Anti-Drug Videos Uploaded to YouTube

Pete Z : Bongs of Mass Destruction, very funny. and FL Indie: SO well said. As soon as any young drug taker realizes the Govs message is a load of inflated fear tactic nonsense they'll mistrust their elected officials even more... What utter morons they are.

I don't think the "war on drugs" is usually in reference to marijuana use. Of course they lump pot in with the rest, but eliminating pot from the equation wouldn't help a whole lot.

The "war on drugs" is in reference to all drugs. They tell you that marijuana is the "gateway" drug and that by smoking pot, you will be trying other things. (Not true, of course) If they legalized all drugs, they wouldn't have the amount of crime associated with drugs that they have today. Of course you would have those that over indulge, but you have that with alcohol as well, so there isn't a difference.

that's always a backwards argument. If you legalized theft, there wouldn't be nearly the amount of crime we see today.
Plus, that's not even true. The crime that occurs from drugs being illegal (possession, sales, etc.) is pretty minor to the HUGE amount of crime caused by people who use crack, crystal meth, heroin, etc. etc. Don't paint the picture that most drug users are John Q. Public. Maybe a lot of pot users are, but there are definitely drugs that can't be recreational for most people.

Alcohol is legal, and also can not be just recreational for many people. It can have adverse effects as well, yet it is ok to drink. Why wouldn't it be the same with drugs? I have seen the negative effects of both alcohol and drugs. Just because some people can't handle them, doesn't mean there aren't other people that can't use them for recreational use without adverse effects.

I think, though, that you have to divide them into different categories. It's NEVER okay to use crack, for example. It's going to ruin your life. And the amount of crime that occurs because of the harder, stupider drugs is astronomical. Of course, this doesn't apply to pot. you never see someone strung out on pot willing to do anything to get more.

Alcohol is also different in that it was much more difficult to outlaw alcohol given that so much alcohol is tied to the cultures of ethnic groups that came to America (wine, beer, whiskey). There's not near the amount of pressure and demand to get pot legalized, for example. Most people who don't use it could either care less or are against it.

The reason pot/weed/maurijuana is a "gateway drug" is because it is bought from a street-corner dealer. If you bought it at an ABC store, it wouldn't lead to other drugs because the cashier at the ABC store isn't gonna say: "Hey man, try this @!$%#, you'll get a crazy trip..."

Actually, according to government studies, its actually not a gateway drug, even though they like to claim it. There are also 9 other studies by the government on that link that only hurts their case against pot.

Do you have any references to this?

References are for sissies.

Jamel, munzilla and Noah: That's probably the best set of comments I've seen on Newsvine. Period.

I knew about that, but that's over 40 years old.

First of all, it was a joke. I apologize for not making that clear. But there is no harm in smoking a little marijuana.

Second of all, do you usually make false assumptions? Not everyone who defends smoking marijuana is a "pothead". Also, people who smoke marijuana are not necessarily "obese losers with marijuana habits" nor do they always have "a lack of ambition to ever do anything else". Very false assumptions.

I think Shay might have been a bit...aggressive in saying it, but he has a point. When you get involved in the "legalize it" discussion, there's a lot of talk talk talk by people who really just want to be able to smoke weed. Enough with the "good" it can do. So, if we allowed medicinal marijuana everywhere, would that be good enough? No, because that's just a step toward getting people to be able to smoke it. You're telling me there's that many people who are passionate about rights for glaucoma sufferers?
So, I'm not saying the people who want to legalize it are all potheads, but we should call a spade a spade.

Well, personally, I am not a "pothead". I guess I can't speak for other people defending the legalization of drugs. I am for the freedom of choice. I think that I am old enough to decide right from wrong without someone telling me. I think that I am able to make a sound decision without the government slapping me on my hand telling me "no, no", "drugs are bad".

Well, many of them are bad. You don't need to fight something just because someone reinforces the idea that it's wrong. Also, not everyone is to the point of having a clear mind of what is right and wrong. We all do stupid things, especially when we're young, and having crack available at the corner store isn't going to help that decision.

What's funny about the war on drugs is the overriding cause of it: drugs kill people. I except that, to a point. But alcohol and tobacco kill more people a year by themselves than all the illegal drugs combined. There are countries in the world (Amsterdam) where most, if not all drugs are legal, yet look who do we hear having more drug related problems? The US. It isn't that people want to sit around in baked stupor all day, but the ability partake in the drug of their choice without fear of reprisal. If you legalize, even just pot, you eliminate that aspect of crime. If you legalized harder drugs, but placed restrictions on use and where it is purchased, that problem is eliminate as well. Throughout history people have used some form of drugs or another. The fear of a stoned society is a baseless fear; too many people have strong views on drugs that will be passed down. This form of Prohibition is just like in the the previous one, the rate of use increases when you take something away.

Amsterdam isn't the success story everyone always claims it to be. And we have way way more people living in the U.S. which always changes things.

First off, this has been one of the more interesting comment threads I've read on Newsvine.

I'm going to have to side with Dreamer and his moderately liberal response to these discussions. I also appreciate the logical arguments that munzilla is making. Unfortunately, it's ShayShreds (and people who mimic his aggressively stereotypical assumptions) that make the legalization debate a warzone of opinions and not facts.

I like seeing statements like this - "We'd all be a bunch of obese losers with marijuana habits and a lack of ambition to ever do anything else." - because I am proof against them. I run 'thefreshscent.com' a website that is dedicated to counter-culture related product reviews, but also straddles the political (legalization) debate. Now, it's only been open for a little over 2 months, but I'm getting fantastic responses and many interesting business proposals / opportunities. It also took a lot of work to put the site together and find content every day. Do I fit the normal 'stoner' stereotype?

I think that both sides of the argument have legitimate points, but when it boils down to it .... when you remove the tinted sunglasses the government puts on marijuana and that it kills people, destroys lives, sponsors terrorists and more - you won't find a legitimate reason that it is illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are not. This is besides the obvious benefits of removal of the criminal element, drastic reduction in mis-use of law enforcement time & resources, the giant tax on our prison system for housing non-violent offenders, and pain relief for applicable diseases.

All legitimate scientific studies (including economic studies) come to the same conclusion - the War on Drugs does not work and we need to radically re-think our position on how to handle this growing aspect of US society. I believe legalization is the first step in righting an obviously wrong system.

I hope people stop to think about these comments before blasting them.

Well, I straddle the line here, PopCruz, because I agree that the marijuana "dangers" are way overblown, but I disagree that somehow everyone will be totally cool and responsible if we legalize the harder stuff. You're telling me the woman who has sex for crack is not going to want to do it as much because it's now legal. True that alcohol and smoking can have an iron grip on peoples' lives and be just as dangerous, but those 2 have been grandfathered in through tradition. If we can dissuade something as destructive as crack or heroin from being easily distributed, why shouldn't we?

Because it is not your job or the governments job to protect people from themselves. They are adults and can make their own choices.

And yes you will reduce crime because the people who benefit from selling crack and other harder drugs would be put out of business. Why should someone buy who knows what from the guy on the street when they can do into CVS and know they are getting exactly what they want with no extra ingredients and at probably a cheaper price and with less risk?

And, yes, when you make it legal, you will have an increase in use because there will be people who will try it now just because its legal. But that is short term and it passes. Lets be honest here, there is absolutely Zero impediment for people who want to get drugs right now. They can easily get them if they want them. So we are spending billions of dollars and ruining peoples lives for what exactly? How would making them legal make the reality of being able to get drugs any different than it current is?

Legalize it, tax it, use part of the money to fund educational resources and rehabs. Treat it like alcohol, put age limits, driving restrictions, etc. I realise testing for DUI on drugs can be difficult but Im sure they will find ways.

You're 100% right about the crime issue. Legalization people are completely underestimating the amount of crime that is committed because of the crack not because of the fact that it's illegal. So, we legalize all drugs, that could mean that the street dealers are out of business, but the users still need their crack, so the crime comes off the streets and into the stores. If the stores try to control how much crack is sold and to whom, then you've got a new demand for limitless crack (because an addict cannot be regulated) , and when you've got demand, a supplier will step up, and you've got the dealers again. So, all in all, you haven't done much at all to help anyone.

And enough with this "I don't want the gov't telling me what I can do." The gov't is partially in place to improve the society and to keep it running to make the citizens as happy and productive as possible. How would legalizing crack or heroin improve our society?

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. You honestly believe that any individual who wanted to could go out and find heroin or meth with "zero impediment"? Nonsense. Most individuals would have no idea where to begin looking for such drugs, and the reason they are not readily available is because they are illegal.

No they may not initially. But like all users of meth or crack or any other hard drug, they all were non users who had no idea where to get it at some point. Obviously they found out where and when one source dries up (or they lose it), they are able to find another source. When people want to find something they will find it. Its called searching.

I never said legalizing crack, or any drug, would improve people's lives. I am merely stating there is not a legal basis for them to have it illegal. Yes you can make more of a case against crack than you can marijuana but it is still not the governments job to protect adults (normal, healthy adults) from making their own decisions, even if they are self destructive. If that were true you would not be able to engage in dangerous activities such as skydiving or bungie jumping, and you wouldnt be allowed to drink or smoke cigarettes.

And just because it is legal does not mean CVS would produce or sell crack, or any other company would automatically produce/sell it either. Theres not much difference between crack and items like "the purple pill" which may claim to be a medicine for certain ailments but the side effects are 10x worse than the disease they are purporting to treat. Not only are those drugs legal but you can advertise for them on tv. (I am using the purple pill as an example because most people are familiar with it. I am not sure if that particular drug's side effects are worse than the disease).

And come on, no one is suggesting they would be in the aisle with Bayer. They would be handled like all more powerful drugs. They would be in the pharmacy or specialized sections would you would have to request it and a person authorized to sell it would provide it.

As it is now, those same 13 y/o can ride their bicycles to all kinds of neighboorhoods and be able to purchase crack if they were so inclined. In many areas, all they would need to do, is go to school to find a source. It was this way in my high school and middle school and I was in a decent middle class area.

As for overdose deaths, I contend (and I am looking for studies to support) that more people die of legal drug overdose (accidental and intentional) and alcohol abuse than illegal drugs.

And instead of wasting the billions of dollars we do fighting this, we can spend that money on things that will improve peoples lives, which is the only thing that might decrease the demand for drugs. Diminishing the demand is the only thing that can reduce drug use.

As for overdose deaths, I contend (and I am looking for studies to support) that more people die of legal drug overdose (accidental and intentional) and alcohol abuse than illegal drugs.

How would this help your support of legalization? If it's true, it just means that (since these legal drugs kill more people) legalizing illegal drugs would cause even more deaths.
And like I said above, if you legalize it, then control it, those same drug dealers will still have a market to sell to.

Theres not much difference between crack and items like "the purple pill" which may claim to be a medicine for certain ailments but the side effects are 10x worse than the disease they are purporting to treat.

Why does it always have to be one or the other? Just because there are pills like the hypothetical purple pill that do more bad than good, that's more to say that something should be done about the purple pill. It's not a good argument to say, "look at this legal drug! It's terrible! Thus, let's legalize all of the other terrible drugs."

Yes you can make more of a case against crack than you can marijuana but it is still not the governments job to protect adults (normal, healthy adults) from making their own decisions

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Skydiving, etc. does not have an adverse affect on our society as a whole. Hard drugs are having a terribly destructive effect on our inner cities, and making those drugs more readily available will only make it worse. So, it it's not a government's job to try to improve and stabilize our societies and cities, I don't know what its job is. We don't want a wild west situation.

ShayShreds and munzilla:
I think that both of you have valid points, and I don't argue that. I still think that we have some of these same problems with alcohol though. Think of how many drunk driving accidents happen each year, domestic disputes, etc. You are right, there is no regulation for addiction: hence alcoholics. Now, do I think that crack/heroin/etc are worse than alcohol? Sure. But I think that it still my decision what I put into my body. As for marijuana being addictive? It depends on your personality I would think. Some people have an addictive personality. However, those like me, aren't addicted at all. I think there are more that smoke it for recreational use, than are addicted.

I don't think that the government should tell me what to do, and that is my personal opinion. I am entitled to my opinion, as you are entitled to yours. I also don't think that the government is the one making me happy and productive.

As far as the government thing, I've already talked about that above quite a bit. But, putting aside the government's role, I still think the destruction caused by drugs like crack and heroin are such that we ourselves shouldn't want them to be readily available. Drugs have clearly been linked to crime and not just drug-related crime, but crimes like murder, theft, etc. It's just not good for a society. Again, I'm excluding pot here. And, again, alcohol is certainly destructive but it is something so tightly ingrained in our cultures that we can't get rid of it anytime soon. So, given that, do we want more substances available at your local CVS that cause even more drivers to be dangerous?

Munzilla

How would this help your support of legalization? If it's true, it just means that (since these legal drugs kill more people) legalizing illegal drugs would cause even more deaths.
And like I said above, if you legalize it, then control it, those same drug dealers will still have a market to sell to.

No system is perfect. If you know of one, we would love to hear it. And yes there will still be a market to sell illegally. However, it would be greatly reduced from what it is now and generally people who sell crack and meth are generally quite dangerous and removing any power they have is a good thing. Continuing the status quo, which is an abject failure is not an viable option. Face it, drugs, like prostitution and many other "crimes", are going to be around forever. You will never get rid of them as long as humans are alive, unless we evolve and they dont work or something along those lines.

It doesnt have to be one or the other. I was pointing out the fallacy of the legal arguments that people make against illegal drugs. Their reasons sounds nice but in practical application it falls quite short.

And its not drugs that are causing a problem in our inner city. Its the reasons people turn to drugs. Lack of education, poverty, lack of opportunity, oppressive and depressing living conditions, etc. Drugs are only a band aid people use to avoid dealing with their real problems. You solve the real problems and the number of people who need to turn to drugs will decrease.

It is governments job to promote and stabilize society. However, that does not mean that we give up freedoms for the sake of so called safety, even if you dont particularly like those choices. Drugs like cocaine and others were very freely available for a long time in this country and we didnt have anything like the problems that we have now.

Now dont get me wrong, I dont think drugs like crack have much, if any worth. But who knows, maybe some derivative of crack can eventually be used for something. Regardless, I believe in being honest, true and fair. If we are going to be a nation of laws and those laws are based on fact, reason, and truth, then we are severely failing.

Additionally this doesnt even begin to cover the illegal laws that have grown around the whole drug war,.

I agree wholeheartedly that the real way to combat the harder drugs is to get to the heart of the matter. There's worse things at work that cause a person to take a drug that they know, if they have any brains at all, is probably going to either kill them or ruin their lives. Nobody that takes crack doesn't know what they're getting into, and this is probably the most disturbing thing of all about it. They have so little hope as to seek an escape in something so destructive. So, that begs the question: how would legalizing drugs help that situation? It wouldn't because all it would do would be to make this dependency easier to achieve.

However, that does not mean that we give up freedoms for the sake of so called safety, even if you dont particularly like those choices.

I also agree that we're never going to WIN a war on drugs anymore than we're going win a war on burglary or murder, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. But shouldn't we be a bit more selective with our freedoms? What freedom are we really taking away here? A destructive and terrible thing that ruins lives. Taking that idea to its end would mean that all should be allowed, and that's far from reasonable. The fact is certain things are right and certain things are wrong (I know the lines can be blurry) and it shouldn't matter who WANTS to smoke crack, they shouldn't be able to do it. Because whether they realize it or not, it's stupid, so why should we provide them with that opportunity? This should go much further than a "how dare you tell me how to live my life!" It's not about that, because is smoking crack really something you should want to do anyway?

Smoking crack isnt something you should want to do, but you should not be making that choice for another adult who is fully capable of making that choice. And legalizing drugs would help in the following ways: money from that and other drugs could be additional money used to treat those that are addicted, offset medical costs, pay for after school programs or community outreach programs to prevent people from getting started, truthful drug education programs, etc.

Part of the reason why I would favor legalization is the current system is spending billions of dollars of our money and wasting it on futile efforts instead of putting it to good use where it can do more good to combat the real problems. Not to mention the time and effort of law enforcement that could also be put to better use and the additional revenue from taxing those items.

And as I said before, even with the war on drugs, it is extremely easy for people to get just about any drug they want right now. I could spend 10 mins on the phone and get just about anything. Ive been to places Ive never been before and within an hour or 2, Ive found people to get weed from. If I wanted other things I could have found those as well.

Well said, shay. You pretty much summarized what I've been trying to say all this time.