If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever)   A surprisingly lucid discussion of the War on Drugs   (whatever-dude.com) divider line 89
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4083 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Dec 2001 at 1:13 PM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-12-07 01:18:01 PM  
just say no.... or was it yes.
 
2001-12-07 01:18:05 PM  
1st
legalize
 
2001-12-07 01:18:25 PM  
Rock and Roll!

Jason!
 
2001-12-07 01:18:35 PM  
beat ya ;)
 
2001-12-07 01:20:03 PM  
I agree with the article, up the the part about the right to bear arms. I enjoy the right to bear arms.

Legs too, for that matter.
 
2001-12-07 01:25:18 PM  
William Burroughs was saying all that 60 years ago. What has changed since? Not a damn thing.
 
2001-12-07 01:28:38 PM  
Way to articulate what is in the back of every burnt out ravers head.

This is a truly pathetic argument for the legalization of drugs, it's innacurate and inmature. It will prolly do more harm than good.
Fark posts this and doesn't post my story about a ex-stripper, present day mayor in coloardo who flashes in local bars and moldels for Ducatti?
Do I have to do everything around here??
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_892864,00.h tml

Sheesh!!!!!
Here it is
 
2001-12-07 01:35:43 PM  
Maybe they were saving your post for this evening, after work?
 
2001-12-07 01:36:59 PM  
"Most arrive at that experimentation crossroad where you either head down the path that allows a vice to consume a life and motivate your every movement. Or you travel down the road were a drug of choice simply serves as a recreational tool to unwind, have a little fun and let a mind float through the clouds for a bit."

What about those that decide drugs are pretty gay? This article was retarded.
 
2001-12-07 01:37:10 PM  
right on - ifeel. although i agreed with some of this article, i would hardly call it original commentary on the 'WOD'. don't think it will change any opinions either, as there is a certain breed that refuse to even engage in reasonable discussion on the subject.
 
2001-12-07 01:40:13 PM  
A growing up process for anyone who isn't attached to their parents' hip.


Or some kids are smart enough to see what the drugs have done to those around them.
 
2001-12-07 01:41:20 PM  
decent article until the hypocrite author decided to slip in the old anti-gun crap. you should be free to smoke doobies but damn you if you want to protect yourself. hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite....
 
2001-12-07 01:43:24 PM  
Some drugs (pot, LSD) aren't so bad.

But all it takes to figure out that all drugs are not good is a set of eyes and directions to the nearest alley in a seedy part of town.
 
2001-12-07 01:44:05 PM  
Permagrined: Don't forget the recent charges that she tried to put a hit on one of the two cops in her town.

Story
 
2001-12-07 01:45:32 PM  
I deserve the right to smoke pot if I want to and...... wait a minute, what are we talking about again? I'm going to take a nap.
 
zkm
2001-12-07 01:49:34 PM  
Does anyone else find it funny that in the same article argueing against 'over-reaching' controls (i.e. drugs being kept illegal) the author also rails against the 2nd amendment? Complaining about the government tyranny while at the same time advocating the elimination of rights guaranteed by the Constitution? I don't wanna debate what the right to bear arms really means, I just wanted to point out how some people only advocate the rights they want while arguing under the guise of fighting for freedoms. That's right kiddies, can you spell hypocrite?
 
2001-12-07 01:49:52 PM  
ever had this conversation with a DA or police officer?
its a very one sided conversation usually ending with
"you have to come down to the station for processing then we will let you go"
 
2001-12-07 01:50:32 PM  
" A surprisingly lucid discussion of the War on Drugs"

When the hell did Jorn Barger start submitting links...
 
2001-12-07 01:58:57 PM  
It's a bit confusing when an article urges people to think more "outside the box" then polarises the 'war on drugs' as being the choice between "youth and experimenting...a growing up process" and everyone else simply being "attached to their parents' hip".

I found it amusing that the author was so insistent on an "open-minded discussion" whilst making the sweeping condemnation that everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is "packing heat...so you can star on Ameica's Most Wanted".

Good read, though.
 
2001-12-07 02:01:06 PM  
yeah, the part abut the guns loses me alittle, i believe we should be able to own firearms... but there needs to be the same right for personal expirimentaition.

i see what the author is trying to say, tho and wether or not you agree with owning a gun, you should have the right to do it. the same should be true for drugs.
 
2001-12-07 02:07:00 PM  
Whatever-dude.
 
2001-12-07 02:09:02 PM  
Drugs are bad mmmmkay? If you do them, you'll die, mmmmkay?
 
2001-12-07 02:13:17 PM  
Discussion? No.

Sappy ass rant by some pothead who keeps getting busted that can't keep his story focused? Yes.

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with this guy, just that his article is too emotional, hypocritical and overall sounds like a whiney highschool student to take seriously.
 
2001-12-07 02:15:40 PM  
Legalize it already.
 
2001-12-07 02:17:37 PM  
i wouldn't be surprised if this article was submitted by a drugs-are-bad farker, since it was mediocre at best.

not a discussion. more of a rant. he assumes that all people who try drugs become either a rec user or a lifer. what about people who discontinue use? do they count?

anyways, i hate the governments war on addic... drugs, but this article sucks. if i were anti-legalization, i would submit this to discredit the legalizit crowd.
 
2001-12-07 02:25:21 PM  
i'd hardly call this a lucid argument, rather a poorly written and thrown-together mish mash of the same arguments we've heard 100 times before. i'm not a fan of the lack of enforcement of gun laws in this country, but why does he have to drag that old horse in for another beating? it just clouds this important issue.

the arguments against the war on drugs can be encapsulated this way:

1) if you're against the war on drugs you must be a user or a dealer, and more recently a terrorist. this is the same logic used in the salem witch trials and by joe mccarthy during the red scare. this prevents any logical discourse: law makers are just too afraid to bring it up.

2) some of the largest business interests in the us stand to lose a lot of money if cannabis is legalized or decriminalized. alcohol, oil, textiles, drug companies, and law enforcement will all lose. with that kind of money & influence behind the war on drugs, logic doesn't stand much of a chance.

3) the argument that more research needs to be done before we legalize cannabis is frustrating because recent legislation has prevented any funding for any reason of said research. catch-22.

the war on drugs is a disaster for civil liberties, the democratic process, and our economy, and has done much more harm than good; but nobody who can make any real change seems willing to do anything about it.
 
2001-12-07 02:27:31 PM  
Ok, I'm as strong a proponent for legalization as they come. But this article is poorly thought out, poorly written, and frankly isn't going to do a damn thing about changing the situation.

If you really want a "surprisingly lucid discussion of the War on Drugs" read this. [economist.com] (Yes, The Economist...)

mh

[/war on drugs]
 
2001-12-07 02:36:38 PM  
Nazijesus--"ever had this conversation with a DA or police officer?
its a very one sided conversation usually ending with
"you have to come down to the station for processing then we will let you go""

Funny story, but I know an assistant DA in Chicago, and she gets furious when someone pages her over a simple user bust. Despite what is portrayed in the media, there are a large number of people in enforcement and in the judicial system who think the WOD is an enormous waste of their resources..
 
2001-12-07 02:39:52 PM  
Drugs aren't all bad, but they still aren't legal. You only have yourself to blame if you aren't devious enough to avoid getting caught.
 
2001-12-07 02:41:35 PM  
it's "suprising" and "obvious"?
 
2001-12-07 02:50:10 PM  
FifthColumn, See what drugs do to the people around them? I really don't understand, other than that it allows people who lead successful lives and have a little fun when they get home. I have a high paying job in a big city, I haven't hurt anybody, stolen anything and I live a pretty morally sound life. but I smoke weed every day. hell, sometimes I grab a bag for some friends too. so all of the sudden I am branded a criminal FOR A FU<KING PLANT. a plant that is the oldest recorded cultivated plant in history. what this guy is talking about has nothing to do with whether or not drugs are bad, it has to do with our personal and I repeat PERSONAL freedoms. in a age where our freedoms are rapidly going the way of the dinosaur, we need to grab the bull by the horns and take back our freedom while we still can.
 
2001-12-07 02:53:28 PM  
Does anybody find it funny that every Whatever Dude article seems to find its way on Fark? They update so rarely that no one seems to notice though.
 
2001-12-07 03:04:07 PM  
Theslowblade

Your: "a plant that is the oldest recorded cultivated plant in history." needs a bit of reflection and examination.

I don't know, but where did you ever get this specious piece of information? NORML? Where is it recorded? On the hieroglyphs in the Great Pyramid? In some sanskrit clay tablet? On some cave wall in Turkey?

Seems to me that, even without doing the research, common sense would dictate that some form of food crop would be cultivated first in the recorded annals of human civilization.
 
2001-12-07 03:06:41 PM  
Most intelligent people don't use drugs, so they don't get too upset about people's freedoms being violated. It's mainly just the dumb people having their freedoms violated, so who cares?
 
2001-12-07 03:12:40 PM  

Very watered-down view on the WOD distraction. Check out the details:



The War On (Certain) Drugs
Interview With Noam Chomsky
Prime-time propaganda
Crime and the Drug War
The Partnership: Hard Sell in the Drug War
Prohibition: The So-Called War on Drugs

In short:



Tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical industries benefit from the criminalization of marijuana
Cotton, paper, and oil industries benefit from the criminilzation of hemp
Prison labour unions benefit from the arrest of so-called drug criminals
Government benefits from payolas from respective industries to criminalize marijuana and hemp
Government benefits from mind-control produced by WOD propaganda

freakystyley
 
2001-12-07 03:14:33 PM  
 
J
2001-12-07 03:19:59 PM  
Perhaps, with the gun-control vs. weed comparison, the author of the article was trying to draw a distinction between the way the rights of Americans are being upheld in one area and squashed in another, while at the same time trying to illustrate just how much more dangerous guns are than drugs for the average citizen to possess, thereby bringing to light the hypocrisy of the situation. Duh.

Because we wish to be treated as adults by society, however, we must treat others as such-- even if they feel they need a gun to defend their homes and we feel we don't. The same goes for people that feel that drugs are a waste of time-- don't do them, and advise your children accordingly. Locking hippies and addicts up with murderers is ridiculous.

"They that would sacrifice a little liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
-Ben Franklin
 
2001-12-07 03:25:57 PM  
well warren peese, the first evidence of cannibus was found on some chinese mummies that dated back to fivethousand years b.c. . one of the corpses had a container with several hemp seeds in it. also, thanks to the chinese having the first written language they kept such exelent records (some of them written on yeah, you guessed it, hemp paper) so we know that it was used for food and paper and of course enjoyment.

playing is for pleasure.
 
2001-12-07 03:30:59 PM  
Okay, my main beef with the anti-drug policy is that marijuana is treated almost identically to oh, say, heroin. MJ really isn't all that harmful. Yeah, sure, the smoke will fark up your lungs, but so will cigarettes. And how many people really smoke 17 doobies a day? (Or however many cigs there are to a pack, I don't smoke) Alcohol and cigs are way more addictive than weed, and truthfully, alcohol will make a person far more dangerous to themselves and others. How many stoners are violent? How many drunks are violent? You get the idea. Yeah, stoners do stupid stuff, and there's nothing like weed to make someone lazy as all hell, but really, what other effects does it have? I will admit that some people become dependent on it, and will do almost nothing but smoke out. Yes, this is harmful. But it's not a valid argument for keeping MJ illegal. These people should be helped, not thrown in jail. Alcoholics aren't thrown in jail (unless they do other illegal stuff while they're drunk, which they certainly do); they go to therapy, or AA.
Now, before I'm labelled a stoner who doesn't know what he's talking about, I would like to stress the fact that I haven't smoked out since June. I just haven't felt a strong need to. I smoked pretty often when I was growing up though, and I don't regret it. I am not ashamed in the least about what I've done. I was valedictorian, and won National Merit, despite the fact that I smoked out. I think I turned out pretty damn well.
So, that is my spiel on MJ.
 
2001-12-07 03:33:12 PM  
Warren Pease said:
"Seems to me that, even without doing the research, common sense would dictate that some form of food crop would be cultivated first in the recorded annals of human civilization."

Naw... they didn't get the munchies until after they smoked out.
 
2001-12-07 03:37:43 PM  
The cultivation of weed dates back at least 10,00 years to the time period directly preceding the agricultural revolution, when several wild species were domesticated by early agriculturalists. One could make a strong case that the foothills of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan was the site of the first domestization of wild cannabis, although the presence of cannabinoid receptors in our brains points to a mutual evolution that perhaps dates as far back as 50-100,000 years. The plant is referenced in Indian Vedic literature that is perhaps 7,000 to 8,000 years old. It is one of the oldest domesticated plants.
 
2001-12-07 03:40:36 PM  
Fark legalizing them, just do like Holland and turn a blind eye to pot.
 
2001-12-07 03:46:48 PM  
If I see that Franklin quote one more time I'm going to puke.
 
2001-12-07 03:48:43 PM  
Cheeseburger amen to that.
 
2001-12-07 03:48:43 PM  
Not a very original article. Old tired stuff, doesn't need to be on a website yet again. It's dead-on for the most part though (though I don't agree with him alienating everyone who doesn't do drugs, some people just aren't interested). There's much more capable people arguing for it.

And the 2nd amendment bash wasn't so bad. Drugs affect nobody but the user. Guns kill people, end of story.
 
2001-12-07 03:49:40 PM  
I hope you do puke.
 
2001-12-07 03:51:32 PM  
great quote, but i too am growing verry weary of it. mabey its too good of a point.
 
2001-12-07 03:51:32 PM  
Propaganda has conveniently distorted our view of hemp and marijuana by lumping it with hard drugs. The fact that the US government is trying to link drug trafficking to terrorism sickens me. Opium and Afghanistan, sure. Isn't it convenient that they didn't mention the CIA?
 
2001-12-07 04:18:06 PM  
Here comes America's first female president!!

She can campaign on a platform of boobies!!

Ex-peelers are going to become an economic and political force to be reckoned with!!

Not to mention their biker boyfriends!!!
 
2001-12-07 04:19:06 PM  
Oooops, wrong thread!!

I meant to say, LEGALIZE IT MON.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report