U.S Americans are Top Drug Users
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
We're number one!
We're number one!
USA! USA!
We're number one!
USA! USA!
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Isn't it part of the Libertarian platform to decriminalize marijuanna, iron horse?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I was going to ask the same question...
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
There is a difference between supporting decriminalisation and supporting drug use.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Is there?
I understand supporting free speech but not agreeing with what some individuals say, but I support their right to say it.
But I don't understand allowing individuals to use drugs but then being upset by it. I can see being upset by certain individuals abuse of them, but I don't understand just being upset by the use.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The war on drugs, the policies by governments to use law enforcement to attack drug users has not succeeded and cannot succeed. People can oppose that and support decriminalisation without supporting drug use or using drugs themselves.
The concept that we have freedom of thought and freedom over our minds and bodies also enters into it, one may hold principles of individual autonomy quite highly yet refrain from using drugs. I think that someone can hold the opinion that criminalising drug use is positively harmful but still be upset by the negative effects of drug abuse. It isn't a hypocritical position.
Penn & Teller would be an example of prominent libertarians who abstain from drugs while publicly supporting decriminalisation.
The concept that we have freedom of thought and freedom over our minds and bodies also enters into it, one may hold principles of individual autonomy quite highly yet refrain from using drugs. I think that someone can hold the opinion that criminalising drug use is positively harmful but still be upset by the negative effects of drug abuse. It isn't a hypocritical position.
Penn & Teller would be an example of prominent libertarians who abstain from drugs while publicly supporting decriminalisation.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No one said anything about having to partake in order to support decriminalisation. Penn & Teller are very outspoken about their support to decriminalize drugs, but they also don't judge the use.
I do find a contradiciton in supporting decriminalisation but then turning around and judging it's use. If the article was U.S. Americans are Top Drug Abusers, I can understand the frown, but as it stands it seems somewhat contradictory.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You may feel that it's contradictory but it seems a perfectly fine position to me, I think that it's much more benign than those backing prohibition.
The assumption that drug use is a negative seems very flawed to me, people have no problem with functional alcohol abuse yet because a drug is classed as illegal it becomes wrong.
The assumption that drug use is a negative seems very flawed to me, people have no problem with functional alcohol abuse yet because a drug is classed as illegal it becomes wrong.
unforgettableFOXfire
I serve MacPhisto
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,053
If we learned one thing from the prohibition of alcohol, it's that making something illegal will stop them from doing it and make everything sunshine and rainbows.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
And definitely won't give massive profits to organised crime 
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I agree that the assumption that drug use shouldn't be negative. This is why I'm perplexed by this poster's entry.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I think that he has made a choice against drug use and lives by that, I can respect it. I also think that he doesn't shy away from viewing it as a negative and opposes it. Is it any different than someone supporting abortion rights but opposing abortion? People can support the freer option but maintain the view that the consequences are negative.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I see what you are getting at, but...
I've found very few that support the right to choose, but oppose ALL abortion, they usually understand there is a time and place. The same with drugs, use and abuse are two different things, I just found the post a little curious...
But would he show the same concern if the article was 'U.S. Americans are Top Cigarette Smokers'?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Would I?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No the original poster?
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
It's amazing to me how the drug "industry" pretty much controls everything. Here in Honduras you'd be surprised how many people are involved, how many people are users, how many politicans are getting a "cut" from drug money. I've heard of so many cases where people who were involved with drug money have had terrible deaths (including one where this man from another city didn't want to turn up despite owing someone money so they kidnapped his daughter and had three men rape and kill her on tape and then sent him the tape. He eventually turned himself in only to be hung with a chain.) I've also heard talk of the drug lords sponsoring kidnappings and murders because while you're busy searching for the assassin of so-and-so you're not noticing the coke kilos being moved elsewhere.
I can't help but think if only people would stop doing drugs then maybe these men wouldn't have such power to do these awful things.
I can't help but think if only people would stop doing drugs then maybe these men wouldn't have such power to do these awful things.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Or if they were legal
Which one is more likely?
Oh yeah, like your government or mine would do something that dumb. Make it legal so they would get less benefits? Keep waiting.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Now sure exactly what you are saying.My point is legalization would provide taxes and remove the drug lords.
unforgettableFOXfire
I serve MacPhisto
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,053
My point is legalization would provide taxes and remove the drug lords.
I reckon the suggestion is that corrupt politicians and officials taking kickbacks, bribes, gifts, etc aren't going to legalize something that is lucrative to them personally since then they would risk the ire of the drug lords and also lose out on the monies. They do love the monies. As it is, they can take money and look good politically by fighting a war on drugs that they can't possibly win; pretty win-win for them. Of course, good people suffer, but pfshhh details schmetails.
A stor
Refugee
Thankfully, I am not one of those Americans. At my age, I need all of my brain cells.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A stor
Refugee
So true......I battled with a nicotine addiction for years. Thankfully, I am free of this now.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
My take is, people shouldn't smoke, take drugs or drink booze excessively. (I reserve the right to break any of those rules, of course.)
One thing I noticed....alcohol consumption per capita in the US has gone way down in recent decades, but rate of illegal drug use have gone up...just mentioning that, I don't know what conclusions, if any, to draw from it.
Some - and I emphasize some - Americans seem to be almost puritanical about booze but look the other way regarding illegal drug use..I just find that strange, but it's a cultural difference I suppose.
One thing I noticed....alcohol consumption per capita in the US has gone way down in recent decades, but rate of illegal drug use have gone up...just mentioning that, I don't know what conclusions, if any, to draw from it.
Some - and I emphasize some - Americans seem to be almost puritanical about booze but look the other way regarding illegal drug use..I just find that strange, but it's a cultural difference I suppose.
Similar threads
