medicines are here to help us.  we have the knowledge of them and the ability to acquire them, so if worse case scenario we only hurt ourselves then that's the individual's business.  the DEA pressuring doctors is only going to be a very very bad thing.... for us.  the doctors are the ones that are educated well enough to make the decisions, not the DEA.  people have to turn to something, so if abuse of opiates is up well life is fucking hard right now.  nobody has any money and just wants to take their mind off their hardships for a few hours.  so the fuck what if they abuse opiates, that's there choice and it should have no correlation to the functional medicinal use of them.  opiates, as evil as they are and as much as i love them, are making some people's quality of life considerably higher right now, while at the same time ruining someone else's life.  that's life, educate people and let them make their choices.

I can even agree with some restrictions on cigarette smoking in restaurants and certain other public places, because it can harm others in the area.  But it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.  The same goes for seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc..

Think about the cost to society.  When you go to the hospital for emphysema or lung cancer because you've been smoking weed or cigarettes all your life, that fucks me over by raising my insurance premiums so the insurance company can cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care you'll require.  Likewise, when you get into a car accident smash through your window into my car and break my neck because you weren't wearing your seatbelt, I get screwed due to your nonchalant attitude towards safety.  Oh, and then there's your hospital bill to worry about again.

Think about the cost to society.  When you go to the hospital for emphysema or lung cancer because you've been smoking weed or cigarettes all your life, that fucks me over by raising my insurance premiums so the insurance company can cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care you'll require.

Don't they make smokers, and people with other health conditions to pay a higher rate? If not -- I'd find a better insurance company.

I can even agree with some restrictions on cigarette smoking in restaurants and certain other public places, because it can harm others in the area.  But it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.  The same goes for seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc..

It should be left up to the owner of the private property, and no one else. The people may choose to remove themselves from the situation, it is their choice and concern.. not the smokers, and not the owners of the property.

And for laws regarding seat-belts, helmets, smoking, and heroin use I think this quote sums up what I think, and how the government should act in response to it.

“The only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant”

The social security issue is a complicated one, but I think it may be best if they just do away with it - or at least increase the age *says the young libertarian*

Ah boy.. I once read that many of the chemistry and drug forums have had a lot of drama because of political discussion. I guess we better try to keep this clean, eh?

I can see where that would be the case.  Drug forums are one of those rare places that bring together flower children and venture capitalists with a common interest.

Well put, I think that plays a roll. Then their are at least those curious about the chemistry and experiences of it all, and then the black market capitalists. I don't think there is anything wrong with either, but one type always leads the other type to be annoyed, so it would seem.

for me the essence of these problems is MONEY!!!!!!!!! if you consider how much money is made through the "criminalisation" of mood/mind altering substances,,it becomes clear that "vested interests" play a huge part in keeping these substances illegal....probably one of the most "obvious" of these would be the pharmaceutical co's

sadly as the saying goes about "the golden rule",,,,'he who has the gold, makes the rules!"....but,,,maybe,,just maybe,,because knowledge is power,,and the world is currently in an unprecedented phase,,"the information revolution",,might raise the 'common sensibilities' to the point where many "old dogmas" DIE!!!

endocrination is much harder,when people can "find out for themselves" whatever they want to know about...that is what makes the internet such a wonderful tool

maybe curiosity killed the cat,,but information brought it back!!!

I don't think that makes much sense. I've repeatedly encountered a conspiracy-minded strain of thinking that if cannabis and/or MDMA were legal nobody would buy anti-depressants and that's why pharma companies are secretly behind the War on Drugs. But I've never seen proponents provide affirmative evidence for the claim. That's not where most drug company money is made in the first place: of 2006's 200 best selling prescription drugs by dollar value, the cholesterol drug Lipitor alone brought in more money than all anti-depressants combined. And the best-selling anti-depressants now have generics so they're not even high-margin. And the anti-cannabis laws predate the invention of anti-depressants by decades.

And finally, I've lived with someone who has used cannabis and anti-depressants both for years and I can tell you that smoking twice as much is definitely not a substitute for the prescription. Schedule I drugs are no threat to pharmaceutical companies. There are claims for using cannabis to treat other ailments too, some better founded than others, none that appear to be any serious financial threat to the pharma companies. Read the scientific literature, ignore propaganda that dismisses or contradicts scientific findings. Men from DARE and from NORML alike may ignore scientific studies that don't agree with their gut feelings.

If you want a real "follow the money" example of how crime has become an industry on both sides of the law, look at how the California prison guards' union influences politics in that state.

I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories just because most prescription drugs are actually pretty cheap other than brand new name brand medicines.  If you have a script, you can pick up a month of hydros or fluoxetine for $4 at most places anymore.

Most drug laws throughout U.S. history have been racially motivated.  People didn't like cocaine because they thought it made black people rape white women.  People didn't like opium because they thought the Chinese used it.. to rape white women.  They didn't like marijuana because they didn't like the Mexicans who were flooding in and taking jobs during the depression and probably thought they were raping white women too.  They didn't like LSD because they thought it was responsible for the Vietnam War protests.  Then Nixon consolidated it all and every administration that followed kept pushing the propaganda until half the country thinks every drug turns you into a street junkie mainlining lye, and it becomes political suicide to lobby in favor of street drugs.

But it is what it is.  Might as well take advantage of it.  Modern day bootleggers.

so true jon mon-in fact in many of these euro countries,,you are "allowed" to die,,if your life has become untenable/unendurable...and wish to 'end it all' i.e. holland,switzerland to name a few

in fact much of the 'resistance' to decriminalisation comes from the LE and (especially!) the privatised prisons--when 80% of people in US jails are there as a result,,directly or indirectly,,as a result of "drug related crime"
  it has been roughly calculated that to 'decriminalise' personal quantities of cannabis, cocaine and x would reduce the prison populations by up to 50% which would rreduce the need for prison officers (and prisons)--there's BIG money in prisons--here in oz it costs to incarcerate (approximately) $1200 per prisoner per WEEK!!! do the math!!

 The good 'ole US of A has the greatest per capita % of prisoners IN THE WORLD!!--something like 24 people per 1000 IIRC,, (and Halliburton(a George W & co. company) are one of the big private prison operators in the world!!!--and they have a "fist", not just a finger,, in the oz "prison pie!"

there's a group in the US called LEAP "law enforcement against prohibition" who suggest, the police and prison systems are the biggest supporters of, continuing to keep "as many substances as possible "controlled',,coz of the 'customers/work' provided by "degenerate druggies!!"

 and tc, those 'attitudes of yesteryear' to which you refer,, have changed dramatically in the past couple of decades--the propaganda you cite, just doesnt 'cut it' anymore,,people know better!! and are learning all the time!!!

Did you know Holland (which has very moderate laws,,compared to say,,the US) has the lowest per capita drug consumption of ALL the European countries at around 5.? % compared to <6.5+% elsewhere in the EU!!!
 
 thank fuck for Gobama and his honesty about his college years "a choofin and a tootin" when 'he could afford it"  the likes of nixon and co (besides discrediting themselves with ILLEGAL crap like Watergate) are slowly dying out ,,,hooray!!!
 I mean ,honestly,,what well informed parent of today wants to see their children acquire a 'criminal record' just for having a choof or an x?

I Am a democratic extremist I Am a white american, a blue eyed white american fundementalist .

.........hmmmmm? I mean no offence here matey, but how do you do this...be an "extremist" I'm not sure I know what you mean,, how do you "do" this...maybe I am an "extremist" also, I just dont know it!!!

I Also believe in gun ownership, i am a massive supporter of the NRA. If the government takes our guns away that is when we are really fucked

why are you "fucked"....I dont have a gun..I know a couple of people that do, but they would never think of "needing" them for self defence ....you kill animals with guns, thats what guns are for

And i believe that the government has virtually no role in society apart from to make sure that i don't steal your money and you don't steal mine. Ie: police force.

yeah but thats alot easier "said than done"...govts have to raise $$$ to pay for that 'police force'...and so,need to tax etc

  If your govt provided "FULL health care and medical cover, as well as FULL social security"--like say Australia does,,would you be be prepared to "give up the guns?"

 I'm just throwing some idea's your way, America's soooo different to here...i would like to know what you think....

  I've enjoyed a number of your posts ventman keep em comin8) hyppy

m m m m maybe!!!!!   m m m mmaybe not!!!!!

i read that and in america jurisprudence has vitrually no accountablity.
the D.A.'s take bets on who will hand out the most time that particular day.
i like copwatch.com
and thier used to be  site called jail4judges.net
"judicial accountablity law" for short.
j.a.i.l.