Walter Cronkite , War on Drugs

[SelfDefense]

Who is Montel Williams? Is he related to Ted Williams?

It must be DC karma! I was just looking through the television guide and Lo! and Behold!, I see Montel Williams as a title on DTV. (I have no idea what DTV is. Digital Television?)

So, a man and a woman were hawking this blender. I assume the bald, black guy with the mustache and goatee is Montel Williams (Montel doesn't sound like a girl's name.)

He is like Vince, the Slap Chop guy!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

I'm surprised it took someone this long to use that argument. The reason I lumped them together because the arguments for drug abuse legalization do not discriminate between the horrific results from any drug. They use marijuana, a toxic, dangerous and damaging drug simply to open the door to their anarchistic (in the case of libertarians)

Every medicine is toxic and dangerous at one dose or another. Every food ingredient has a lethal dose. So, your argument really doesn't fly.

There is little evidence that your characterization of marijuana is correct. In any case, my position is that our entire system of a "drug schedule" and prescription requirements is paternalistic and wrong headed. A physician should be an adviser. What you put in your body should be your own business. How you reach a decision to use something or not should also be your own business. A wise person would consult a physician, a fool probably not. Think about it. There might be some benefits to the gene pool by allowing liberty?

Actually, our current drug laws do a very good job. The schedule drugs are properly characterized and regulated in a sane and satisfactory manner.

Only partially correct. It doesn't work worth anything for folks who may know they need a particular medicine but lack the 150 bucks to get someone to prescribe it. It also doesn't work very well with the excessively extensive list of agents that are so regulated the docs are scared to prescribe.

This is false. Most states want to keep marijuana illegal. That is a fact. There are some that have provided disinformation to the people regarding 'medical marijuana', as if patients in need require an unregulated, illegal drug. The truth is that the 'medical marijuana' is simply a ruse used by drug addicts.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the medical marijuana thing is mostly a ruse, and a fairly transparent one at that. Still, it doesn't matter because we should tax it and make it legal. Let's do the experiment, as we always said when I was working. If it doesn't work we can re-regulate. We already know what has happened with criminalization.

EVERY other prescription drug is regulated as to doas and is approved by the FDA. That governmental organization makes our drugs the safest in the world and is the primary reason we develop the most effective drugs.

My point, we don't need "prescription" drugs. Dispense what folks think they need. Maybe do so with pharmacist consult/approval. If someone wants medical advice they can go and get it. Otherwise if someone wants an asthma inhaler they can go and get it. If they have pneumonia instead of asthma and take the wrong medicine, too bad. People make bad choices about all sorts of things all the time. Why should we spend our tax money protecting folks from themselves. Its funny, some of the very same folks who might yell if it was suggested that motorcycles be illegal to save lives, have no problem telling people they can't have freedom to take whatever meds they deem necessary.

[Above is something of a devil's advocate argument for the sake of discussion.]

We allow some dangerous stuff to be sold OTC while safer alternatives are sold by prescription only; the system isn't as rational as you think.

[Above is a devils advocate argument for discussion sake.]

And, what the drug addicts don't want to hear, is that there is medical marijuana. It is called marinol and can be prescribed for REAL patients that require medical care.

I can't comment as I'm not familiar with it or the rules for prescribing it.

What did you think? Of course my view is that each state should make drugs illegal and the Federal government should protect our national borders against incoming drugs.

Oh, so you want the feds out of the prescription drug regulation, now? Leave it to the states? Your position is inconsistent.

I find the laws largely ineffective because many people condone illegal drug use and are unable to understand the harm it does to society. These people are self centered and narcissistic, an attribute of drug addicts.

I find the laws ineffective because many people are ill and self-medicate. Maybe if we straighten out the health care insurance mess some more folks will get the psychiatric care they need.

Fortunately, most people understand the harm, which is why illegal drugs are illegal.

Depends again. Which agent. Too many lump everything together as if everything was equally harmful.

Demand is driven by the attitude of some that think drug abuse is not a problem. That mindset is taught to children.

Drug abuse starts in either of two ways-- a) a foolish try to see what it is like; b) an effort at self- medication. For various reasons I've had to deal with some who found themselves in jail because they felt they had no choice but to self-medicate. I once had a desperate woman phone me for assistance because her excessively anxious husband was heading to jail. His crime, he forged a prescription for a benzo which a competent doc would have prescribed for him anyway if the doc bothered to look at the mental state. He didn't have the bucks to go see a doc.

You get local news that srious crime is at a minimum? Almost every day, it seems, I hear about one or two murders in Tucso, or a home invasion, or a bank robbery.

I was talking about where I live. We get one or two (rarely) murders a year. Almost no home invasions (an armed populace being one reason), and very little serious crime. But still, our courts are jammed.

However, serious crime does not diminish the necessity of curbing other crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors.

Crime needs to be fought, but we don't need to make everything under the sun illegal because some prissy gets upset.

[SelfDefense]

Every medicine is toxic and dangerous at one dose or another. Every food ingredient has a lethal dose. So, your argument really doesn't fly.

I am not concerned, necessarily, with the toxicity or lethality of some drugs. I think that is reason to regulate their distribution but that is another topic. Those drugs are LEGAL and serve a USEFUL PURPOSE.

There is little evidence that your characterization of marijuana is correct. In any case, my position is that our entire system of a "drug schedule" and prescription requirements is paternalistic and wrong headed. A physician should be an adviser. What you put in your body should be your own business. How you reach a decision to use something or not should also be your own business. A wise person would consult a physician, a fool probably not. Think about it. There might be some benefits to the gene pool by allowing liberty?

Your argument does not apply to illegal drugs. It doesn't apply to many legal narcotics, either. Look a Rush Limbaugh. His pain required mitigation by a very powerful and addictive narcotic. Only the fact that his actions were illegal was he able to curb his problem (hopefully.) Can you imagine society if oxycodone were available as readily as ex-lax?

Only partially correct. It doesn't work worth anything for folks who may know they need a particular medicine but lack the 150 bucks to get someone to prescribe it.

Let's not get into the money thing now...

It also doesn't work very well with the excessively extensive list of agents that are so regulated the docs are scared to prescribe.

One of the problems is that regulatory agencies monitor doctors and their propensity to prescribe scheduled narcotics. That is not a particularly bad thing as it deters doctors from willy nilly prescibing large amounts for people that don't require the treatment. And, no, individuals do not have the capacity to prescribe themselve powerful drugs any more than a citizen should be able to buy a cruise missile.

Of course, all this is off topic to the illegal and provenly harmful drugs that the libertarians promote as a 'right.'

I'm inclined to agree with you that the medical marijuana thing is mostly a ruse, and a fairly transparent one at that. Still, it doesn't matter because we should tax it and make it legal. Let's do the experiment, as we always said when I was working. If it doesn't work we can re-regulate. We already know what has happened with criminalization.

How did that work with alcohol? That is what the marijuana addicts want. Once legalized, it will be next to impossible to make it illegal. Legalization will simply legitimatize the deterioration of society.

My point, we don't need "prescription" drugs. Dispense what folks think they need. Maybe do so with pharmacist consult/approval. If someone wants medical advice they can go and get it. Otherwise if someone wants an asthma inhaler they can go and get it. If they have pneumonia instead of asthma and take the wrong medicine, too bad. People make bad choices about all sorts of things all the time.

If a kid wants twenty milligrams of oxycodone a day then you have no problem with him buying it at 7-11?

Why should we spend our tax money protecting folks from themselves.

THAT IS NOT MY POINT. My point is that it arms society with loss of productivity, on the job injuries, inability to learn and a degradation of society.

Its funny, some of the very same folks who might yell if it was suggested that motorcycles be illegal to save lives, have no problem telling people they can't have freedom to take whatever meds they deem necessary.

I only have a problem with people who complain about seat belt laws and helmet laws because I am forced to pay for their stupidity. A famous saying is that motorcycle riders that do not wear helmets do not need them.

Oh, so you want the feds out of the prescription drug regulation, now? Leave it to the states? Your position is inconsistent.

My position is completely consistent. Exactly what part do you think is not?

I find the laws ineffective because many people are ill and self-medicate. Maybe if we straighten out the health care insurance mess some more folks will get the psychiatric care they need.

Some people are lazy, self centeredand think they must be in a state of euphoria at all times. it as nothing to do with being ill or requiring psychiatric care. It has everything to do with lack of character.

Crime needs to be fought, but we don't need to make everything under the sun illegal because some prissy gets upset.

It as nothing to do with prissy, but rather sociey's determination of haw we want to live our lives.

[SilenceDoGood]

Selfdefense, the simple fact that you're the only one who thinks we should continue the war on drugs should tell you something about societies opinion.

Standing by for you to tell me how I'm wrong.

[SilenceDoGood]

+1000

[SelfDefense]

Selfdefense, the simple fact that you're the only one who thinks we should continue the war on drugs should tell you something about societies opinion.

Standing by for you to tell me how I'm wrong.

You are clearly and obviously wrong. The fact that illegal drugs are ILLEGAL is sufficient evidence to completely rebut your assertion.

These type of responses remond me of the Daily Kos, where the people there are unable to respond in other than an emotional, self satisfying attack. You should learn a lesson from Hopyard, who disagrees with my views but presents his points in a logical manner without untoward animous.

I am beginning to believe that libertarians are actually more closed minded than liberals and resort to exactly the same tactics when confronted with rational discourse.

[Pure Kustom]

[SelfDefense]

Just curious, but do you think gun owners should present a more mature face than displaying childish emoticons instead of rational argument and debate? If you have nothing substantive to add, why bother to read or post?

[JD]

Temporarily closed for review.