automatic gun fire

[Lobster]

about 5.30AM this morning, in our street automatic gun fire was heard

Not the sort of thing you expect in suburban London
. . . or maybe you do these days . . . [shrug]
. . . Drug related

I think I better come up with more jokes
http://tmxxine.com/y/wikka.php?wakka=LoveLaff

[Flash]

We're with ya, Lobster. It happens regularly in some parts of the greater Phoenix area. Fortunately not where I live.

If it's any consolation, a TV program called "Mythbusters" fired several kinds of gun straight up to see if a falling bullet could kill someone. They did it in a dry lake bed and then searched for the holes the falling bullets made in the crusted dirt. Then, from the depth of the holes the falling bullets made they deduced whether the bullet could have penetrated a skull. The conclusion was that a bullet fired straight up, or nearly straight up, could not be falling fast enough to do serious damage if it hit you in the head.

[Lobster]

Thanks Flash

The police came to ask for witnesses. The gunfire was directed at the drug house but no car or running was heard. Children are in that house.

My hallucinatory psychiatrist has stopped providing me with drugs (I still keep him in the cupboard). I have nothing against recreational drugs but I have nothing for them either. I would make drugs legal (you wanna take drugs - sure why not) and Microsoft and politics illegal - but that is another story . . .

[amish]

a bullet fired straight up, or nearly straight up, could not be falling fast enough to do serious damage if it hit you in the head.

i can hear it now: "guns don't kill people; people that hold them horizontally kill people..."

[Dyno Spoid]

"I would make drugs legal..." You would? Why? So we have more half-bakes complaining about how unfair life is, demanding more welfare money from those who hold a job?

Do you know that smoking pot kills more brain cells than drinking, and by a huge margin? The pro-marijuana folks don't tell you that--probably because they don't have the capacity to remember it.

Should LSD be legal? That way your co-worker could have a flash-back at work and slice you up with the metal ruler he spent 45-minutes sharpening, for no previously known reason.

How about crystal-meth? That way the low-income people will have drugs too--you probably even have low income people living near you if you're in the USA, thanks to rent subsidies, where they get to live in nice neighborhoods for free, without working, because they're "disabled." That's not to say they lost a leg at work, served in a foreign war, or are mentally slow, it's to say they're fat, lazy, and too messed up from previous bouts with drugs to feel they should work for a living. When their kids break into your garage, car, and finally your house to steal whatever they can for drug money, remember to say, "well, they're disadvantaged." Oh, that's unless you're home, and they kill you with a gun they [illegally] bought off the street [which came over the border with a drug shipment].

If you don't live in the U.S.A. the above may not make sense. Heck, I live in the U.S.A. and it doesn't make sense! I used to run rental properties, and try to keep them "clean." That meant every month or so I'd have to break into a place where they changed out the locks on me, and find their very young children crawling around on the floor in piles of their own waste. (By "very young," I mean a child under the age of 5.) Hopefully the mother left them a pile of dog food, because she's out, uh, what's the politically-correct term for having sex for money in order to fund her crack cocaine habit?

Anyway, I have to wait around 5 to 8 hours for Child Services to come, because these mal-nourished, beaten, burned children became my responsibility as soon as I opened the door. Great. Now --> I <-- have to carry a gun, because if the tenant comes back with a guy, guess who they're going to shoot at? They could shoot at me because: I'm stealing their stuff, I'm in their place, I'm going to have the source of their welfare money taken from them, I'm white and don't belong there, or no reason at all--at least that's what the police told me the reasons have been so far. I don't know if you noticed one reason missing, but I did. "He's taking my kids." No, that one never came up. I have been blamed for the years of abuse by curling iron, lamp cord whippings, lighter, crack pipe burns, etc., all after the mothers were questioned about the years of abuse, but never accused of stealing their children. Kinda sounds like my own 8-hour "detainee" camp, but that's another thread.

So, in the event you haven't figured it out yet: 1.) Illegal drugs are most likely illegal for a reason, and we should actually do something to the people who use them (since they affect all of us), instead of just making a few feel-good arrests here and there when people don't pay the police, government, etc. under the table. 2.) It's the mothers that abuse the children, because they're on drugs. No normal person would do what I've seen, no anyone, not just a child. 3.) "I gots out uh dat bid-ness." Getting shot at is pretty hard to describe, but seeing the rest of it keeps you from sleeping.

[Dyno Spoid]

Can you kill someone by shooting straight up? Probably not. Send them to the hospital? Yup. I think this beggs the question: Do you want to be the test dummy?

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a950414b.html

[Lobster]

"I would make drugs legal..."

You would? Why?

For the same reason I would make prostitution legal. Making something illegal does not stop that behaviour, it just crimminalises it. What is your solution?

[amish]

the typical argument for legalization is removing the black-market value while letting people decide for themselves how much care they want to take care of themselves, in the spirit of a free country.

i had a roommate that had occasional acid flashbacks and he was a pretty gentle person, i never feared for my life around him, even when he was hallucinating. i should mention that i was only around for one flashback ever. the other one bothered him while he was in the bathroom. knew him for years.

there are serious and needless stigmas and (figurative) paranoia about the mentally ill, but there are 100% naturally insane people, enough of which are far more dangerous than an acid head.

you're much less likely to be attacked by someone who does acid (i think people that make poor decisions like dropping acid do it regardless of whether it's illegal or not- i have yet to see someone say they'd never drop acid "cause that's illegal man!") and much more likely to be mugged to pay for illegal drugs. they are much, much more expensive on the black market. that money's gotta come from somewhere. most of the dangers of drugs to those of use that don't want to be bothered by them are from the buying and selling underground. so people get wild ideas like legalization.

as for marijuana advocates, i don't think the rastifarians are brainless, i haven't tested their short term or long term memory but the pot smokers i knew seemed pretty bright, george washington and the mormons both wanted to build an agrarian economy on hemp, and i think that marijuana is quite obviously much safer (and less addictive) than the harder narcotics they give to patients suffering from chronic pain related to cancer and other diseases, but it's politically inconvenient.

as for the circular "1.) Illegal drugs are most likely illegal for a reason, and we should actually do something to the people who use them (since they affect all of us)," i would counter (using similar logic) that 1. proposed legalization is most likely proposed for a reason, and we should actually do something about the situation, since it affects all of us. (for one, people get shot by dea agents for living across the street (oops! sorry wrong door...) from people that are making huge business off drugs being illegal, which they wouldn't be able to do if you could buy it at the store, hmm.)

i think i've done a pretty good job of defending the idea of legalization, but i've never heard very good reasons for the war on drugs, except "drugs are bad, m'kay?" well, sure they are. mental illness is bad too, but i'm also against locking anyone up just because he's nuts. we don't have room to do that anyway, since the jails are full of drug users, which we busily apprehend using resources that could be used to go after the distributors.

but that would fail to send the right "mommy and daddy want what's best for you" message i've come to expect from a government that is supposedly a servant of the people, yet orders it around anyway. personally i believe authority is the deadliest drug there is, and it's so rare that i have the priviledge of meeting someone that isn't addicted. the main argument against authority, of course, is that it is always abused. i can't say that about pot, though. it has perfectly legitimate uses, and has never proven to my satisfaction as addictive or intelligence-draining as network television.

[Pizzasgood]

Disclaimer: When I say "me" in the following post, it is the hypothetical me. I do not do drugs or desire to. My mind is "naturally" warped enough, and I value what little of it remains
--------------------------------------------

I haven't made up my mind yet, and even if I did I'd have to re-analyze it because the world is dynamic, not static, and I'm always learning something new. At the moment I'm leaning toward legalization for the simple reason of: Who's to say what's right and wrong?

If they can say that I can't smoke because it's "bad for me" then what's to stop them from telling me I can't drive a motorcycle or snowboard? Or eat ice-cream or very-hot pizza for that matter?

Then there are the aformentioned problems of crime to pay for over-priced drugs.

Yes, they have the potential to harm me. That's my problem. Now, the problem I see with legalization is the also aformentioned problem of affecting others. That is unacceptable. But, should we arrest someone because they might hurt someone? Well, I might go skydiving and have a bad chute and break my fall on somebody. If I do, arrest me. But should I be arrested because I might? NO.

I might eat some spicy chicken, have watery eyes imparing my vision, and trip with my steak-knife (maybe I've been craving meat) and stab someone. Whoops. But that doesn't mean spicy chicken should be illegal.

So what to do? Well, what do we do with the legal drug alcohol? We persecute them when they behave irresposibly, such as driving or assualting somebody. So apply that to other drugs.


Now, as for the whole welfare issue, that is an entirely different topic and thus irrelevant. If welfare pays for a bad lifestyle, then welfare needs fixing (or abolishing). But that is separate. If a car is broken, you fix the car, not the driver. As it's separate I'm not going to get into it other than to say that my personal belief is to help kids (since they'd otherwise "inherit" some bad conditions if unfortunate enough to be raised by utter twits), but let the adults help themselves for the most part. Hold the door, or help them stand up. Don't build them a castle.

Do punish the parents for screwing up their kids though. I don't know what the laws currently do, and I'm sure they differ from place to place, but the parents should definately be punished for messing up their kids. They aren't just messing up another person for a while, they're potentially ruining their kid's lives and possibly causing more harm to the rest of society by creating duplicates of themselves.

[SnowDog]

I don't know about London, but in Northern Manitoba (the place where Helen Betty Osbourne's 1971 murder, still goes largely un-punished) , the gunfighter types would likely enjoy the atmosphere.


Enclosed is an excerpt from something written by an acquaintance, somewhat related to the alcohol and drugs topic.

"Out here in the bush, you can apparently get away with driving drunk and stoned, driving un-registered vehicles, hiding un-registered guns at your buddy's place while under arrest for assault and breach, leaving the scene of an accident and thereby causing several other accidents, driving under several impaired convictions, etc. etc.

Especially if you drive a large truck. A tractor trailor, hauling super-b's is the preferable weapon for alcoholics, but if all your daddy will buy you is a sewer truck, hey, you can only do what you can do. You are also largely permitted to hire and pay cash to un-licensed drivers to operate these trucks, while you go poaching ... I mean fishing.

Be warned though... if you get drunk around here and team up with another criminal, run a kid off the road and steal his bicycle and ruff him up, there will be serious consequences.
Eventually, (after a month or so and several calls to the office of the superiors) this can sometimes result in an officer taking a statement against you. He will, of course, inform the young victim and his mother that: "we can't do anything because we didn't actually catch the criminals in the act" and.. "we would have responded sooner, but there was an accident in the other direction"

Incidentally, does anyone else's jurisdiction have accidents that tie up all police resources for over a month? I mean besides Chernobyl?

Oh, one more thing that is absolutely not tolerated in the North...
If you happen to own a business that is a bottle return depot... and someone (who incidentally owns two homes) consistently brings you cases of beer cans with the middle (hidden) part filled with non-refundable empty pop cans... and you call them on it.... well, this is a scenario where the police can and will, definitely find some extra resources.

You see, if you get busted ripping off the local store owner, who has floated your sorry ass for gas, booze, cash etc, for years, you do not have to take this foul treatment. You are apparently legally entitled to steal a minimum of .15 cents worth of beer can money, for every 1.00 worth of cans you return (you can even steal the store owners beer cans and sell them back to him if the gate is open). If the owner catches you and calls you on it, you simply call the animal protection agency and tell them that he didn't feed his dog. They will immediately dispatch a team of RCMP officers to attend the scene of the crime and threaten the store owner with further harrassment... I mean legal action.
You should now be safe to continue stealing beer can refunds.

Another thing that doesn't fly with the local cops is... If you attend a parade downtown and get asked to move your car to another parking spot a few feet away, know that this is the only time you will ever get a seat belt ticket. While you are driving 50 feet @ 3 MPH, to help out with the traffic congestion. P.S., Nobody minds sitting in a line of traffic, waiting for you to get the ticket, so don't be afraid that you'll offend anyone. There is a quota of one seat belt ticket per year and everyone else will be glad to watch you get it over with.

Oh yeah... if you are a hunter type person, you better watch out too. You are only allowed to poach deer at night, or in the late afternoon and only in areas that are well populated.
This is just in case you fire your high powered rifle in the wrong direction, while you are pissed drunk, cuz let's face it... who goes poaching deer when they are sober right?... So, if you gotta miss anyway, you may as well scare/ or otherwise remove the shit/life out of somebody. People have no sense of humor anymore.

In the case of ATV's, boats or snowmobiles of any and all types;
In the North, we understand that these vehicles are meant to have fun with.
Therefore, Section A, Paragraph 121.3 of the Northern Manitoba Motor Vehicle Act, shall be duly interpreted as follows:

Operating vehicles of a recreational type, even if it's a highway vehicle and you just say you are using it recreationally, does not require the operator to posess a valid drivers licence nor driver training of any sort, whatsoever. If you can start it, or get somebody else to start it, or steal it when the guy that started it isn't looking, you are good to go.

Riders or operators are also not required to wear a helmet or protective clothing of any type. License plates, are strictly for decoration. Similarly, insurance coverage is totally optional and we suggest that you instead save your money for more booze, dope, bribes and such things as lawyers fees, when... I mean in case, you become the victim of a crime.

Drinking alcohol or otherwise ingesting narcotics while riding or operating any of the aforementioned weapons... I mean vehicles, is strictly enforced.
If you get pulled over in Northern Manitoba while not intoxicated, you will be dealt with in a severe fashion. So don't blame us if your house gets robbed and ransacked and we refuse to respond or investigate, if you insist on always being a goody too shoes. This sets a bad example and creates extra work for the detachment in the long run."

And as for welfare, it was a great thought. Although I'm inclined to think that it was really invented to justify it's administration.

There's a saying up here in the bush that goes something like:

Give a man a fish and he'll say, WTF? it's not even cooked!

There's lots more where that came from, but I'm sure it makes the point.

I swear to God, that if you lived here for a month, you'd come to take every word of the preceeding as gospel.
Incidentally, I have some really inexpensive property for sale in the area.

[Lobster]

In the UK they made dancing illegal.

Kids would organise and dance and the police would break up the all night dances (usually in out of the way warehouses) called raves. The excuse was the use of 'E'. In the 50's it was 'reefer madness' that made jazz a danger to society. Some people are able to enjoy jazz without endangering themselves or society. How do they do it?

Some countries lock up their poets. Making alcohol illegal in US allowed the growth of organised crime because people continued partying.

The police have raided someone quite local to me whose crime was . . . creating a Linux distro - another threat to Empire and order.

Linux will become established. Penguins will dance.

[Dyno Spoid]

You do bring up a few good points: It's America (or the U.K, or

[Flash]

Dyno, I just have to question some of what you said about drugs.

Pot destroys brain cells? I've never heard of any research that supports that assertion. Can you give any references? In my opinion it's booze, not pot, that ought to be banned. Alcohol kills, and not just brain and liver cells but whole beings. I've never heard of anyone suffering permanent damage from an overdose of pot, but people die from overdoses of alcohol all the time. And drunk drivers even kill innocent bystanders too.

I'd like to talk some in support of legalizing "recreational" drugs but there's not enough time.

[Pizzasgood]

If only people didn't want to do that crap in the first place. If they'd say, "Hey, I want to control my own life, not let the drug do it. I want to use the entirity of my mind, not what escapes the drugs. And if that means I can't get that happy feeling the easy way, I'll just have to work for it."

The easy path leads to stagnation. You can hang out in a medow and be all mellow, but you won't accomplish anything. On the other hand, you could work hard and help make a free operating system that actually threatens the business of one of the richest men in the world, and help many poorer people to have access to the reams of resources availible through computers and the internet. Which do you think has the better "happy feeling"? I've already made up my mind, obviously....

[Lobster]

[quote]You do bring up a few good points: It's America (or the U.K, or

[amish]

They would tax penguins if they could.

of course they would, after all, open source h-u-r-t-s innovation *wink* bill gates said so! (steve ballmer, i dunno. all his minion$ look the same to me)




>>>>

the drugs that have been made illegal tend to do huge amounts of irreparable damage to the user. In many cases they are physically and mentally addictive, and I'm not sure which is worse.

yeah, but there are worse things than pot that are legal- that's where this whole idea of yours falls apart for me. i wish they'd ban bht and msg so it would be easier to find food that was safe to eat, but i can't even rely on the ingredient lists because the goverments effort to keep me safe is so incredibly inconsistant and frankly weighed towards me dying of cancer- despite the fact that i don't smoke, don't drink, and am not obese.

the goverment isn't qualified to look out for my health. the air causes cancer, the water causes cancer, the soil causes cancer, and despite that they add more carcinogens to my food. i do try to buy food that has less of that stuff, when i can afford to eat that way.

i went to the e.r. at one point because with my insurance i ended up waiting several months to have a tooth out that was causing me so much pain i couldn't sleep. what i wanted was marinol, a safe, legal painkiller made from thc. it would have worked. instead, i was given percosets, a scary, addictive, relatively dangerous narcotic that i didn't want to take because of the reasons i just mentioned. i asked for marinol instead, but they gave me percs. the messed up part? they didn't work. i was still in agony. i went back to using cloves and mouthwash to try to mitigate the pain.


>> We tend to not look at the long-term effects.

well this is baseless- i care about them quite deeply. the long term effects of NOT legalizing drugs are a larger number of dead people, more violence, a screwy drug-based economy, people afraid to get help with addiction (because they might get arrested) and of course, the police suddenly don't care about anything but busting drug rings of various sizes. throw out the last one, because i'm sure there are plenty of police that would disagree.


>> An ex-roommate with acid flashbacks--is that an okay thing?

no, of course it isn't. the reason i brought it up was to rid you of the errant notion that drug laws are the only thing between us and an office full of criminally insane ex-addicts dreaming of taking your head off with a pair of scissors because they SWEAR that satan lives in your skull. what i'm trying to establish is NOT that drugs are always okay, NOT that drug users are never dangerous, but that once a balance is struck, the benefits of legalization outweigh the harm. keeping drugs illegal is actually worse and more dangerous. whether drugs are "okay" or not is made quite irrelevant, but in fact- sometimes, they ARE a good thing. may you never get a cancer that gives you pain that the harder, more addictive, more dangerous and potentially lethal narcotics you *would* be prescibed instead of pot fail to be as effective as treatment for as pot is. i have protested criminalization with cancer patients in wheelchairs- they understand what's at stake. i went to the funeral of a friend that got a disease from an air conditioner and went into a coma (but i dare say we should keep ac legal, if use it more responsibly) then got addicted to the prescription narcotics he was given to deal with his chronic pain after he came out three years later.

had he smoked pot instead, for his chronic pain, he wouldn't have ended up addicted to harder painkillers and his liver might still be intact. he would probably be alive today.


>> Do you think it's good to use sex or children to feed drug habits?

do you honestly, really *believe* this question has ANY relevance to anything i've said? i hope not. i prefer to think you're simply not paying attention. less disturbing.


>> Drug dealers give free samples for a reason--it hooks people, and brings them back for more, and more, and more. It's called "being hooked" for a reason--you can't get off.

yeah, which is why it's better to look at drug *users* as victims than treat them as criminals. you obviously want me to sympathise with someone i already sympathise with, but i don't think you're willing to do the same.

if someone hooked me on something while i was making a very poor choice, i'd like to think i could just go to a hospital, get help, and make it back to a semi-normal life.

instead, it is more likely i'd hide, end up in jail at some point (if i'm white, i have much better chances of staying out- that's just pure numbers) and get dragged farther and farther down. the funny thing is that you can spend those tax dollars on treating the addicted or busting people commiting a crime (and keeping them in prisons) but we choose to fund the prisons and screw you if you need a doctor. (or in my case, a dentist.)


>> Tell me about how drugs made Chris Farley a great comedian. He's in the grave.

so's my friend, whose big bad evil pusher was an m.d. just trying to give him one of the legal bandaid-half-solutions for the excruciating condition he earned just for staying in a hotel. pot is safer than the stuff they gave him, but a doctor can't typically give someone pot, because it's better politically if pot is treated as something evil- even if that means a dr. treating chronic pain has to give out something MUCH WORSE. that's politics.


>> They didn't help him, they killed him. Drugs don't make people great musicians either;

yeah, y'know i could abuse insulin. for a few minutes, before i die- it might even be fun. your solution leads to cans of AIR FRESHENER (glade air freshener) that tell you hide the cans from anyone under 18... it's not intelligence, it's not prevention- it's *merely* law. i say *merely* because it's causing problems than any solutions it provides. balance is key here.




>> otherwise every crack-head would be Mozart.

did you know that abraham lincoln took mercury as a drug? it was one of those snake-oil type cures. he took it while in the white house, it made him quite insane, and he *eventually* stopped because he didn't like the effects.


>> Janice Joplin, Jimmy Hendrics, did drugs make them famous, or just end their lives? What about Elvis? People are not famous for taking drugs--they're dead. Famous people are known for talent. Talent does not come from drugs. Nobody says, "Take speed and you'll be famous."

actually, i think the genius these people shared came from a "common ancestor" - rather, the thing that made them geniuses also gave them so much pain that the leaning towards addiction (that every human has) was amplified. i don't think their genius came from drugs at all... rather their pain came from genius, and their addiction came from pain.

but that has nothing to do with legalization, except that the cops are just "one more worry" - not a solution.

jail is no cure for addiction, and certainly not compared to a legitimate addiction treatment (of which there are few.)

basically, we can both see victims, but while i'm willing to treat them like victims, you suggest we punish them for being victims. there's a real flaw in that thinking.


>> Many people don't take drugs because they're illegal. Others limit their intake or avoid them because of price. Some don't take drugs "because it's wrong." Those are not good reasons, but they save lives. "Drugs will ruin my life and the lives of those who love me." --that's a good reason.

and i don't believe it's working.




>> I used to see children take the brunt of drug abuse. Sometimes I saw a battered woman, with black eyes and puffy cheeks. Sometimes a woman looked battered, but it was due to the effects of drugs, and not eating, or not sleeping, and/or being chewed on by rats--it's not a pretty life. Sometimes I got shot at, which is really unfortunate, since I was there to make repairs when things broke, and keep things working in general. Mostly I just saw people waste away.

and when your war on drugs proves beneficial to even ONE PERCENT of these child abuse victims, let me know.

the money we spend on busting casual, harmless, occasional drug users, instead of focusing on people that are actually robbing people, hurting kids, or pushing drugs, could be spent on helping kids and helping people like chris farley.

on the whole, criminalization *just doesn't help* - but it does make things worse.

and yeah. quite often, drugs are bad. that's beside the point.


let's wander back in thread momentarily: that automatic gunfire this thread is named for, is not caused by drugs.

it is caused as a very *direct* result of making drugs criminal. i'd like the guns to stop firing as much as anyone. my solution works to that end- your solution means more will always be firing.

so i'll join janis, lincoln, farley, and mozart in being very unhappy with the world. these were very bright people that had a hard time reconciling the world's stupidity. i won't be joining them in their other habits, but i will join them in their sadness with a world that just can't let go of bad ideas in favor of a bigger, braver picture- such as one that balances the reality that drugs are bad with the reality that criminalization is even worse. yeah, i'm sad more people don't get things like that. they never will either, because people are most likely addicted to stupid ideas and small thinking.

you needn't take that personally, however. if i chose to aim the concept of "stupid ideas and small thinking" at you specifically (which i have not) it would have no meaning- any more than saying "hey, you're human" is a meaningful insult (although some may choose to see it as one...) humans have some dumb ideas.

it sucks pretty hard to be human sometimes, that's a boat we're all on together. just be glad that being human isn't criminal, too

[Dyno Spoid]

Pot destroys brain cells? I've never heard of any research that supports that assertion. Can you give any references?

Effects on the brain, heart, lungs, and other problems:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Summary: Short-term effects: problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Long-term: Changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs including stress-response system and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine. Significantly increased risk of heart-attack, lung cancer, depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances, lack of intellect and job skills, and addiction due to changes in cannabinoid receptors and mental state.

People who've been addicted to marijuana:
http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/Pages/basic.html

[everything he said]

Why do people engage in destructive behaviour (such as using Windows)? Does it help to offer alternatives? What might they be?

Because they're convinced they should, and it's easy. Make it harder and raise the price, and Linux looks a whole lot better. Now that Apple made UNIX easy via BSD -> OS-X, companies have switched, and love the stability, lower support costs, and lower down time, which makes them more productive and customer dollars are more productive, producing a better product. Same with Puppy. Some of us have been using Linux for years, even though it wasn't as easy (at first), but the rewards were only needed a few servers which never crashed, and almost no support costs. Same with life: do drugs to escape and you'll pay the price down the road.

i prefer to think you're simply not paying attention.

I did pay attention to what you've said; we simply differ in opinion. If we were in China, you'd go to prison for what you said, and I'd be free--to be imprisoned by government policies concerning daily life. I'm glad we're both not there, since being human (or at least having "human rights") is criminal, and even though I disagree with you on drugs, we probably have a lot of other things in common, plus being able to differ in thought and still get along is what makes the free world great. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative.

Here are many reasons to not use drugs, along with the studies of their effects: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... index.html

So Lobster asked what my solution is. I think there are a lot of things that need to happen to help fix the problem:

Education: Public schools in the U.S. are in sad shape, and several 3rd world countries have smarter kids than we do. We need to do a lot to change this, and educate people so they can make a decent life for themselves.

Enforcement: Yes, in a perfect world everyone would know everything and make great decisions, but the world isn't perfect and we're often lazy. We need to enforce drug laws and prosecute those taking money under the table. I'll give one example of why we need to do this, although there are many more:

When I was [over 18] I tried marijuana [hypothetically] with two friends on a Friday night and liked it. The next day when my coordination was shot, life wasn't as much fun. We had work to do, the type where you could lose a limb if you weren't paying attention, so nothing got done. Since it was my house and my rules I took the car keys and nobody did anything that day where they would hurt themselves. That's not being un-American, that's being responsible. I parted ways with my friends as time went on. [Mike] was the first to go; he smoked a lot of pot and took a lot of risks he shouldn't have, like smoking while driving. He didn't start out that way, just progressed. His family life as a child wasn't so great, but it wasn't horrible, and he wasn't a bad guy by nature. As he needed to get high more often, he just wasn't such a great guy to be around. [John] and I parted ways several years later. He started smoking pot after work, to relax. His grades slipped and he was thrown out of college, and he was bummed. However, he made more money by not being in college, so life wasn't so bad, even though he was still living with mom. She was great though, and he had a very supportive family. John was a fantastic musician, from way back in high-school, way before drugs, and could play almost any instrument. With the college loans needing to be paid back he needed to make more money to buy a replacement car and better instruments, but had a dead-end job that he couldn't get out of because, well, I'm not sure. Getting out of it would have been hard financially, and while he could have stopped smoking pot and had the money he needed, it didn't work out that way. He started smoking in the morning, because it helped him start the day. He smoked a lot more at night, and dreamt of making a lot of side money playing in a band at bars. He never smoked at work, "because he had it under control." However, his job performance declined, and he got canned. / Mike, the first guy, decided his life was great on pot, but slowly sinking, and tried something else. Like pot, he only used a little at first, but things progressed, and he eventually killed an elderly woman driver, rolled his car, and hit a tree, all within a matter of seconds, I heard from John. After that John was adamant he'd never use hard drugs, which took the life of his best friend, and an old lady. (John was always big-hearted that way, and loved older people.) / Last time I spoke with John, five years after Mike died, he was still living with his mom, and had a dishwashing job. He was hoping to move up to fry cook within the next six months and make a bit more money.

As I sit here, reflecting on all of that, I really miss [John]. We grew up together from 4th grade on, got in a lot of harmless trouble, and made some of the best memories I have. I really don't feel like continuing with this topic any more. I wish I had my friend back.

[Flash]

I was hoping for some actual scholarly, that is, unbiased and peer-reviewed, research that could be tested, not the current government's faith-based answer to everything it doesn't like.

That fairy tale you made up doesn't match my observations of the actual effects of pot. Get real. People are going to do recreational drugs. Pot is arguably the least harmful of all such drugs. How can you defend the fact that alcohol is allowed while pot is not?

Chinese were imported to build the western half of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s. By several accounts the railroad might not have got built without them. The company building the railroad imported opium for the Chinese to smoke. It was legal at the time and it did not seem to slow them down or cause any other serious problems. Contrast that with the mayhem that resulted from the recreational use of alcohol by the Irish and others who were building the eastern half of the railroad.

I'd guess that legalizing pot, if not most other recreational drugs, would cause less damage to society than the present attempt to criminalize them. The key is how society views their use. Drunken frat parties are a rite of passage in the U.S.. If it weren't for such mindless showing off, alcohol abuse might be less of a problem among young people, although I will admit that some people would still become drunks all by themselves, because, unlike pot, alcohol really is addictive. I just don't see that kind of abuse from pot, or the terrible social problems from pot that alcohol causes.