Posted at a pawn shop I frequent

[TerryMiller]

Again, correlation does not equal causation. 100% of people who die drink water, so does drinking water cause their death?

Actually, maybe so. Many years ago, National Geographic had an article on water, its significance in life and to life. One of the little blurbs that I remember from the article was that water is a "universal solvent," thus the reason that drinking glasses become brittle over time.

So, there you go...

...maybe so.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

If medical marijuana is truly an effective medication, it should be prescribed and controlled in the same manner as any other medication. There will always be folks that abuse substances. Look at the kids with bath salts, spray paint and glue. But our history shows that we cannot control ourselves sufficiently to avoid being a hazard to the rest of society. The Libertarian idea is great, but when you throw humans into the mix, it just doesn't work.

 

[Ethan N]

The reason we have had to create so many laws is because we, as a society, cannot practice self control.

I agree there’s a disastrous lack of self-control in our society (and it’s mostly government’s doing). I disagree that making more laws is an effective or reasonable response to this change if our goal is a free nation. People are not motivated to self-control by burdensome rules. People are motivated to make good decisions by having the freedom of choice and the prospect of experiencing the natural consequences of their decisions, good or bad.

 

[Ethan N]

"pursuit of happiness" I don't believe is in the Bill of Rights.

And?

 

[Ethan N]

The Libertarian idea is great, but when you throw humans into the mix, it just doesn't work.

How do you know?

It’s easy to imagine a European aristocrat or monarch saying the same thing about democracy in the 18th century. They had the same concerns about self-control that you have brought up. Didn’t think a nation could survive without someone ruling over the masses to protect them from their own poor decisions.

 

[Ethan N]

By the way, @dlmcm, I’m not trying to pick on you. You just keep bringing up interesting points that have interesting counterpoints.

 

[MacFromOK]

There was a time when there were no U.S. drug laws.

I'm guessin' that didn't work out as well as ya might think...

 

[Ethan N]

There was a time when there were no U.S. drug laws.

I'm guessin' that didn't work out as well as ya might think...

The first drug prohibition law passed by Congress was the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. At the time, drug-related crime was largely unheard of and the use of opium in the US had been steadily declining for over a decade. It was relatively common for people to use opium, cocaine, heroin, etc. (which were freely available OTC from a pharmacy, or by mail order from Sears) privately without causing trouble and it wasn’t any sort of major public concern. The motivation for the new law had nothing to do with protecting people from the harmful effects of drugs or drug-related violence. This first American drug law was simultaneously a convoluted attempt to beat the UK in trade with China (where most smoking opium was imported from) and a racist attack on Chinese immigrants (the law applied to opium commonly used for smoking by Chinese, but not to the more processed form of opium used recreationally and medicinally by white people). After short-term shortages of smoking opium, black markets emerged, set up by existing criminal entrepreneurs, who brought their criminality and violence into the drug trade.

The criminal tendencies of the people facilitating the black market gave government the excuse it needed to continuously escalate penalties and enforcement until the legal risks of opium use drove people to harder drugs like morphine and cocaine, which were still legal. The government followed them and made those drugs illegal too. This continued to escalate throughout the 20th century, including the passing of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

These laws have not prevented an explosion of drug use in America beginning in the 1960s, but have made buying and using drugs more dangerous and have funded massive international criminal enterprises as well as the street dealers that are largely responsible for the criminal activity that people blame on drugs. If we legalize drugs, we would cut off funding to the people responsible for much of the non-drug crime associated with drugs.

 

[CHenry]

Another dope thread, ad nauseam; ad infinitum..

Along with the usual suspects, of course.

People who defend their addictions (and, alcohol is addictive, but those are two separate issues. M'kay?) deliberately ignore what we've learned in this last decade. "What might that be?" you ask?

Four simple words: Denver, Durango, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles and San Fransicko. Well, that's nine words, but you get the point. Their massive tent cities, "homelessness" (aka, bums and addicts) have one thing in common, viz. they're drawn together by narcotics. And those cities are the epicenters of states that legalized recreational marijuana. That's the future of Oklahoma but, hey! As long as you get your fix, it's all good.

But, go ahead and rationalize and justify and smoking that crap.

Because at some point the feds are going to merge the pot cards with the 4470 rolls and, when DC does so, they will come knocking.

Smoking cigarettes is bad, but smoking dope is good? Sounds like the rationale of a degenerate addict.

LMAO

 

[CHenry]

There was a time when there were no U.S. drug laws.

I'm guessin' that didn't work out as well as ya might think...

Yes because we know spending 4 billon a year on the war on drugs has been very successful and we should continue that huge profitable campaign.
(Sarcasm. There are 50x more drugs in the US today than 30 years ago...)