Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Drug War Mythology (An ESSENTIAL Read)

The War on Drugs in the US has been lost since the late 1960's/early 70's. We are intercepting the same 10% (or less) of drugs that are smuggled into the country now as we were back then.

What we really have here is a war on the Bill of Rights. Better a Constitutional society with 100% of drugs allowed in, than an Un-Constitutional society with 90% of drugs successfully smuggled in. Not to mention that we currently have 25% of the world's incarcerated in our prisons due to our zero tolerance policy regarding drugs.

Thats right. There are 8 million people imprisoned on Earth and we've got 2 million of them. This alone should be enough to end this insanity.
 
vinylgroover said:
People like Alistaeir Crowley should offer constructive thoughts on the issue rather than wishy washy theoretical crap.

Legislation is basically the practical application of a society's standard of morals.

actually, he did offer some 'constructive thoughts', but it was later on in the piece

"You cannot cure a drug fiend; you cannot make him a useful citizen. He never was a good citizen, or he would not have fallen into slavery. If you reform him temporarily, at vast expense, risk, and trouble, your whole work vanishes like morning mist when he meets his next temptation. The proper remedy is to let him gang his ain gait to the de'il. Instead of less drug, give him more drug, and be done with him. His fate will be a warning to his neighbors, and in a year or two people will have the sense to shun the danger. Those who have not, let them die, too, and save the state. Moral weaklings are a danger to society, in whatever line their failures lie. If they are so amiable as to kill themselves, it is a crime to interfere.

You will say that while these people are killing themselves they will do mis chief. Maybe; but they are doing it now.

Prohibition has created an underground traffic, as it always does; and the evils of this are immeasurable. Thousands of citizens are in league to defeat the law; are actually bribed by the law itself to do so, since theprofits of the illicit trade become enormous, and the closer the prohibition, the more unreasonably big they are. You can stamp out the use of silk handkerchiefs in this way: people say, "All right: we'll use linen." But the "cocaine fiend" wants cocaine; and you can't put him off with Epsom salts. Moreover, his mind has lost all proportion; he will pay anything for his drug; he will never say, "I can't afford it"; andif the price be high, he will steal, rob, murder to get it. Again I say: you cannot reform a drug fiend; all you do by preventing them from obtaining it is to create a class of subtle and dangerous crimials; and even when you have jailed them all, is any one any the better?"

and no, legislation should not be considered the measurement of a society's morals, because it doesnt depend on a society as a whole; it depends primarily on the party that is currently in the position of power.
 
p0ink said:


and no, legislation should not be considered the measurement of a society's morals, because it doesnt depend on a society as a whole; it depends primarily on the party that is currently in the position of power.

Correct........it represents the majority of society who have elected their representatives to office on various platforms in order to reflect their particular standards, be it moral, economic, cultural, pholosophic etc. If a member of society doesn't like it, they have the power to vote for or against a particular platform at the ballot box.
 
"Legislation is basically the practical application of a society's standard of morals." -vinylgroover

oh? you think every piece of legislation and every law ever passed represents the will of the people?

are you not familiar with the many tyrannical leaders throughout the world? do you think their 'laws' represent the will of the people?

even in the US, many things play a role in one getting elected than just simply the votes they receive (ie. how districts are drawn up, the electoral college, etc).

because the majority pretty much makes the rules, people will vote down the party line. does that mean that i agree with every piece of legislation the republicans crank out? hell no.

i love the complete arrogance on the part of you big government types. you think every person is incapable and too stupid to run and manage their own lives. you think everyone needs the threat of punishment in order to make a decent decision.

why should a person, who only got into office because he had the money and connections to do so, tell me how to run my own life? does he know what is better for me than i do, simply because he managed to pull the greater number of votes than his opponent?

you would rather see a person give up their individuality for the better of the state. that is one of my biggest beef with non-americans. you all (not canadians, as much) think government is the answer to everything.
 
p0ink said:
"Legislation is basically the practical application of a society's standard of morals." -vinylgroover

oh? you think every piece of legislation and every law ever passed represents the will of the people?

are you not familiar with the many tyrannical leaders throughout the world? do you think their 'laws' represent the will of the people?

even in the US, many things play a role in one getting elected than just simply the votes they receive (ie. how districts are drawn up, the electoral college, etc).

because the majority pretty much makes the rules, people will vote down the party line. does that mean that i agree with every piece of legislation the republicans crank out? hell no.

i love the complete arrogance on the part of you big government types. you think every person is incapable and too stupid to run and manage their own lives. you think everyone needs the threat of punishment in order to make a decent decision.

why should a person, who only got into office because he had the money and connections to do so, tell me how to run my own life? does he know what is better for me than i do, simply because he managed to pull the greater number of votes than his opponent?

you would rather see a person give up their individuality for the better of the state. that is one of my biggest beef with non-americans. you all (not canadians, as much) think government is the answer to everything.

These problems you described are the ones causing politicians to keep passing gun control laws that cannot be enforced. Politicians like Feinstein and Boxer have the money and political connections to hire armed bodyguards and expect everyone else to do the same. If you look closely, drug prohibition and gun control are actually parallel to eachother in terms of politicians intentions. Both are unconstitutional.
 
Kalashnikov said:
If you look closely, drug prohibition and gun control are actually parallel to eachother in terms of politicians intentions. Both are unconstitutional.

indeed.

politicians need the illusion of danger to stay in office, so they can keep us safe from <insert threat here>. playing on the fears and emotions of others, is what keeps some of these people in office.

as long as people continue to pay little attention to politics, it will be sensationalism that gets them in and keeps them there; not wise and responsible policy.
 
p0ink said:
CONSIDER THE DEBT of mankind to opium. It is acquitted by the deaths of a few wastrels from its abuse?

For the importance of this paper is the discussion of the practical question: should drugs be accessible to the public?

Here I pause in order the beg the indulgence of the American people. I am obliged to take a standpoint at once startling and unpopular. I am in the unenviable position of one who asks others to shut their eyes to the particular that they may thereby visualize the general.

But I believe that in the matter of legislation America is proceeding in the main upon a wholly false theory. I believe that constructive morality is better than repression. I believe that democracy, more than any other form of government, should trust the people, as it specifically pretends to do.

Now it seems to me better and bolder tactics to attack the opposite theory at its very strongest point.

It should be shown that not even in the most arguable cse is a government justified in restricting use on account of abuse; or allowing justificaiton, let us dispute about expediency.

So, to the bastion -- should "habit-forming" drugs be accessible to the public?

The matter is of immediate interest: for the admitted failure of the Harrison Law has brought about a new proposal -- one to make bad worse.

I will not here argue the grand thesis of liberty. Free men have long since decided it. Who will maintain that Christ's willing sacrifice of his life was immoral, because it robbed the State of a useful taxpayer?

No; a man's life is his own, and he has the right to destroy it as he will, unless he too egregiously intrude on the privileges of his neighbors.

But this is just the point. In modern times the whole community is one's neighbor, and one must not damage that. Very good; then there are pros and cons, and a balance to be struck.

In America the prohibition idea in all things is carried, mostly by hysterical newspapers, to a fanatical extreme. "Senstion at any cost by sunday next" is the equivalent in most editorial rooms of the alleged German order to capture Calais. Hence the dangers of anything and everything are celebrated dithyrambically by the Corybants of the press, and the only remedy is prohibition. In practice, this works well enough; for the law is not enforced against the householder who keeps a revolver forhis protection, but is a handy weapon against the gangster, and saves the police the trouble of proving felonious intent.

But it is the idea that was wrong. Recently a man shot his family and himself with a rifle fitted with a Maxim silencer. Remedy, a bill to prohibit Maxim silencers! No perception that, if the man had not had a weapon at all, he would have strangled his family with his hands.

American reformers seem to have no idea, at any time or in any connection, that the only remedy for wrong is right; that moral education, self-control, good manners, will save the world; and that legislation is not merely a broken reed, but a suffocating vapor. Further, an excess of legislation defeats its own ends. It makes the whole population criminals, and turns them all into police and police spies. The moral health of such a people is ruined for ever; only revolution can save it.

Now in America the Harrison law makes it theoretically impossible for the lay man, difficult even for the physician, to obtain "narcotic drugs." But every other Chinese laundry is a distributing centre for cocaine, morphia, and heroin. Negroes and street peddlers also do a roaring trade. Some people figure that one in every five people in Manhattan is addicted to one or other of these drugs. I can hardly believe this estimate, though the craving for amusement is maniacal among this people, who have so little care for art, literature, or music, who have, in short, none of the resources that the folk of other nations, in their own cultivated minds, possess.

-Aleister Crowley

Why doesn't anyone discuss the addictive substance PURPOSELY put into most foods----SUGAR! Corporations know that sugar is mentally and physically addictive to its' "users". This cannot be denied. IF the US federal government wanted to be fair, Hostess should be attacked by the DEA with the same zeal they use against crack suppliers.
 
p0ink said:
" that is one of my biggest beef with non-americans. you all (not canadians, as much) think government is the answer to everything.


WTF was that? These words ring totally untrue. The current laws and state of the American "system" shows that it is indeed the American public that feels the government is the answer. You go on and on to point out the sucess of other Foreign nations in the EU, Canada and Australia with their sucess in their policies in contrast to the US. Then you go and say some shit like that, a total contradiction.
 
nice6pac said:
Crack Cocaine is not addictive FACT

Crack cocaine is all hype. Trust me :)

I'd have to rank alcohol and meth, including E, as being the two worst drugs, overall; GHB/GBL/1,4 being close behind.

Check out my new avatar :)
 
Top Bottom