Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Would you vote for a president that said he would legalize drugs?

The post about the horrifying cold-blooded quadruple homicide in the NY pharmacy made me decide to post this. The widespread violence in towns on the US/Mexico border is even worse. The "no-knock" raids that have resulted in innocent people dying (with NO penalties for the cops that "accidentally" killed them) are just a few of the problems.

So, yes or no-

Would you vote for a president who pledged to end the "Drug War" and legalize ALL drugs?

by Anonymousreply 6803/03/2013

First, I'd vote to flunk you in 5th grade English, OP.

by Anonymousreply 106/22/2011

If such a candidate ever took the nomination, yes, I'd vote for him/her. That won't be happening any time soon.

by Anonymousreply 206/22/2011

I vote for a variety of reasons, so it's possible I could end up voting against a President who said this, but I wouldn't actually be counting the political stance here against him/her.

by Anonymousreply 306/22/2011


by Anonymousreply 406/22/2011

If the drug was marijuana, yes.

If he wanted to legalize meth, crack, or other such drugs preferred by the poor, no.

by Anonymousreply 506/22/2011

When is OP going to spring Ron Paul on the thread?

by Anonymousreply 606/22/2011


by Anonymousreply 706/22/2011

Considering most of the harms associated with illicit drugs result from them being outlawed and unregulated, I would definitely vote for a politician that promised to legalise and regulate the supply of ALL currently illicit drugs. It's not an ideal outcome for many but it's easily less damaging than the farce we have today, which creates massively wealthy criminal organisations and destroys people who use the drugs and their loved ones. If only there was a politician with that kind of guts and vision.

by Anonymousreply 806/22/2011

Hell yes I would. Anyone that vowed to end the utterly expensive failure that is "The War On Drugs" would get my vote.%0D %0D Start small and progress. Decriminalize pot. License it and tax it and regulate it.%0D %0D Change sentencing to be more consistent and to favor treatment and rehab over prison. BTW, that goes for alcohol too.%0D %0D End private prisons completely. Move as many "simple drug offenders" out of prisons into rehab and treatment.%0D %0D Decriminalize small amounts of other drugs next. Start with the least dangerous. Move to education and treatment. Criminmalize only unlicensed distribution, and things like DWI.%0D %0D It'd be a lot cheaper and more productive.%0D

by Anonymousreply 906/22/2011

Good call, R6-

Ron Paul has opposed the Drug War from the beginning, and would instruct Federal officers to cease pursuing any drug related investigations. He would abolish the Drug War as unconstitutional.

The violence and corruption, by both cops and outlaws, would quickly cease if there were no more laws against it.

Plus, those 4 people in NY would still be alive.

by Anonymousreply 1006/22/2011

Two words: crack baby.

'Nuff said.

by Anonymousreply 1106/22/2011

R11 = Suri Cruise

by Anonymousreply 1206/22/2011

The Long Island case involved legal prescription drugs. There's no way to determine that it could have been avoided if the suspect had access to legal heroin. The increasing abuse of legal prescription needs to be addressed.

Anyway, while I probably would not vote for a candidate that proposed the legalization all drugs, I support legalization of marijuana. I also think that there should be more focus on treatment instead of punishment of users.

by Anonymousreply 1306/22/2011

I'd vote for a president who wanted to legalize drugs before I voted for a warmonger.%0D %0D My job has brought me into contact with both street junkies and perscription drug addicts, so I'm against the legalization of these things because they destroy people. There's worse things in the world, but drugs are slow torture.

by Anonymousreply 1406/22/2011

I think we ought to do away with private prisons and pay Canada to take our criminals.

by Anonymousreply 1506/22/2011


The suspect stole drugs that are chemically similar to heroin. If they were legal, and all he had to do is walk in and ask for them, no one would have died.

by Anonymousreply 1606/22/2011

People who think drugs destroy people are largely confusing the effects of the drugs with the effects of their criminalisation. Overdose aside, heroin is largely physiologically benign and does very little long term damage. Living a life outside the law and health-care systems, and paying black market prices does more damage to a heroin user than heroin does. Stimulants such as meth and cocaine do a lot more physical and psychological damage, but that damage can be much more easily managed if the user is accessing their drug through a health care program with associated counselling and support. The war on drugs has been such a spectacular failure that I can only suspect that the massive profits generated by drugs being kept illegal are being laundered and funnelled into the legitimate economy somehow. Otherwise, why would governments persist in pursuing a policy that has failed so completely?

by Anonymousreply 1706/22/2011

The War On Drugs is an epic fail. Drug abuse is a health issue, not a criminal one.

by Anonymousreply 1806/22/2011


by Anonymousreply 1906/22/2011

Op, you were supposed to set up a poll? What's the matter with you?%0D %0D No, I would not vote for the president.

by Anonymousreply 2006/22/2011

Crack babies were a myth. They asked teachers who had so called crack babies in their classrooms to point out which students they thought they were and they were wrong every time.

Prohibition didn't work in the 20s and it's not working now. Unless you work in law enforcement and get extra cash for drug arrests (but not rapes or murders, or robberies so guess which crimes cops solve) or you're a moron you have to admit the war on drugs will never be won.

A lot of people wouldn't even try drugs if not for the allure of doing something rebellious and illegal.

by Anonymousreply 2106/22/2011

[quote]They asked teachers


Link please.

by Anonymousreply 2206/22/2011

I don't think legalizing meth is going to stop violent crimes committed by high people.

by Anonymousreply 2306/23/2011

Gary Johnson 2012! That is who I plan on voting for. Ron Paul is so four years ago... besides, he flip flops too much.

by Anonymousreply 2406/23/2011

De-criminalizing drugs is a tad different than murdering people, OP.

by Anonymousreply 2506/23/2011

Decriminalize pot; for all other drugs, rehab + probation + weekly urinalysis.

My work here is done.

by Anonymousreply 2606/23/2011

I smoke pot every night when I get home from work.

I work hard every day, I pay my taxes, I volunteer and give to many charities.

Am I a criminal?

by Anonymousreply 2706/23/2011

I hate pot heads. Mushrooms should be legal.

by Anonymousreply 2806/23/2011

link is to the crack baby myth.

The War on Drugs is just the new Jim Crow. The penalties are much more severe for minorities. White guys can get got caught with a pound of powdered cocaine and receive less time than a black lady whose been caught with a small amount of crack twice. It's bullshit and it's unwinnable and all it does is create crime, a prison industrial complex and filthy cops.

If I rape someone, my car, home and boat won't be taken away and auctioned by the police but if I sell someone a joint, they can take everything. Which crime do you think the police will more aggressively pursue? Hint, it's not the rape.

If drugs are legalized, how many of you who are too big of a judgmental pussy would try them? None of you. Legalizing drugs has been shown to actually reduce the use of them.

by Anonymousreply 2906/23/2011

[quote]I smoke pot every night when I get home from work. I work hard every day, I pay my taxes, I volunteer and give to many charities. Am I a criminal?

Only if you are a homo.

by Anonymousreply 3006/23/2011

First OP, you need to distinguish between legalized drugs that are under FDA regulation and prescribed, and illegal drugs. The pharmacy murders were over legally prescribed drugs- %0D %0D Now, yes, all drugs should be legalized and controlled. The idea is to decriminalize drugs. What went on in the pharmacy was theft, not illegal drug use. But absolutely, if you take the criminal element away from drugs, you free up our prisons and you can then deal more directly and realistically with the problems of addiction. Problem is illegal drugs are wrapped in the cloak of racism and xenophobia- still. That is why some see them as evil, as opposed to alcohol which of course is a drug as well.

by Anonymousreply 3106/23/2011

OP yes IF

If the candidate also took other positions that I agree with AND I had some faith he would not be another Obama and change every position the moment election was over.

by Anonymousreply 3206/23/2011

"All" gives me pause, but yes.

by Anonymousreply 3306/23/2011

Yes, in a heartbeat. %0D %0D You should have polled, dummy.

by Anonymousreply 3406/23/2011

Yes, even if he was a goddamn republican.

by Anonymousreply 3506/23/2011

Only if it isn't Ron Paul.

by Anonymousreply 3606/23/2011

If I liked the rest of his/her platform, yes. I'm not a single-issue voter.

by Anonymousreply 3706/23/2011

They should legalize it all. Right now the only form of the drugs you can buy are the absolute hardest ones. If people could go out and buy a coca cola with coke in it then crackheads could deescalate their use. Or opium gum could take the edge off for needle users. Or new users wouldn't be tempted by needles. It's just like during prohibition. Unless you made your own beer, you couldn't find one to drink. You had to buy hard liquor which may or may not blind you.

by Anonymousreply 3806/23/2011

OP, I noted that there is no way to be sure the guy would have just bought legal heroin instead. Yes, I acknowledge he could have gone to the heroin store, but maybe he would prefer pills to powder. We'll never know.

by Anonymousreply 3906/23/2011

I think marijuana should be legal but taxed at an outrageous level. We need the money.

by Anonymousreply 4006/23/2011

[quote] a president that said %0D %0D Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 4106/24/2011

[quote] The increasing abuse of legal prescription needs to be addressed.%0D %0D There is no "increasing" abuse of legal prescription drugs. Ever heard of quaaludes? Seconal? Valium? These legal drugs were "abused" throughout the 60s and 70s until other drugs became the big bugaboo for the media. (And since they were widely and easily prescribed, nobody went around killing people to get them). %0D %0D Halcion was one of the best sleeping pills ever developed. Demerol was a good pain reliever. But they were politicized by people who committed crimes or generally behaved like assholes (Burt Reynolds, i.e) who happened to be taking the drugs. %0D %0D We spent years trying to get doctors to prescribe adequate pain control for cancer pastients and people with genuine chronic pain. We finally get somewhere and everyone is screaming that "legal prescription drug abuse" is a huge problem. It's not. It's always been a problem. It's not a huge problem. Unemployment, the destruction of the social safety net -- those are huge problems. %0D %0D It's a criminal problem and a psychiatric problem. The guy who shot 4 people in the drugstore is a mental case and so is his wife. Thirty years ago, when I was a nursing student, our psych hospitals were filled with people like that. People who couldn't make it in society. It's no surprise the guy and his wife were living with his mother. %0D %0D We emptied out our psych hospitals and were shocked at the rise in crime, in homelessness and in drug abuse. Well, that's what you get when you release tens of thousands of mentally disturbed people onto the streets and then forever shut the doors to an entire mental health system, so that people who can't cope can never be placed in a hospital for as long as they need to be there.%0D %0D So long as we keep eating away at the safety net and destroying citizens' access to health care, then certain people who need medication and/or therapy to get along every day are going to do what they need to do to get what they feel they need. Crimes will certainly be committed.%0D %0D A prison system is no substitute for a mental health system.%0D %0D This is such an ass backward, whiney society. People want pain or anxiety medication. Then they whine that they are addicted and need rehab and it's the fault of the drug companies and the government. If you are addicted to pain medication because you are in chronic pain or have cancer, so what? That's ok. But if you aren't in chronic pain and are addicted to prescription pain meds, that's your fault and nobody else's. Stop whining and stop taking drugs.%0D %0D We've got half the society screaming that doctors are too quick with Rx pads, and another half screaming that they can't get the medication they need. Shut up. Don't use pain meds if you don't need them. %0D %0D If you are agitated about a drug problem in this country, then agitate to create an adequate mental health system. Don't agitate for more drug laws, more prisons and less access to prescription drugs.%0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 4206/24/2011

Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.

But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

by Anonymousreply 4301/12/2013


by Anonymousreply 4401/12/2013


I suspect? surmise? know? That the vast majority cannot see these things, even though their mom/stepdad/cousin has told them that "Shit Was Gettin' REAL!" and they needed to be ready.

You can't print trillions of dollars, and invade hundreds of foreign nations, and offer to pay for EVERYONE without shit going wrong.

by Anonymousreply 4501/12/2013

Yes, absolutely.

by Anonymousreply 4601/12/2013

This question is about as productive as this follow up post.

by Anonymousreply 4701/12/2013

OP and others want to legalize meth, heroin, and cocaine? Are you people crazy? What kind of society do you want to live in where people are legally stoned.

No. I would never vote for any person who want to legalize illicit drugs.

by Anonymousreply 4801/12/2013

Only if he wasn't a Republican, OP.

by Anonymousreply 4901/12/2013


Meth is just an artifical cocaine, and only exists becaus cocaine is illegal.

But, concentrating Cocaine- a substance that was purified due to the drug war... And is available on arrival to many middle american countries-- If Coca leaves were legal, and (like in Peru, where you are offered "coca tea" all the time) there would be no drug war.

Don't even start about Opium, and how the US military imports Heroin but restricts OxyContin to cancer patients. Nooooooooo, you cannot have this medicine. The government will not let me ease your pain!!!

Fuck out government. It is EVIL!

by Anonymousreply 5001/12/2013

"Stimulants such as meth and cocaine do a lot more physical and psychological damage, but that damage can be much more easily managed if the user is accessing their drug through a health care program with associated counselling and support."

Except America is allergic to long-term heath care programs for anyone for the very rich.

by Anonymousreply 5101/12/2013

People are such idiots. We used to have legal drugs all over the place.

Heroin was first marketed as an opium cure. Opium was first marketed over the counter for coughs.

All these meds at one time were legal.

Why do you think they made them ILLEGAL?

Because people got so fucked up using them.

In China opium was used for centuries only for medical reason. Then the British introduced the Chinese to the custom of smoking it for recreation and the whole economies of South China collapsed, this resulted in the Opium Wars and the start of European influence and near colonialism of China.

by Anonymousreply 5201/12/2013

I will vote for him/ her only,under thenconditionthst they pledge to make DUI a capital offense.

by Anonymousreply 5301/12/2013

So r51, are you willing to pay for a junkie's "health care program with associated counseling and support?" More likely than not, these junkies don't have jobs. If they do, whatever they're earning can't be enough for the drugs and for health care program and counseling.

That is not the best use of taxpayer's money. We should not have to craft laws so that junkies can have their fix. We as a society have enough to deal with the mentally ill, must we do it for adults who voluntarily throw their lives away just because they'd rather be high than deal with the reality of life?

by Anonymousreply 5401/12/2013

I would vote for someone who would criminalize the criminalization of drugs. That is to say that drugs aren't simply legalized by the federal government, but that the right to use them is protected by the federal government. 'Else we would have too many state governments continuing the war. This is the problem with the Ron Paul "states rights" philosophy.

by Anonymousreply 5501/12/2013

R54? Do you really think that would be more expensive than the hundreds of billions we've spent on the "War on Drugs"?? Really? Think about it...

by Anonymousreply 5601/12/2013

Exactly, r56. This is the hypocrisy of the drug wars. It's done nothing but make drugs more hazardous, and put harmless people in prisons. A big waste.

by Anonymousreply 5701/12/2013

I don't care r56. I'm not paying for a junkie who chose this life. If s/he wants to fry their brains, that is their choice, but taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that lifestyle. That is not my responsibility and that is not the best use of taxpayers dollars.

Mentally ill people can not help being in that predicament. Able-bodied, mentally alert people who choose to shoot heroin/meth or snort cocaine should not have the privilege of being a junkie on taxpayers' dime.

by Anonymousreply 5801/12/2013

R52, use your brain a little bit, please.

Just like when we talk about gun control, we're not talking about confiscating everyone's guns... when we talk about drug legalization, we're not talking about just throwing open the door and letting everyone go willy-nilly.

What the fuck is wrong with black and white thinkers like you? Why the hell is it that you only ever see two, extremely opposite possibilities??

We're talking about decriminalization of the possession of small amounts for personal use, and heavy regulation and taxation, treatment over jail, and a bunch of other policy changes that will have the effect of keeping a ton of people out of prison, take a lot of power (and money) away from the drug lords and gangs, raise a lot of revenue for the government (but NOT private industry), and reduce tensions between people and police, and reduce hypocrisy where rich people can basically do drugs without consequences (it's all over Hollywood, wall street, etc), but working people caught with it are jailed and harassed and bankrupted.

We're talking about no longer destroying lives in an effort to avoid having drugs destroy lives.

by Anonymousreply 5901/12/2013

R58, you're a fucking idiot. You sound like a Republican. You haven't a clue, and you're so fucking selfish and self-absorbed, you don't even realize how stupid you're being, and how your choices are probably costing you (and people you know) a lot more.

Fuck you.

by Anonymousreply 6001/12/2013

You sound like junkie yourself, r60. Straight to the name-calling. I'm not a Republican. It makes absolutely no sense that taxpayers must pick up the tab for the mental health care of these people. No way.

I work 5 days a week to earn enough money to pay rent and live a modest life. I commute to work and sit in traffic in the morning and back in the evening. I put up with people at work I dislike, and workloads that tire me out. It is part of being an adult. It is part of contributing to society. Why do I and millions of others do this? Because we have to eat. Because we have people in our lives to take care of.

I am in support of social welfare for the indigent. We need a safety for families that are left behind.

Junkies who choose to be high rather than work do not get my sympathy. If they want to get high and the law says it's legal, fine. I will live with that. HOWEVER, I will not pay for your health care program and support services. You made the mess, clean it up yourself.

by Anonymousreply 6101/12/2013

[quote]You sound like junkie yourself, [R60].

More utter blithering ignorance from the moron at R61 (and R58, and R54, etc).

I don't do drugs. I tried pot a couple of times in college and once after. I don't even drink that much (I've gone weeks and months without a drink without realizing it).

And I'm not just "name-calling", I'm calling you out for your utterly self-absorbed, petulant stupidity and ignorance. You want so DESPERATELY to be superior to everyone else and look down your nose at people, and insist they all CHOSE that life. You may not be a Republican, but you're talking and thinking and reasoning and arguing like one. You might as well fucking vote for Michelle Bachman, because your ideas on drugs are about as valid as her ideas on the deficit and international intelligence.

You're petty, vindictive, petulant, childish, narrow-minded, and clueless.

If you don't want to be called any of those things... stop being them. Educate yourself. Get a clue and a grip.

by Anonymousreply 6201/12/2013

r62 if you want to pay for these programs, no one is stopping you. Take a portion of your income and donate it to these programs. That's your perogative. You can do that right now with no laws requiring you to do so.

Perhaps you ought to educate yourself about personal responsibilities. Life is about choices. We either choose to be drug free or we choose to indulge in them. If we choose to indulge, we can not expect other people to pay for our lifestyle.

I'd rather tax money go to the underprivileged. Families and the working poor. They need the help.

Redirect your anger from me, and start writing a check to these programs you wish all taxpayers be required to pay for.

by Anonymousreply 6301/12/2013

[quote][R62] if you want to pay for these programs, no one is stopping you. Take a portion of your income and donate it to these programs. That's your perogative. You can do that right now with no laws requiring you to do so

More idiotic Republican-like reasoning... right up there with "If millionairs want their taxes raised, there's nothing stopping them from paying more."

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. What part of "You're paying more for the war on drugs than you would be for rehabilitation, education, and regulation"??

Yup, you sound exactly like a Republican. Why don't you go tongue Mitt Romney's hole instead of posting here.

Fucking clueless idiot. You'd rather your tax dollars go to housing millions of minor drug offenders in prison, and then paying for all the police to harass otherwise law-abiding people, and fund para-military and outright military missions into illegal drug operations, resulting in tons of death and the destruction of lives? Well aren't YOU morally superior! Asshat.

by Anonymousreply 6401/12/2013

Well, r64 I think we're talking in circle right now so I bid you adieu.

by Anonymousreply 6501/12/2013

Turns out R61 that 60 to 70% of the junkies have a dual diagnosis: they also have a mental disease. Now go back to commuting and read your tabloids.

by Anonymousreply 6603/03/2013

Alcohol does the most damage overall.

by Anonymousreply 6703/03/2013

^ agreed. Alcohol is the most destructive drug of all, esp. on a social and physiological level.

by Anonymousreply 6803/03/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!