Well last night after publishing my most recent post, a rather interesting issue was brought to my attention. A comment was left on the the post saying “On the one hand you talk about protecting your “freedoms”, while on the other you talk of restricting other people’s right to choose to consume a relatively harmless substance like marijuana. Sounds more like fascsim to me.”
So let me get into this a little bit. First of all let’s learn the definition of Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
The post had nothing to do with racism, It clearly defined that it would not be a good idea to open the border’s because of the amount of drugs that are being trafficked at this point let alone, when they open the border’s and there is nothing stopping them from coming across with a clean conscience. I did not say anything whether or not that it was Americans trafficking drugs, or if it was Mexicans trafficking drugs. I just wanted people to be aware of the fact that they are being trafficked at this point at a high amount, I could not even imagine the amount after the union.
Second of all, I do want to protect our freedoms, but guess what? smoking weed is not a freedom, it is not a privilege, and last time I checked it is still against the law. Thirdly, I guarantee the money seized in those pictures was not all attributed to marijuana sales.
And last but not least, Marijuana is not “Harmless” it is still a drug, and a gateway drug at that. It still gets you mixed in with the wrong people, which gets you mixed in with the wrong stuff, which puts you on a sweet highway to nothing. They can lead you down a path of no return. They can hinder your whole life, and the way that you see things. They change you so much, that it is extremely hard to rebound from it. With help you can return, if you don’t believe me ask my friend Robert at www.becomingwellnow.com
I didn’t mean to get off on a tangent about the use of marijuana, but I do not agree at all that it is harmless, and I do not believe that my views are racist at all, if you know me, you would not think that for a minute. But I do believe in our freedoms, and privilege’s that can be taken away from us if we are not careful.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Bro,
You are right on. The first drug I used was pot and almost every drug addict I ever counseled used pot at one time or another. Here is the thing: Not every person who smoked pot became a drug addict, but almost every drug started out smoking pot. You can roll those dice if you want, but not me.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
So you’re taking the old “it’s against the law because it’s against the law” argument. How’s that working out for you?
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
try reading the 9th and 10th amendment. You don’t like drugs, cool. But nobody gets to tell a free nation or its free citizens what drugs they may or may not consume.
Further, the banning of hemp-products for industrialization sure is nice for the Hearst corporate families. Follow the money kids, follow the money.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
A few points…Your intentions are probably good…
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The fact that a right is not listed, does not mean it is not a right. The fundamental right is to make stupid decisions and face the consequences of those decisions.
Second, you may not be motivated by racism, but there’s little doubt in history that the anti-pot and anti-opium movements in the early 20th century had everything to do with keeping the Mexicans and Chinese from immigrating too quickly. Its no accident that alcohol is tolerated and even glorified while similar alternatives that caught on in other cultures are demonized and criminalized.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Nice strawman argument. The dictionary definition of fascism contains the word racism so you address your argument almost entirely to that point. In fact, the the definition you quoted contained the words, “aggressive nationalism and often racism”. “Often racism” doesn’t mean always racism. Regardless of your view on how racist our nation is currently, it is quite clear that the national government is enforcing its will on all other levels of government (domestically, and internationally).
Our federal government can do this against the will of many state and county locales because in sum our citizen’s nationalism supports our federal governments efforts to usurp powers historically granted to more localized governmental bodies.
Oh and Robert, every single addict you ever counseled also drank water, ate food, and breathed air. There is a big difference between correlation and causation.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m curious, how many of those addicts also drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes? Marijuana is considered a drug because the government has classified it as such, alcohol and cigarettes are controlled substances as well and really no less harmful than marijuana. see the british lung foundations study, nothing shocking in terms of effects. As far as “gets you mixed in with the wrong people, which gets you mixed in with the wrong stuff, which puts you on a sweet highway to nothing.” Wow. Do you realize how many successful people out there have tried it? Is it the pot or the person? Would there be another excuse if pot weren’t in the picture?
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
It’s legal in California.
Not every person who drinks water causes a car accident…but EVERY person who HAS caused a car accident, has had a drink of water, or some other liquid, at some point in their lives.
It’s just not right.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Not every person who smoked pot became a drug addict, but almost every drug started out smoking pot. You can roll those dice if you want, but not me.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“And last but not least, Marijuana is not “Harmless” it is still a drug, and a gateway drug at that. It still gets you mixed in with the wrong people, which gets you mixed in with the wrong stuff, which puts you on a sweet highway to nothing. They can lead you down a path of no return. They can hinder your whole life, and the way that you see things. They change you so much, that it is extremely hard to rebound from it. With help you can return, if you don’t believe me ask my friend Robert at http://www.becomingwellnow.com”
Recent studies have disproved all previous claims of marijuana causing cancer and brain damage. The only harmful effects is damage to the lungs from the smoke, which is comparable to that of smoking cigarettes. It is not addictive, and it’s not a “gateway drug”. I know many people that smoke pot regularly and have for years and never once used any other type of drug and some even refused to drink alcohol.
But whether it is harmful or not is not the issue on whether it should be legal. It should be someone’s own decision what they put in their body. If the government wants to keep us from hurting ourselves then they might as well start arresting people who attempt to commit suicide or people who cut themselves.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Every drug addict probably used alcohol, too, and before they ever used heroin or meth . . . Further, while it is obviously not a “right” under current law, I believe what people are arguing is that it should be, just like the right to consume alcohol and become an alcoholic, or smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, or, unfortunately, to become a white supremacist and hang out with a different yet, I would argue, even more unsavory crowd than the hippies and stoners you rail against (apologies for the run-on sentence). Is weed detrimental? Absolutely, to some people. But just as you have firsthand experience with its detrimental effects, I sincerely believe that it has saved the lives of more than one of my friends by mellowing them out and keeping them out of prison, off other substances, or from suicidal tendencies.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Lets start with some facts.
Marijuana has not been proven to be a gateway drug: “Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana’s gateway effect.” [http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html]
Marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than both alcohol and tobacco. [http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/32/]
Marijuana prohibition was started as a campaign to disproportionately imprison Mexican immigrants and field laborers. The war on marijuana today disproportionately devastates the Black and Hispanic male population, despite near identical actual rates of use. [http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html] [http://www.kcba.org/ScriptContent/KCBA/druglaw/pdf/selectedstats.pdf]
Yes, marijuana possession is illegal. However, that bears no significance when discussing what the status of marijuana *should* be. The argument that making marijuana illegal protects people from themselves is, quite simply, foolish. By imprisoning non-violent drug offenders tax dollars are thrown away and the lives of those drug users are harmed far more than if they had been left alone, or provided with counseling.
Your claim that marijuana gets you mixed in with the wrong crowd only holds water precisely because marijuana is illegal. If marijuana were not illegal, there would be no need for marijuana users to deal with dangerous criminals making a profit selling it, nor pushing harder drugs onto them.
Your views may not be racist, but promoting a policy which imprisons blacks at 5 times the rate it imprisons whites for *non-violent* crimes with no victim other than the ‘criminal’ is in effect racist. Besides the irrationality of supporting marijuana prohibition while supporting alcohol legalization which is clearly visible when analyzing their risks objectively - unless, of course, you also believe in alcohol prohibition - the fact that marijuana causes harm to the user is irrelevant, it is their choice to harm themselves. Otherwise, you must concede that we must immediately criminalize sex, alcohol, tobacco, driving, biking, hamburgers, fried foods and the list goes on.
Creating laws to protect people from themselves - i.e. alcohol prohibition in the past, marijuana prohibition now - will always fail, are a waste of taxpayer money and only serve to further harm drug users who need a social medical solution to their social medical problem.
Addressing your rejection of the ‘right’ to consume whatever the hell you want, on what grounds do you decide that a human does not have the right to decide what they put in their body. I am not talking about legal rights, I am only speaking of theoretical philosophical rights. In effect, these are often the basis for legal rights (see the bill of rights). If in fact a person does not have the right to decide what goes into their body, when should the government start prescribing medication, on penalty of jail time? How about ‘nutritional supplements’? Should the FDA have the authority to order you to participate in trials for drug companies? Should they have the right to deny you the ability to take experimental medication, effectively handing you a death sentence? [http://www.reason.com/news/show/118930.html]
While these may seem like extreme examples, they are logical conclusions from the premise that a person does not have the right to control what they put in their body. Think on that.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
See, here’s the thing: There’s this document called the U.S. Constitution which has these two amendments, the 9th and 10th, which say
———————–
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
————————
Now, there’s nowhere in the Constitution where it says that the USofA can forbid people to use caffeine, or alchohol. or cocaine, or crystal meth. Or pot.
So you can name your own poison if you wish. It’s your right under the Constitution. You’re stuck with the personal responsibility to not use drugs, or to use them responsibly. Understand?
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
stop talking about things you obviously have no idea about
you sound as if you still live with your mother and youve never been to a bar in your life
life experience counts - youre experience of life is retarted
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
censor everything you disagree with - thats the way to retarded views
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Actually, that is a pretty good definition of fascism. The right to freedom, doesn’t define what freedoms are acceptable. I could be wrong, but I doubt you are omnicient, nor know whats best for everyone. Marijuana is one of the LEAST harmful substances known to man. You know I’ve never seen a murderer who wasn’t born, but I’ve seen plenty of people who were born that weren’t murderers, I guess Robert should take his chances with having kids, but not me… Your comment is pure ignorance and the fact that you don’t understand freedom and human rights is sad. As for legalilty, marijuana was made illegal due to racial tensions with mexican workers much as cocaine was banned because of the fear of “cocaine-crazed negros”. I suppose you support torture and don’t approve of habeus corpus. Frankly it is ignorant people like you that make our country the racist, prejudiced place it sometimes is. Please learn some tolerance, and instead of listening to disproportionate facts from a federal bureacracy that has motivation to lie, do some research of your own.
You are right, I don’t know you but I think that you mistaken. As for your last comment, about freedoms and “privileges” being taking away, maybe you should move to China they are good at that there. Freedoms CANNOT be taken away. THEY ARE RIGHTS, not privlieges given to us by an oversized federal government. Believe it or not, but the Constitution was written to restrain the federal government, not the people. The government can lose its “priviliges”, not its people. Maybe if you understood history you would realize what you are suggesting very much represents facism.
Sorry to sound rude…but you are wrong.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
nice logic there Rob. You know, every drug addict I’ve ever known has eaten a sandwich, but not everyone who eats sandwiches becomes an addict. so what sort of relationship can we determine exists between sandwiches and drugs? And as far as the blog post above, you just helped prove why MJ should be made legal. IF it is a “gateway drug” (which is not proven) it only is because of the fact that you can’t get it legally. “It still gets you mixed in with the wrong people, which gets you mixed in with the wrong stuff” If you didn’t need to go to a dealer of illicit substances to find it, you wouldn’t be exposed to illicit substances, and therefore you wouldn’t get mixed in with the “wrong stuff”. If they would just sell it at the local Walgreen’s and tax it, multiple problems solved!
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
This just in 100% of drug users at one point or another were teenagers! Could it be that being a teenager leads to drug use?
The Gateway drug argument is ridiculous and has been disproved more than once… It isn’t the Marijuana that does it and the gateway effect is a horrible argument against it’s legalization. If Tobacco or Alcohol was illegal that same argument would be made against them. It is the illegality that is the gateway. Marijuana doesn’t do serious harm to your body, no more than alcohol or tobacco anyway, and it is truly impossible to overdose on.
But since it is stupidly illegal and so many people enjoy it… the idea of not doing things because of their illegality begins to be less and less of a barrier… that is what leads to further drug use, not marijuana itself.
Reply
January 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Almost every drug user I’ve ever met started out using alcohol and cigarettes.
Reply
January 26th, 2008 at 12:56 am
You are totally correct! Right after the first time I smoked pot, a heroin dealer talked me into trying to shoot smack and i did and I lived in my car for 14 years until I found Islam.
Praise Allah! He cured me of my addiction!
Reply
January 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
‘Gateway drugs’ are a myth. Marijuana does not get you ‘mixed in with the wrong people’. Plenty of respectful and productive people have tried, sold or even grown marijuana. It is true that some people who sell marijuana also sell other drugs and they may try to get you to try the other drugs they are selling. This has nothing to do with marijuana itself and everything to do with the kind of people who control the majority of the drug markets. Marijuana gets blamed as a ‘gateway drug’ because it is more popular than all other drugs. If it were treated like alcohol or tobacco, then the connection to other drugs would be gone because it would be taken out of the hands of people who deal other drugs. In summary, marijuana does not lead to the use of other drugs. Some drug dealers push the use of other drugs. If you don’t want to deal with that, but still want to smoke pot, simply buy from people who only sell pot or grow your own.
Reply
February 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Bottom line, in the US, the citizens elect their leaders. We live in a representative democracy. Under our social contract we have chosen to live by the rule of law. Some might argue I didn’t participate well then that is your fault. By not participating you are essentially stating you don’t care. Granted it tends to be a Majority rule with some protection of minority rights. Freedom of press, religion ect the basic bill of rights. And even then you cant go yelling fire or bomb in a theater or airport and call it free speech. Hey, In Turkey you are not even allowed to wear a religious head covering. But this is the US we are talking about.
If you want to legalize a drug, be it Marijuana, MDMA or Sodium Fluoroacetate rally enough support and implement this into the Rule of Law. This can be done at the local level such as the 10th amendment granting States Rights or at the National level. Well if it is done at the state level and the substance crosses state lines where bordering states don’t have the same laws you might have to deal with the federal government. So pass it at the State level then grow, manufacture or synthesize your own substance. But until that law is passed it is Illegal. Against the law which you have chosen to either elect or failed to elect your ideal representative. You will face charges if caught with illegal. If you don’t like it change the laws or move to a nice Island that doesn’t have laws against drugs. Oh yea good luck with that, there aren’t many that don’t have a non militant truly repressive government. Another alternative, just buy your own Island and let as many people enjoy their true freedom and you govern the masses. It is evident even by this thread that those that are arguing for the legalization of Marijuana are still the minority. Keep on the fight!
Reply