I see it as a public health/public safety issue, and marijuana is clearly harmful to people.

        (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

        by ProudNewEnglander on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 04:33:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not clearly harmful (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca

          there are no reported cases from anyone dying from marijuana usage and studies have recently demonstrated that there is no link to lung cancer like there is with tobacco. Furthermore it has several very clear medical uses unlike alcohol. I'm not saying it's 100% unharmful, but it's magnitudes safer than alcohol and even some of the shit people include in their diets. If it's impractical to ban alcohol, it's also impractical to ban marijuana.

          •  This seems to be where (0+ / 0-)

            we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that science has shown that marijuana is both dangerous and addictive, and thus harmful.

            Just by perusing the Wikipedia page, I found that marijuana:

            Can cause female infertility
            Can cause children of users to suffer from cognitive defects, concentration disorders, and hyperactivity
            Is moderately (though not hugely, I'll admit) addictive
            Is correlated with development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression (as much as 60% of mentally ill people are substance abusers)
            Can cause an increased likelihood of committing suicide

            If that's not "clearly harmful" to you, then I don't know what is.

            (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

            by ProudNewEnglander on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 05:52:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  are we using wikipedia to prove things now? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Skaje, R30A

              ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

              by James Allen on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 07:09:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you disagree (0+ / 0-)

                that marijuana causes those things I mentioned? Because everything I mentioned was sourced from studies.

                Also, you have been in favor of using Wikipedia to find information in the past. You can't change your mind now just because you may not like what Wikipedia says.

                (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

                by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 06:48:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  First of all, I absolutely reserve the right (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Stephen Wolf, jncca

                  to change my mind about anything at all.

                  I use wikipedia to try to learn things quickly about something I don't know about, but I don't count on it being completely accurate or cite it like it is.

                  Do I disagree? Frankly I don't care. Other than protecting our basic rights, I don't like using the government's coercive power to regulate private behavior. Not that I'm a libertarian, far from it, but I prefer my state government use the money for public education, health and social services, and keeping us safe from real criminals, not potheads. Even if smoking pot is pretty bad for someone's health, we just don't have the resources to keep it criminalized, enforce it, and still provide excellent public education and services for mental health.

                  ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                  by James Allen on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I see where we differ (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't consider using marijuana (or any recreational drug, for that matter) to be "private behavior". This is mainly because it has effects far beyond just the person who uses it.

                    As for your point about not having the resources, I guess I think that there are always resources. If we don't have enough money, raise taxes on the rich. I think it's possible to both provide excellent public education and good mental health services, and keep everyone drug-free.

                    That being said, I think a lot of the resources that we are using to enforce drug laws are wasted. It seems to me that we need to start using different tactics to enforce drug laws, since what we're doing now isn't working. I think that the DEA needs to focus on supply much more than demand with regard to drugs. Because after all, no one will smoke marijuana if there's no marijuana to smoke.

                    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

                    by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 09:19:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's impossible (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      James Allen, jncca, R30A

                      to eliminate drugs.  The government has been spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades to no results.  Every single drug is available in every single major American city.  We've dumped pesticides on coca crops in South America, arrested or killed countless drug lords and kingpins, waged endless public service campaigns, attacked every step of the drug trade from production to transport to sale to consumption, and nothing has worked.  It's simply impossible to eliminate drugs and our policy must recognize that as step 1.  Once we acknowledge that drugs will always be around, and people will always use them, we can formulate a more sensible policy.

                      •  I disagree, (0+ / 0-)

                        and it seems to me that you have a very defeatist attitude with regard to drugs. Just because something is difficult does not mean we should give up on it. After all, couldn't someone just as easily say that since there will always be stupid people, we shouldn't bother with public education?

                        (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

                        by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:30:45 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That analogy fails though (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Stephen Wolf, jncca

                          Two points:

                          1) Public education is still worthwhile because at least most people are helped, even if not everyone is.

                          2) What benefits have 40 years of serious, national-level drug prohibition given us?  Public education is not perfect, but at least it has some results.  Drugs however are incredibly easy to find, even in the most secure prisons in this country.  Marijuana can be grown in the privacy of one's own home.  There's simply nothing to show for all the money and SWAT Teams and arrests.

                          I am a defeatist on drug/alcohol prohibition because it has never ever worked.  The government keeps showing larger and larger seizures, but all that means is that supply continues to increase unabated (falling prices and increasing purity backs this up).  Tell me honestly that you believe that by the end of this century, with trillions of dollars for the DEA, that any one drug could be effectively eliminated from America.  Do you really think that's a possibility?  If you admit it to even be unlikely, then let us consider alternatives.

            •  Wikipedia also says "my mother is a wh***" (0+ / 0-)

              or other some such nonsense, as its very easy to "vandalize" a wiki entry as it is to post pretty much anything on it, hell, I think KOS himself of MB or someone form this site has had dispute with wikipedia entries and supposed falsied info about them, and, look, I speak from experience I used to be a wikipedia editor myslef on several topics, wikipedia is all user based, hell Stephen Colbert got so pissed about the info that was wrong on his wikipedia entry he purposedly sent his fans to fuck up the site. Made for great entertainment. And proves that while its good to use wikipedia as a entry point in getting decent references on material you are not familar with, its not to be taken as an actually encyclopedia our verified and fact checked facilatator of credible and reliable inforemation.

              Also, the word salad you tossed from wikipedia there, or rather your own bullet points made from what you interupt the wiki entry to be, can be said, even greater though, about alcohol. Again, when will you be reviving the Temperance movement, and calling for reinstating the constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol? HMMMMMM?

              Also...

              Can cause an increased likelihood of committing suicide
              I have my bullshit detector going on full blast.

              Where is this such a case? Whom commited suicide after lighting up? Where is this supposed case of death that occured? If there isn't one, then this statement on its head is absolutely false.

              As pointed out now by Sanjay Gupta of all people now, there has been one death contributed to the actual taking and using the marijuana substance, not from overdose, and  assumably  suicide as well or that would have been mentioned in his piece he did on this, and you don't get any more anti-marijuana than Gupta before his abrupt and recent about face, and its over this case with this kid in Jersey.

              If that's not "clearly harmful" to you, then I don't know what is.
              I'll spit this right back at ya... If that's not "clearly fear-mongered" to you, then I don't know what is.

              I bet you have Reefer Madness on blu-ray and watch it ten times a day. I bet you believe Reefer Madness was a documentary and not a proganda film, don't you? I bet you think this song is about you... dontyou, dontchou...

              lol.

    •  My views on drug laws (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, jncca, Stephen Wolf, R30A

      do tend towards the libertarian, perhaps even extreme.  Legalizing marijuana is a pretty popular position among Democrats these days, but I would go further and remove the criminal penalties for all drugs.  It comes down to my core belief that people have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies, no matter how dumb or harmful it may be, as long as it hurts no one else.  I know the response to that argument: "Drug use does hurt other people, there are social costs, etc."  I reject that argument.  There are tons of lifestyle choices that arguably hurt society, like not exercising, eating fatty foods, being willfully unemployed, listening to dubstep (I kid).  Seriously though, rampant obesity costs this country way more than marijuana ever could, but I'll be damned if we have to start legislating what kinds of foods people can eat.

      From your other posts, I see you would support a ban of tobacco, and would also ban alcohol if only less people were drinking.  I won't argue against the social costs of alcohol and tobacco (which kill more people than all other drugs combined), but again, it comes down to personal freedom for me.  I truly do believe that adults should be able to do whatever they want without directly harming another person.  It's a great responsibility, and many people prove themselves not able to handle it.  But that is where my "treat addiction like a mental health issue, not a crime" platform comes in.  Give people the support they need to break their addiction, without fear of imprisonment.

      I would see marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, and a few other mostly harmless hallucinogens made completely legal as with alcohol and tobacco.  The harder drugs, I would not allow sold by private companies (the profit motive would be too dangerous), but rather provided by the state directly to addicts.  It's not an optimal solution, but at least it will cut gangs and cartels out of the money.  In a perfect world, stuff like methamphetamine wouldn't even exist.  But in our world, it always will, so we might as well deal with reality, and help those poor souls who are addicted to it in the only way we can: by helping those who want to help themselves, and allowing those too far gone to care to do their habit in a government building, rather than on the streets.  I do believe the latter is an extreme minority among drug users, and that the government setting, complete with counselors and health professionals, would do more to help people kick their addictions than fear of imprisonment.  I never think jail is the answer for addicts.

      •  I appreciate your explanation (0+ / 0-)

        and yeah, my views on drugs are about as far from libertarian as can be. My views are mainly based on my belief that what is good for a large number of people is more important than what is good for a small number of people (see my signature for where this came from). It's hard for me to support that much personal freedom for people when (as you state) so many people abuse it.

        In addition, I would argue that drug use is different from the other lifestyle choices that you mention simply because there is absolutely no good reason at all to use recreational drugs. Nothing good has ever come out of any recreational drug use. Some people are genetically predisposed to be obese (not that I'm defending obesity, but I had to throw that fact out there), and food is a necessity for all humans. Recreational drugs are not. Thus, I would argue that the social costs of recreational drug use are enough to warrant marijuana (and others) being banned.

        That being said, I know how much recreational drug use has cost America, and I think that putting nonviolent users in prison is a bit much. I'd support a system of mandatory rehabilitation after a drug conviction, where drug users are cured of their addictions and their urges to use drugs. Then, they would be on probation for a year, to ensure that they don't relapse, and thus they can continue to live their lives, just without drugs.

        Finally, one other concern I have about legalizing marijuana is that it could lead to the legalization of more dangerous drugs, and your comment has confirmed this concern. Quite honestly, if the U.S. ever legalizes something like LSD, I'm be very tempted to move to Canada (assuming Canada doesn't also legalize LSD).

        (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

        by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:33:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  teen pregnancy has all sorts of social costs too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca

          should we criminalize teen sex and pregnancy?

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:16:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you missed my point (0+ / 0-)

            Sex has other uses besides getting people pregnant (just as food has other uses besides making people obese), and sex can result in good things (like children). Drugs are different, because nothing good can come out of drug use. Thus, quite simply, drugs are no-good and all-bad. Using them is a lose-lose-lose situation.

            Good things can come out of food and sex. Nothing good ever comes out of drug use.

            (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

            by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:29:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure how you can say that junk food (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, jncca

              has a use while certain light drugs do not. Both exist solely for entertainment value and create some degree of harm for the user. For both, the only negative external effects are decreased labor productivity and increased health costs (which are such broad externalities that they could be used as a justification for regulating literally anything).

              I don't think either light drugs or junk food should be banned but I can't begin to see how you can make a reasonable case that light drugs should be banned but junk food (particularly things with no redeeming nutritional value like sugary drinks) should not.

              27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

              by okiedem on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:48:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  teen sex can create children (0+ / 0-)

              and that has negative effects on people's potential and for society, not often positive ones, and it's main other use is deriving pleasure or relaxation, just as with recreational drugs.

              It's a pretty close analogy. And just like recreational drugs, or prostitution, or alcohol, banning it will not stop it.

              ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

              by James Allen on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:24:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Both you and okiedem missed the point again (0+ / 0-)

                so I'll reply to both of you at the same time.

                I know that junk food and teen sex can be (and in fact usually are) bad. But sex and food (yes, even junk food) are not always bad. There are scenarios where eating junk food, while not a good thing, has a neutral effect. Using drugs, however, always has bad effects. There is no logical reason to use drugs.

                In addition, people have cravings for food and sex. This is perfectly natural. However, it is not natural to have cravings for drugs. Any cravings that people do have are results of addictions that are completely unnatural.

                Also, think about it. If people stopped eating food, we'd die. If people stopped having sex, the human race would end. But if people stopped using drugs? There would be no negative effects whatsoever. There would, in fact, be many positive effects.

                (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

                by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:36:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  maybe its not that we're missing it so (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  okiedem, R30A, jncca, Skaje

                  much as that you've failed to convince us that your opinion is right.

                  ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                  by James Allen on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:41:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How is drug use always bad? (0+ / 0-)

                  Marijuana is by any possible measure a useful medicine. In my view, a much stronger argument could be made for it being of a net positive value to society than for say oxycontin...

                  Ethnically Bostonian lifelong New Yorker

                  by R30A on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 06:20:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  There are many reasons to use drugs/alcohol (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Stephen Wolf, James Allen, R30A, gabjoh

                  Some days, when I come home from work angry and exhausted, a cold beer is just what I need.  For other people, it's a joint that takes the edge off.  Some people find cigarettes to be calming.  Mushrooms, LSD, and other hallucinogens may sound scary, but to many people they help them see the world in a different way.

                  Perhaps none of these are extremely healthy reasons, but they are reasons with their own logic to them, and just as valid as those for people who respond to stress by binge eating potato chips, marathoning "Law and Order" at the expense of more productive endeavors, or otherwise wasting their day playing video games or gambling or masturbating.  I don't judge what people do on their own time.  Is it unnatural to desire drugs or alcohol?  No more unnatural than to enjoy jumping out of airplanes, climbing mountains, racing cars, shooting model rockets, surfing, observing bears, or any other possibly risky activity that people don't "need" to do, but do anyway.

                •  This is got to be one of the stupidier comments (0+ / 0-)

                  I've read here in a while, and for this place (Dkos) that's saying something.

                  Besdies the fact that I personally don't count sex as being "bad" at all, just maybe some of the results from that act henceforth may be, and that "bad" is tottally subjective and predicated on the indiviual (eye of the beholder), let's try to make any sense of this jumbled up sentiment.

                  Using drugs, however, always has bad effects.
                  Good luck telling BIG PHARMA that... or all the people that modern day medicine has helped people over the decade, despite BIG PHARMA's money grubbing and ill proper and long testing of new drugs. And, yes, don't even go there and argue this, all the drugs the American government considers "illegal" have come from medical purposes and are still used to in various forms to treat medical conditions.
                  However, it is not natural to have cravings for drugs
                  Not so... unles you are looking at this in the most base and literally meaning, because one only takes recreational drugs to achieve a "high", a sense of wellness or euphoria that can not get or achieve by basic function of everday life, which is most people in most of daily life, which is why at the end the day, buds, frinds, co-workers go down to the pub to have a pint or two. The high that is achieved, which is pretty much artifical weather you take recreational drugs, get the high from incredible sex, play a video game, watch a movie, read a good book, all activites in life that humans do that are not required for existed living and procreation, the high is a natural part of brain chemistry.

                  You really come across as anti-science as a climate change denier here, you might want to crack open a biology textbook and actually learn how the brain functions and things like endorphians and the edrianl gland before spouting of this line of bullshit thinking.

                  Maybe you'd like to explain where "thrill-seekers", people who put there own lives on the lines for fun, recreation as well as challenge in your equation of who the world works according to you. Should sky divers and bungie jumpers be treated as the same as a pot somker, beer drinker, or even a heroin shooter? By you're own logic you are displaying here, and for you not to be a hypocirte, you would have to.

                  Lock up all the bungie jumpers, right away!!!!

                  Also, think about it. If people stopped eating food, we'd die.
                  You'd die, eventually, if continued abstince from all forms of substanance, though one does not need to "eat food" to live, think such things as intraveniusly, there are people everyday that live without "eating", though not because they want to, but because they have to usually, but they are hooked up through things live IV bags, of course. And then there are thosde who fast, for religious reasons, for spiritial reasons, for "illusionists" like David Blaine, for spectacle reasons, and for hunger strikers, for political reasons.

                  And, if one is overweight or obese, eating less food would be a good thing for you and in some circumstances may be required. Anyways...

                  If people stopped having sex, the human race would end.
                  Okay.... gotta calm down here...  must resist urge to call you a closet conservative....    

                  Well, let me put it another way, this comment really REALLY comes off as/across as homophobic, because many people, even straight people have sex without the intent or desire to procreate, and with same gender sexual intercourse, procreation isn't even a possiblitly, it might be possible to adopt, use surrogate pregancies, test tubes, or even cloning for same-sex couples to have offspring, but none of that is actual sexual activity , so what exactly are you saying here, that you don't want to consider sex as a vice that could be "harmful" in the views of some in the same boat with your own philosphy on drugs because of the "procreation" meme? Oh, my god, that meme has been used  by some many homphobic bgots as to why we can't get married, and its rather hurtful too see you use it here  on a supposed "left" website, and for your own agneda of keeping Richard Nixon's drug war alive.

                  Also, think about it.

                  We have, quite clearly you haven't, or else you would examined your own words more closely and had chosen better words than  to make it look like you are saying LBGTQs are like heroin junkies or something. Or all the anti-science positions you are taking as well. Again, you not only come off as as far as liberatian, but as far from liberal progressive as you can get.

                  But if people stopped using drugs? There would be no negative effects whatsoever.
                  Not neccessarily, especially if you are talking about involuntary.

                  Voluntarily, you can say that exact quote about anything in life that the human species does not need requirement to live. As I said above, the the adrenline junkies/thrill seekers, but you can even say that about very benign and mundane activites. What if people stopped watching movies, TV? Stopped playing board games like monopoly, stopped playing cards with uncle Lou, etc, I think you get my point. I mean, if noone could achieve a "high" anymore, even ways in whichare coonsidered "natrual " (I don't consider these highs natural as they are refered to in the meida, as all these activities require modern day wares that have to be bought or pay for in some way and didn't exist in nature, until Monopoly boards or TVsets starting growing on trees) the populace would all turn to rather brain mushy zombies, but hey, if thet's the ideal would you want to live

                  (Because afterall, there would be no more enjoymeny out of life, and thusly no reason for us to keep on existing, which is where this philosophicla debate can only conclude to, if you only think are purpose as humans on Earth is to merely procreate, eat sleep and die, and keep the race going for as long as possible, I have to then ask you: "What is the meaning of life?") We may all be incapable of fully answering that question, but it seems like someone like you with the philosophical views you hold can't even hope to answer it in the least, as there is a difference between other living animals on this planet whose also through evolution been given natural insincts of self preseravation and procreation, and that is sentience.

                  It seem like it your views of how the world works, you just chuck sentience right out the window, the quest and pursuit of knowledge, no, we should just be happy and content with "keeping the species alive" and never ask the question "why?" Why keep the race alive, what does it mean, and why are we so egostical in this fashion when the Earth has existed just fine for thousands of millenia, but aparrently the Earth needs us to live, when in all reality, our time here will be but a tiny blip of the Earth's life cycle, hell,  the human race will be long gone even before an "earth killer" asteroid will hit it, much less when the Sun will go super nova.

                  I probably just blabbled on for too long there, but my point is, the human race's best acheievements in art, philosophy and even entertainment have been done while under the influence of some "foreign" substance, too wit most were not even illegal in the Nation of the United States until much much later in it existance. And are still legal and in some cases never made illegal in other nations including first world nations.

                  Really, if you still don't get this, just watch Rachel Maddow's segment this week on Richard Nixon's forming of the "War on Drugs", the war on drugs shouls be stopped because "its too hard", but because it was wrong in the first place, and much like the Invasion of Iraq there was alot of vocal but shut out voices telling you what would be the consequences of delivering such a war, and now we plainly see those points coming home to roost.

                  But if people stopped using drugs? There would be no negative effects whatsoever.

                  But involuntary, yes, you'd see very much so negative effects as hasve been pointed out a millions time not only on Americas current prohibitons in place, but THE Prohibition of the 1920s to which I can only think you are also in favor for, and since you believe that "drugs" are so unnaturally and should be stopped, when are you going to revive the Temperance movement? Not sure what that is/was? Again, crack open a dman text book... kids today, with their anti-book-learning.

                  Go on, the world is requesting you to be their great leader in the great revivla of the Temperance movement.

                  Anyways... I don't think anyone will read this, anyways, being days from when it was posted, but...

        •  At least we can agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, R30A

          that prison is the wrong answer for nonviolent users.  If we could get that changed on the national level, that's like half of the fight right there.  If policy-makers saw drug addiction as a mental health issue rather than a crime, this country would be much better off and we would be saving lives rather than destroying them.  I'm glad we agree there.

          As for the LSD thing, almost no one would use it.  It's a distinctly niche market.  Consider marijuana, the most popular drug in the world...it has been legal in my state (Colorado) for 8 months now and it's not like we're being covered in a haze of smoke.  As far as I can tell, life is just going on.  The potheads before are still potheads now.  Those that had no desire to smoke it before aren't starting now.

          Legalizing LSD would have nowhere near the catastrophic effects you seem to imagine.  I doubt many people would even want to do it (and the ones who do probably already are doing it, as is the pattern with most drugs).  I singled out LSD and mushrooms as safe for legalization and regulation (like tobacco and alcohol) since they stand with marijuana in not having ever killed a single human being, or been proven to have severe health effects.  In that capacity, it's madness that something as dangerous as alcohol is seen as so much safer than LSD and mushrooms.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site