Help end the War on Drugs with Avaaz!

Oh_Noes

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

now that i've stopped smoking weed and don't take any other drugs, except for a couple of pints every month or two I've started to support the war on drugs mainly out of the enjoyment I get watching stoners freak out all over the internet but doing absolutely nothing about it. They can have nine hour "discussions" about it, while they are watching the fifth rerun of toy story for the night but you can be damn sure if there was ever a referendum most of them would be too stoned to leave the house and vote.

What a silly load of stereotyping. If "stoners" weren't doing anything then we wouldn't be seeing all the coverage this issue gets, as well as the pattern of liberalisation that has been happening all over the planet for the last ten years.

All the changes in the states, particularly California, haven't happened because cannabis smokers have been playing Xbox and watching tv. The stale stereotypes you're using have been soundly disproven.

Mark27

DMT cant be made in the kitchen. Its a natural extract from Pharis grass and other plants

Colibri

Mark27 wrote: »

DMT cant be made in the kitchen. Its a natural extract from Pharis grass and other plants

I'd say that's probably what he meant You need to go through a few steps to extract it but it's so easy, it could be done in the kitchen :pac:

Fukuyama

Mark27 wrote: »

DMT cant be made in the kitchen. Its a natural extract from Pharis grass and other plants

Yes it can. Obviously you need some (pretty basic ingredients and easy to get). You don't need a high-tech lab or to possess a degree in pharmaceutical engineering. Your average apartment kitchenette would do just fine.

There are dozens of drugs which can be cooked up relatively easily by anyone who knows how. The guides are online. If you can use google then you can make some pretty serious mind altering substances which are relatively harmless.

On a personal level, DMT wouldn't be for me. I wouldn't rule it out totally but I'd really have to give it some thought and speak to people I trust who've taken it. I hallucinated a few times in my early teens (phase?) when I had the flu and a fever. I remember being terrified to the extent that the only way I can describe the fear is being buried alive in a coffin. That said, DMT it supposed to be epic. But it might not be for me.

My point is that they can make x, y and z illegal. Within a few months x1, y1 and z1 will have been conjured up. Humans have wanted to get high for thousands of years. It's only in the last 100 we've decided to try to stop it. It cant work. And it won't work.

TheZohanS

Not In My Name.

Signed..

jimcoolding

SIGNED

IN MY NAME

Fukuyama

TheZohan wrote: »

Not In My Name.

...isn't that a movement directed at the Real IRA and CIRA to cease hostilities (read: scumbag bombings and murders).

Wrong thread perhaps?

Or indeed if you are against drugs you have failed epically in contributing to the thread.

TheZohanS

Dean0088 wrote: »

...isn't that a movement directed at the Real IRA and CIRA to cease hostilities (read: scumbag bombings and murders).

Wrong thread perhaps?

Or indeed if you are against drugs you have failed epically in contributing to the thread.

Ah no, I just didn't sign my name.

I signed it "Pablo Escobar".

Fukuyama

TheZohan wrote: »

Ah no, I just didn't sign my name.

I signed it "Pablo Escobar".

Why? (if you actually have)

All that does is make a mockery of a very legitimate petition. Also, I'm sure Pablo would have been the last person to sign the petition.

Chuck Stone

Dean0088 wrote: »

There is a war on drugs.

Real wars come to an end. Drugs will always be here - it's a war on people.

TheZohanS

Dean0088 wrote: »

Why? (if you actually have)

All that does is make a mockery of a very legitimate petition. Also, I'm sure Pablo would have been the last person to sign the petition.

Don't worry I signed it properly. I don't do drugs myself but I'd rather see the drugs trade regulated, the quality of drugs improved, and people receive information about drugs than the current situation that we have at the moment where criminals make the profit and you're not guaranteed to get what you paid for. IMHO alcohol is a much nastier drug than say weed or MDMA, I've never seen someone start a fight on either of those two drugs.

Fukuyama

TheZohan wrote: »

Don't worry I signed it properly. I don't do drugs myself but I'd rather see the drugs trade regulated, the quality of drugs improved, and people receive information about drugs than the current situation that we have at the moment where criminals make the profit and you're not guaranteed to get what you paid for. IMHO alcohol is a much nastier drug than say weed or MDMA, I've never seen someone start a fight on either of those two drugs.

Okay... I think I just misunderstood your posts

Hopefully the petition will get noticed. It's a long shot though.

Fukuyama

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Real wars come to an end. Drugs will always be here - it's a war on people.

This kind of misinterpreting of the problem is a major issue in holding back reform.

There is a war on drugs. It's a result of prohibition - not prohibition itself. The War on Drugs can come to and end. Once prohibition does. Much in the same way conventional wars are resolved when the issues that caused the war are resolved.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'm expecting FluterrinBantam to come along any minute now, arguing that legalizing cannabis will somehow lead to an increase in his taxes.

Fukuyama

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'm expecting FluterrinBantam to come along any minute now, arguing that legalizing cannabis will somehow lead to an increase in his taxes.

Shhhh. The last thing we want are his ears burning and him coming to the rescue of 'John Q Taxpayer'!!! :P :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Dean0088 wrote: »

This kind of misinterpreting of the problem is a major issue in holding back reform.

There is a war on drugs. It's a result of prohibition - not prohibition itself. The War on Drugs can come to and end. Once prohibition does. Much in the same way conventional wars are resolved when the issues that caused the war are resolved.

I disagree. Calling it a war makes it sound as if there are good guys and bad guys.

Uninfomed people think the 'good guys' are the side which are 'protecting' them i.e. the police, the prosecutors, the prison officers etc.

There is only one question to be asked and answered when it comes to drug taking.

Do people support the initiation of violence? In this case it's the kidnapping and imprisonment of people who choose to take drugs - a victimless 'crime'.

Either you're for violence or you're not. Simple as.

HavingCrack

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Invariably people think the 'good guys' are the side which are 'protecting' them i.e. the police, the prosecutors, the prison officers etc.
.

In fairness an awful lot of police officers in the worst affected US cities such as Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago are in favour of decriminalising drugs and making them a public health issue rather than a criminal one. Unfortunately I know very few guards with similar views.

listermint

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I disagree. Calling it a war makes it sound as if there are good guys and bad guys.

Uninfomed people think the 'good guys' are the side which are 'protecting' them i.e. the police, the prosecutors, the prison officers etc.

There is only one question to be asked and answered when it comes to drug taking.

Do people support the initiation of violence? In this case it's the kidnapping and imprisonment of people who choose to take drugs - a victimless 'crime'.
Either you're for violence or you're not. Simple as.

I beg to differ, your purchase is propagating people getting murdered for money to control the drug trade. So currently, no its not a victimless crime.

Chuck Stone

HavingCrack wrote: »

In fairness an awful lot of police officers in the worst affected US cities such as Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago are in favour of decriminalising drugs and making them a public health issue rather than a criminal one. Unfortunately I know very few guards with similar views.

Absolutely. But calling it a 'war on drugs' is not helpful imo. People are either for freedom and non-violence or they are against it.

People who support the so called 'war on drugs' are for violence (kidnap and imprisonment of drug users) and against freedom (the freedom to do what you want with your body and time).

It's really quite simple if given a little thought.

Colibri

listermint wrote: »

I beg to differ, your purchase is propagating people getting murdered for money to control the drug trade. So currently, no its not a victimless crime.

The only reason people are getting murdered? Drugs are illegal. Drugs are big money!

HavingCrack

listermint wrote: »

I beg to differ, your purchase is propagating people getting murdered for money to control the drug trade. So currently, no its not a victimless crime.

I think he was referring more to the actual 'act' of consuming drugs rather than the violence that occurs to control the sale and supply of the substances. If I buy a line of cocaine off a drug dealer and snort it at home on my own I am not 'directly' harming anyone except myself.

Now only a fool would not realise that the cocaine you have bought did not originate in South America where it is fought over by violent cartels who regularly kill innocent bystanders. In turn it is shipped to Africa and Europe and goes via Spain, the Netherlands and the UK before arriving here. Violence is associated with all its stages. However, you are not directly involved in the violence.

Chuck Stone

listermint wrote: »

I beg to differ, your purchase is propagating people getting murdered for money to control the drug trade. So currently, no its not a victimless crime.

Wrong.

People who get killed in drug related disputes are killed because of the vast amounts of money changing hands because of it's illegality and lack of regulation.

People who sell drugs cannot work out disputes by invoking property rights. They cannot go to the police or courts and say 'He owes me money' what is the result? Disputes are settled by violence.

It's the illegality that causes victims. Not some random guy who likes a joint at the weekend.

HavingCrack

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Absolutely. But calling it a 'war on drugs' is not helpful imo. People are either for freedom and non-violence or they are against it.

People who support the so called 'war on drugs' are for violence (kidnap and imprisonment of drug users) and against freedom (the freedom to do what you want with your body and time).

It's really quite simple if given a little thought.

Oh I would agree with you 100%, no doubt about it. I was merely pointing out that not all police are proponents of the drug "war".

I do feel we need a carrot and a stick approach to the problem. Legalisation of marijuana and MDMA and decriminalisination of other drugs would be a start along with a coherent public health strategy similar to Portugal's. Posession of drugs is no longer a crime. However a zero tolerance policy is neccessary for major drug traffickers I feel. ANy violent attempts by drug dealers to attack the legal retailers of their former products must be punished severely. Perhaps other drugs may be legalised very gradually over time once addiciton levels drop significantly and violence from drug gangs decreases. As I said, a carrot and stick approach.

Colibri

HavingCrack wrote: »

I do feel we need a carrot and a stick approach to the problem. Legalisation of marijuana and MDMA and decriminalisination of other drugs would be a start along with a coherent public health strategy similar to Portugal's. Posession of drugs is no longer a crime. However a zero tolerance policy is neccessary for major drug traffickers I feel. ANy violent attempts by drug dealers to attack the legal retailers of their former products must be punished severely. Perhaps other drugs may be legalised very gradually over time once addiciton levels drop significantly and violence from drug gangs decreases. As I said, a carrot and stick approach.

This should happen in full legalisation too

TheZohanS

HavingCrack wrote: »

In fairness an awful lot of police officers in the worst affected US cities such as Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago are in favour of decriminalising drugs and making them a public health issue rather than a criminal one. Unfortunately I know very few guards with similar views.

I know quite a few gardai that hold that view on drugs, but they'd never come straight out and say it to all and sundry because it would be used as a stick to beat them and their job is to withhold the law, not to legislate.

The gardai have better things to be doing with their time than filling in paperwork and taking time out to appear in court for minor drug offences, it wastes resources.

HavingCrack

TheZohan wrote: »

I know quite a few gardai that hold that view on drugs, but they'd never come straight out and say it to all and sundry because it would be used as a stick to beat them and their job is to withhold the law, not to legislate.

The gardai have better things to be doing with their time than filling in paperwork and taking time out to appear in court for minor drug offences, it wastes resources.

Fair enough, I can respect that point of view. I would not expect a garda to risk their job for it. Unfortunately getting our legislature to change anything with the conservative Kenny in charge is very unlikely. It isn't even a topic for discussion within his party according to a relatively high up member I know.

Fukuyama

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I disagree. Calling it a war makes it sound as if there are good guys and bad guys.

Uninfomed people think the 'good guys' are the side which are 'protecting' them i.e. the police, the prosecutors, the prison officers etc.

There is only one question to be asked and answered when it comes to drug taking.

Do people support the initiation of violence? In this case it's the kidnapping and imprisonment of people who choose to take drugs - a victimless 'crime'.

Either you're for violence or you're not. Simple as.

I think you're a little deluded to think there isn't a War on Drugs.

Fair enough the term was coined by the White House as part of an anti-drug campaign back when the world was led to believe cannabis would cause you to go into a murderous rage, rape your sister and blow your own head off with shot gun. Reefer madness as it were.

Today, the war on drugs involves plenty of live ammunition, deaths, casualties, territorial disputes (both between gangs and gangs and police) and people fleeing from the violence.

In some wars (hell, most wars) both sides are the 'bad guys'. Believe me, it's a war. Try take a stroll through Mexican border towns and tell me otherwise.

strobe

Colibri wrote: »

http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_the_war_on_drugs/?fpla



The UN will have a meeting about Drug Policy on the 1st of June. Former heads of state and other important figures will come together to discuss the failed war on drugs and its devastating effects worldwide.

Avaaz is hosting a petition to be signed and given to the commission on the 1st, but they need signatures from everyone who opposes this war on drugs! Do the right thing guys - end violence in Mexico and other countries worldwide, boost economies and educate people


Avaaz started a petition to stop the gay death penalty bill in Uganda. 1.6 million signatures were delivered to the Ugandan Parliament. It helped create awareness - the bill died. This shows that petitions can work - strength is in numbers. I think all the recent protests in the East has proved this!

Sigged.

Chuck Stone

Dean0088 wrote: »

I think you're a little deluded to think there isn't a War on Drugs.

I'm not deluded at at all.

You think it's a war on drugs. Fine.

I think the term is simplistic and unhelpful and the war on drugs is used to distract ppl from what's really happening which is more like a war on people.

Regardless, you won't convince me otherwise nor I you so let's agree to differ.