RSS Feeds
Drug policy, from scratch
1.
One problem with Stimpson's argument is that it defends status quo thinking while indicting the state for not producing adequate results with it- which begs the question: how draconian is enough?
Another problem is that the distinction Stimpson draws between alcohol and drug abuse is invisible: they are both drugs, both have addictive and psychoactive qualities. The primary difference between them is the way the law treats them.
Stimpson's blithe assurance that prohibition and stigmatization are effective parts of our current drug policy don't square with the facts.
2. The drug war has nothing to do with social cohesion or preventing drug abuse. It is a Keynesian policy designed to reduce unemployment and create favored industry, sold to the people through fear-mongering like Cully's. The special interests are not interested in a friendly, educational debate, because they're quite content lining their pockets.
3. As Maitreya says, if you lecture a prostitute or thief, they will reject your words as ideology. But if you say, "whatever you are doing, whether thieving, prostitution, or taking drugs, be yourself, be honest, be sincere, be detached," then the person can experience himself as he is and feel what Maitreya calls the observer within. The observer within is not a limited, finite person; it is infinite. People call it divinity. When the person experiences himself as this infinite divinity, then he grows in self-respect. That is how he can get out of a vicious cycle of crime and drug addiction.
4. The drug problem cannot be solved by putting drug addicts into prison or just by strengthening the laws or by preaching ideologies or religion. The way to get out of this vicious circle is self-respect.
5. The major point being missed in this whole discussion is why marijuana was made illegal in the first place. If you actually look at the research and history it turns out that industrial hemp was a direct competitor to nylon and other petrochemicals. DuPont had stolen German patents and had invested large sums of money to produce these and were deathly afraid of a cheaper, better product. Nixon's drug war also had nothing to do with intoxication, it was a device to disenfranchise and criminalize those who objected to his immoral policies.
6. Mr Stimson, I wish you had a smart defender here; I wish this out of sheer rachmones, since I don't plan to do it myself. How can we fight drugs addiction when it's an intensely American thing?---"Buy something to make you happy," is the basis of all of our commerce and most of our spirituality. I think drug abuse is a symptom...it turns out that if rats have good living conditions (opportunities for interesting food, sex, and play) they don't keep pushing the coke lever---they enjoy a jolt every couple of sleep-cycles or so. How many of us live in bare, boring cages?
7. It is absolutely foolish to believe that you can successfully prohibit any substance as in-demand as drugs are today -no matter what military you have at your disposal. If you want to live under totalitarianism, just say "Yes" to the war on drugs.
8. The Morality of the drug war is this. It goes against the protestant work ethic. That is , it's ok to get a rush or high off something only if you earn it . Climb a mountain and jump off in a chute and get a rush - OK. Sit on your butt and get a rush - BAD you lazy good for nothing . You didn't earn it!!!
9. This is such a one sided argument. It's so frustrating that prohibitionists refuse to listen to reason and stick to their dogmatic ideas that come from another century.
10. Cully is totally wrong. We have de facto legalization right now. All drugs are readily available, at high potencies, and at competitive prices. So the "social chaos" predicted for "legalization" is here now. Just s happened almost 100 years ago with alcohol, we need to repeal Prohibition, to put a dent in organized crime's current government-created monopoly.
Submitted by: Chris
2. The drug war has nothing to do with social cohesion or preventing drug abuse. It is a Keynesian policy designed to reduce unemployment and create favored industry, sold to the people through fear-mongering like Cully's. The special interests are not interested in a friendly, educational debate, because they're quite content lining their pockets.
Submitted by: Bobby
3. As Maitreya says, if you lecture a prostitute or thief, they will reject your words as ideology. But if you say, "whatever you are doing, whether thieving, prostitution, or taking drugs, be yourself, be honest, be sincere, be detached," then the person can experience himself as he is and feel what Maitreya calls the observer within. The observer within is not a limited, finite person; it is infinite. People call it divinity. When the person experiences himself as this infinite divinity, then he grows in self-respect. That is how he can get out of a vicious cycle of crime and drug addiction.
Submitted by: Maitre
4. The drug problem cannot be solved by putting drug addicts into prison or just by strengthening the laws or by preaching ideologies or religion. The way to get out of this vicious circle is self-respect.
Submitted by: Jaap den Haan
5. The major point being missed in this whole discussion is why marijuana was made illegal in the first place. If you actually look at the research and history it turns out that industrial hemp was a direct competitor to nylon and other petrochemicals. DuPont had stolen German patents and had invested large sums of money to produce these and were deathly afraid of a cheaper, better product. Nixon's drug war also had nothing to do with intoxication, it was a device to disenfranchise and criminalize those who objected to his immoral policies.
Submitted by: Gary Noel
6. Mr Stimson, I wish you had a smart defender here; I wish this out of sheer rachmones, since I don't plan to do it myself. How can we fight drugs addiction when it's an intensely American thing?---"Buy something to make you happy," is the basis of all of our commerce and most of our spirituality. I think drug abuse is a symptom...it turns out that if rats have good living conditions (opportunities for interesting food, sex, and play) they don't keep pushing the coke lever---they enjoy a jolt every couple of sleep-cycles or so. How many of us live in bare, boring cages?
Submitted by: Darby Clash
7. It is absolutely foolish to believe that you can successfully prohibit any substance as in-demand as drugs are today -no matter what military you have at your disposal. If you want to live under totalitarianism, just say "Yes" to the war on drugs.
Submitted by: Zac
8. The Morality of the drug war is this. It goes against the protestant work ethic. That is , it's ok to get a rush or high off something only if you earn it . Climb a mountain and jump off in a chute and get a rush - OK. Sit on your butt and get a rush - BAD you lazy good for nothing . You didn't earn it!!!
Submitted by: Msgt Vance
9. This is such a one sided argument. It's so frustrating that prohibitionists refuse to listen to reason and stick to their dogmatic ideas that come from another century.
Submitted by: Andrew
10. Cully is totally wrong. We have de facto legalization right now. All drugs are readily available, at high potencies, and at competitive prices. So the "social chaos" predicted for "legalization" is here now. Just s happened almost 100 years ago with alcohol, we need to repeal Prohibition, to put a dent in organized crime's current government-created monopoly.
Submitted by: Stacy A.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT