The quest for freedom and safety: Why I donated $100,000 to YesOn19

http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/10/quest-for-freedom-and-safety-why-i.html

by paul • 16 years ago

311 228 16 years ago

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

credo2• 16 years ago

Prop 19 is limited to marijuana, but almost everything in your post is applicable to other drugs (cocaine etc.)

Would you vote yes on a future proposition that legalizes all drugs ?

wnoise3• 16 years ago

That question doesn't have to be decided now. We can look at the effects of Prop 19, and see what the results suggest about legalizing cocaine, heroin, or even pseudoephedrine.

netcan2• 16 years ago

Exactly. Even if you are a complete anti prohibition believer, you will probably take route. In other words, even if you decided to legalise everything, a good strategy would be to start with marijuana, see the effects, add some more drugs to the list, etc.

itistoday7• 16 years ago

The harmful effects of prohibition exist irrespective of the drug. History has shown that they are largely of the same character (but perhaps different in scale) for cocaine, heroin, alcohol, etc.

You take a substance out of the hands of professionals and place it into the hands of criminals. The quality of the substance goes down. The number of dead bodies goes up. The truth about the drugs themselves gets completely distorted with lies and propaganda instead of becoming common knowledge.

Legalization should go hand-in-hand with education and healthcare reform. If you get those elements right, you'll have a much more functioning society. Fewer drunk drivers, fewer overdoses, and no drug cartels to speak of.

rick88825• 16 years ago

"Legalization should go hand-in-hand with education and healthcare reform. If you get those elements right, you'll have a much more functioning society. Fewer drunk drivers, fewer overdoses, and no drug cartels to speak of."

What healthcare reform? Are we going to pay for the health care of addicts now? If you become an addict you should have to also deal with the consequences. Education should concentrate on telling kids not to touch drugs because most likely, they will fuck up their life. Pot may not be chemically addicting or as harmful as cigarettes, but it ruins your ambition and can be even worse for kids or even younger adults that should be figuring out what they want to do in life.

I also don't think it will get rid of the drug cartels. They will just have a legal way of funding their operations. It will only make it easier for them to make money.

c1sc0• 16 years ago

I don't even have a vote in this matter, but yes. legalization + regulation is the answer here.

jbail2• 16 years ago

Stemming the flow of money to brutal drug lords is reason #1 to rethink the current drug policies. Glad to see that point spelled out so clearly. What's going on in Mexico is truly heartbreaking.

Marijuana is clearly a big piece of the puzzle, but what about legalizing harder drugs like cocaine?

EDIT: Removed the question because I saw another HN'er posted it. Then added it back when Paul responded so it'd make sense in context.

paul3• 16 years ago

I don't know what the answer is for all drugs, but Marijuana should obviously be legal, so that's a good place to start. If we wait for the perfect answer to all questions, we'll never fix anything.

jbail2• 16 years ago

Well said. Thanks for standing up on a tough issue.

credo2• 16 years ago

jbail was referring to my comment which was posted a few minutes earlier than his.

However, my question was a bit more pointed and I think you haven't addressed it.

The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs. If different drugs have different answers, why didn't you (or why don't you) explain why your argument is limited to marijuana.

OTH if you strongly believe in the philosophy outlined in your post, what is stopping you from endorsing similar initiatives for cocaine and why would cocaine potentially need a different answer ?

[edit] I see a lot of good responses, but all of them special-case marijuana (e.g. marijuana is less addictive than heroin). This is fine, but Paul's post has flowery language about freedom and all of that language is applicable to heroin as well. Paul's post doesn't make the case for special-casing marijuana. On the contrary, if he denied the principles of "freedom" for cocaine, it would undermine his post which is all about "freedom" and nothing about marijuana being less dangerous than cocaine etc.

uuilly2• 16 years ago

The worst side effect of the drug trade is that it funds a worldwide network of highly capable smugglers. To them drugs are just an arbitrary material to be moved from point A to point B. Drug networks move terrorists, weapons, nuclear material, slaves and child prostitutes just as easily as they move bags of powder. But drugs are the smugglers' bread and butter. The other more harmful things are just the salt. But demand for the more harmful cargo is not sufficient enough to fund such a large and competent industry.

I worked in the MIL/INTEL world for a long time and a staggering number of really nasty things turned up amongst bags of powder all over the world. Drug networks are like VPN for physical objects. And drug producers would happily abandon that protocol for FEDEX if they could. The remaining market for moving things we truly cannot live with would be reduced by many orders of magnitude if we gave up on the drug war.

sigzero• 16 years ago

I always wonder what "legal" means in this case. I agree it should definitely be medically legal. I do not agree that it should be generally legal.

kristofferR3• 16 years ago

This is a tough question. We all agree that marijuana should be legalized and sold in a regulated way, but what about the other, way more dangerous drugs?

This may surprise you, even shock you, but heroin is actually legalized, and given out by the government, in a lot of European countries. Addicts visit a special office and get their daily fix administered by trained professionals. I think this is the way to do it for heroin. Heroin in itself is actually not as insanely dangerous as portrayed. Sure, it's a really really bad drug, but just like morphine, it can be administered safely. The most dangerous thing about heroin is actually not the heroin itself, but the contaminants and unclean administration. The high price of heroin creates a lot of crime, in places where it's not legalized the addicts either have to steal, prostitute or push drugs to afford their own usage. Stats have shown that legalizing and incredibly strictly regulating it reduces addiction, crime and recruitment of new users. Nobody sane wants to try heroin, almost all the recruitment are done by the addicts themselves pushing it to other unfortunate people. When they don't have to spend their days working on getting enough money to buy their next fix they actually can have normal jobs and working on escaping their addiction.

I don't know how to handle other dangerous drugs such as cocain, meth, amphetamines and lsd. Mushrooms and MDMA should be legalized, but way stricter than marijuana.

carbocation6• 16 years ago

In parts of the US, we give out clean needles to addicts. We treat heroin addiction with opiates. This is very important. However, I think that many people these days underestimate how harmful heroin is per se.

I'd really rather deal with the marijuana issue as separate from the heroin issue.

gcheong4• 16 years ago

What is the definition of a "dangerous" drug? If it's addiction you are talking about, I would be willing to bet that most people who try drugs, even the supposedly highly addictive ones, probably do not become the hopeless addicts that people like to point to when talking about the dangers of drugs. My guess is that people try them for a while or off and on on a recreational basis and it would be a rather minor part of their life.

rsheridan63• 16 years ago

Opioid addicts would be pretty harmless if they didn't have trouble getting their drugs, but some drugs just make people act crazy, and they could get more they'd just act crazier.

Here are a few horrific pages from a book about meth that illustrate what I'm talking about: http://books.google.com/books?id=qYOFM6aXSyEC&lpg=PA42&#...

itistoday7• 16 years ago

> Marijuana is clearly a big piece of the puzzle, but what about legalizing harder drugs like cocaine?

All drugs should be legalized and regulated. Especially cocaine.

You will not have peace on this Earth until that happens. The drug cartels will simply move onto the next forbidden fruit. Prohibition is, as Paul and many others point out, an assault on basic human rights and freedoms, and it carries with it a tax on society. Not just in terms of dollars wasted but in lives ruined.

Education + Legalization.

Erowid and scientific fact in every classroom instead of propaganda and lies.

This is not exactly a difficult concept to grasp, and various parts of the world (like Portugal, Holland, etc.) are finally waking up to it, and their quality of life is improving because of it.

Unfortunately, years of lies, fear-mongering, brainwashing and propaganda can be hard to erase.

lukifer6• 16 years ago

If you've seen firsthand what a drug like meth does to a person, it makes you think twice about the ideal that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their body/mind. The fact is, not everyone has the good judgment to make responsible use of that freedom, and some drugs really are much nastier than others, causing deep harm to both the user and society.

At the same time, we would be deluding ourselves to think that locking people up changes anything, whether we go after the supply or the demand.

The best way to move towards a sensible drug policy is to start by admitting that there are no good solutions, and that the best we can hope to do is to minimize harm, both from the drugs themselves, and the cartels.

(I agree, though, regarding drug education: Erowid has the capability to save far more lives than DARE ever could.)

wisty• 16 years ago

Education + Legalization + Excessive Regulation.

Just make sure all the dangerous stuff can only be administered in licensed venues by trained professionals.

Make users fill out a 12 page disclaimer before they are served. Make sure that the centers are decorated as tastefully as the average welfare office.

The hardcore addicts will flock to the centers, which will kill the street trade. But casual users and people looking to experiment won't bother; and they won't be able to find street dealers, as the dealers can't make a profit off the addicts anymore.

kqr2• 16 years ago

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized drugs. Data since then seems to indicate that the policy was successful.

rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/14...

slowpoison• 16 years ago

Anybody comment on what the situation is in Amsterdam, where pot is legal, at least, in small quantities?

VladRussian7• 16 years ago

>and money saved on enforcement

For the police union it is "lost" money, not "saved".

jozo• 16 years ago

The situation in the US now and in Portugal then is very different. Everything from the culture and structure of society, to the motivations behind the reform and the actual reform itself are different. The decision by the socialist government in Portugal was based on pragmatism, born out necessity, rather then ideology. The idea was that, instead of further victimizing the addicts, they would be able to get help. As the law no longer would stand between those in need and the resources of the government. That's why it still isn't legal to sell drugs in Portugal and why you as an addict can be called to mandatory counseling. I'm not saying on reform or the other is better, but they are still very different.

shin_lao• 16 years ago

Decriminalization is not legalization.

naveensundar• 16 years ago

Marijuana is not a big piece of the puzzle. Research from RAND indicates otherwise

Key findings include: 1) Mexican DTOs' gross revenues from illegally exporting marijuana to wholesalers in the United States is likely less than $2 billion; 2) The claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO gross drug export revenues come from marijuana should not be taken seriously; 3) If legalization only affects revenues from supplying marijuana to California, DTO drug export revenue losses would be very small, perhaps 2–4 percent; 4) The only way legalizing marijuana in California would significantly influence DTO revenues and the related violence is if California-produced marijuana is smuggled to other states at prices that outcompete current Mexican supplies. The extent of such smuggling will depend on a number of factors, including the response of the U.S. federal government. 5) If marijuana is smuggled from California to other states, it could undercut sales of Mexican marijuana in much of the U.S., cutting DTOs' marijuana export revenues by more than 65 percent and probably by 85 percent or more. In this scenario, the DTOs would lose approximately 20% of their total drug export revenues.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP325/

Empact• 16 years ago

If you take the secondary effects of California legalization seriously - e.g. of policy changes in other sympathetic states, then it's a 20%+ cut in drug cartel revenue. How is that not a big piece of the puzzle?

And say it's just the 4% cut from California. Do those incremental hundreds of millions of dollars not count as major?

srbloom2• 16 years ago

There is also the chance that legalization in California leads to legalization everywhere.

barrkel• 16 years ago

Note the structural bias: RAND provides research focused on national security; they have a direct financial incentive for justifying the size of the security apparatus of the state.

zeraholladay2• 16 years ago

I'm in no way implying you're making the slippery slope argument, but it seems to me there's a common fear-based subtext to this question in the America media. So, I'm going to try to address what I see as the slippery slope subtext.

I don't think there's a slippery sloper from marijuana to cocaine, especially if marijuana is legalized. The slippery slope argument is like arguing there's a slippery slope from beer to cocaine -- addictive personalities aren't that simple. Further, any evidence implying a slippery slope from marijuana to harder drugs becomes less relevant after legalization, since marijuana users will then have fewer interactions with criminals and less exposure to harder drugs.

sown• 16 years ago

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/oregon-county-decriminali...

hristov2• 16 years ago

If you want to stem the money to the brutal drug lords, the first thing you should do is stop using drugs. It is very doubtful that the drug lords will just disappear with legalization.

rsheridan63• 16 years ago

They would not be able to compete with regular businesses if the price weren't artificially high due to prohibition. We stopped seeing gangsters like Al Capone in the liquor business when Prohibition ended.

abc8902• 16 years ago

Actually, what's even more heartbreaking is people still continuing to use illicit drugs from countries like Mexico when thousands of Mexicans are dying to get them those drugs. Maybe they should wait on buying those drugs until they become legalized to stop the brutal killings of Mexicans.

"what about legalizing harder drugs like cocaine"

I'm guessing you've never lived with anyone who's been addicted to drugs.

Symmetry2• 16 years ago

I'm personally sort of scared that Mexico will just give up on the drug war, and the US will retaliate by making cross-border trade really difficult, totally screwing over both economies.

hfinney• 16 years ago

Why are all these donations happening so late? It's four days until the election. Half the electorate has already voted, and the rest are tuning everything out by now. Prop 19 is failing and it's too late for advertising to make a difference. Where were all these deep pockets a month ago?

mcknz• 16 years ago

I don't think it's too late. There are always voters who base their decision on the last information they receive. Last-minute ads can influence those people.

derwiki• 16 years ago

A lot of the potential supporters for Prop 19 might need a last minute reminder ;-)

paul3• 16 years ago

Better late than never :)

Apparently a very large fraction of voters actually make their decision while in the voting booth!

dotBen3• 16 years ago

I agree with your point (I also agree on YES on 19, although I'm not allowed to vote here in CA).

I'm guessing the late run of donations is because latest polls show there is a 50/50 chance of this passing, whereas a few months ago it looked like it was unlikely.

You either put up $100k earlier on to make a wider political statement regardless of the chances of outcome or you put up $100k to help create tip the balance when it looks like things could go either way...

wnoise3• 16 years ago

> although I'm not allowed to vote here in CA

You are allowed to man phone banks for get out the vote efforts, and are allowed to drive people to the polls, however. These multiplicative effects are likely to do more than just voting.

tlrobinson• 16 years ago

Ad buys. If you start the ads too soon you give the opposition a chance to raise money to produce and run ads. It's also possible the donations just weren't announced until now.

kristofferR3• 16 years ago

Damn, I really hope Prop 19 passes. I'm not even American, but a passage would mark the start of the end of the dreadful war on marijuana around the world. Other states would follow, then Latin America (the former Mexican President said "May God let it pass" about Prop 19), countries in Europe (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark) and slowly it would be legalized around the world. Defeat would be a major setback.

I urge all Californians who're reading this to do their absolute best to make it pass in these last vital days. Join the phone banks, make sure all your friends are voting, campaign at universities. It could make a large difference, larger than you probably think.

dotBen3• 16 years ago

Other states would follow, then... countries in Europe (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark)

It already is legalized in Netherlands and decriminalized (I believe) in Spain and Denmark, as well as UK (although that's about to change back I hear).

kristofferR3• 16 years ago

It's just decriminalized in the Netherlands actually, the coffeshops are tolerated, but not legal. Producing marijuana is not legal at all.

0-44• 16 years ago

It's never been decriminalized in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis#United_Kin...

Under Labour they reclassified it as class C for a while but then put it back to class B in 2009.

netcan2• 16 years ago

The european approach (de facto decriminalization) doesn't solve most of the problems americans are concerned with. Basically, the last link or two (user and/or retail supplier) are decriminalized, but the rest stay illegal.

This keeps production and supply in the hands of actual criminals that deal across countries. The legalized links are operated by borderline criminals and shady people.

It makes life better for the consumer (I have no problems with this), solves a lot of the policing issues but doesn't tackle solve organised crime, quality issues etc. If you are only interested in legalising marijuana, this policy doesn't create the wall between soft & hard drugs either. That is, marijuana stays in the "drugs" category and doesn't enter the alcohol category (where regular users will be appalled at the thought of their adult children using, for example, marijuana).

philwelch• 16 years ago

I really wish I lived in CA so I could vote for this. We had a similar initiative here in WA, but they didn't get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

rmorrison• 16 years ago

I am a firm supporter of Prop 19, but I have one major concern: that as cannabis laws are eased in the US, gangs and criminals that used to make their living from pushing cannibis will start pushing harder drugs (like cocaine), causing an increase in violence (as more people fight for a smaller market) and heavier drugs getting pushed on school children.

I suspect (though I haven't researched further) that the recent crime uptick in northern Mexico is due to the easing of cannabis laws across America over the past few years, and that it'll just get worse after Prop 19 is passed.

Personally, I think the solution is to legalize all drugs, and to put the money that we're spending on the war on drugs into medical treatment and education. It's obviously a difficult situation, but I'm glad to see that we're making progress.

rick88825• 16 years ago

"Personally, I think the solution is to legalize all drugs, and to put the money that we're spending on the war on drugs into medical treatment and education. It's obviously a difficult situation, but I'm glad to see that we're making progress."

So we make it easier for someone to become an addict and then pay millions to treat them? I also fail to see how education is going to work. The education people need is to tell them to stay away from drugs in the first place.

squidsoup• 16 years ago

Simply telling kids to stay away from drugs is a paternalistic approach that doesn't work, particularly when you consider that teenagers tend 'rebel' against advice from authority. Genuine education would inform without bias, and allow people to make informed, safe choices.

siegler• 16 years ago

I haven't studied Prop 19 at all, but my guess is that its primary purpose is to get democrats to the polls. It's just like all the 'defense of marriage' propositions that were on the ballot when Bush was trying to get reelected to get republicans to the polls.

If so, that's quite a way for a libertarian to waste $100k.

edit: I love the open debate. Yeah, legalizing pot is definitely the most pressing problem facing our nation, so let's downvote anybody who says differently. HN is turning into Reddit.

prodigal_erik3• 16 years ago

Consider how many people are stuck in cages for no good reason over this. If some organization other than the government were kidnapping that many people, solving that problem would be a high priority.

Besides, the opportunity cost is zero to not lock these people up. It's not as if some other problem is going unsolved in favor of taking this law off the books.

rick88825• 16 years ago

"Consider how many people are stuck in cages for no good reason over this. If some organization other than the government were kidnapping that many people, solving that problem would be a high priority."

Consider how much money the government is stealing from its citizens for no good reason. If some organization other than the government were doing this, solving the problem would be high priority..

The reason it's not high priority is because those people knowingly used an illegal substance and got caught. I also think you are over-estimating the amount of causal drug users in prison.

einarvollset• 16 years ago

I love the open debate. Yeah, my opinions is obviously right, so if I get downvoted it must be because HN is turning into Reddit.

alan-crowe• 16 years ago

I recommend that people never use sarcasm in an online discussion, because the inversion makes it hard to check ones logic before clicking reply.

For example, just what is the most pressing problem? Well, the answer is pretty obvious: people get old and die.

What is also obvious is that we don't know what to do about this. More funding for research on Alzheimer's disease looks correct, but beyond that it gets very unclear.

So immediately you reject sarcasm it leaps out at you that "most pressing problem" in the simple sense of "most important" isn't a good criterion. You need to be thinking about whether a problem can be fixed or not. Repealing bad laws is a very attractive focus for activism because it is such a practical step; it will actually work.

Your own errors can only leap out at you before you click reply if you state your position directly. Once you give in to the lure of sarcasm, you bind yourself to smug stupidity.

hugh32• 16 years ago

I'm sorry, but this thread is really just politics. I know Paul Buchheit's own submission of Paul Buchheit's article about why Paul Buchheit donated some money to a political cause has Buckley's chance of being deleted, but, y'know, it really is just political advocacy on a subject unrelated to anything other than politics. I hate to be a dick here, Paul, but, y'know.

delano• 16 years ago

It's okay to believe in something.

thompo2• 16 years ago

you really can't see the potential start-up opportunities that will come forth through the legalization of a substance that millions of people use worldwide?

well at least i know you won't be my competition. keep on keeping on man.

0-44• 16 years ago

You really want think creating a drug based startup is a good idea? Who would buy it? No one would advertise on it. No users would pay for it. And it would be morally questionable. But if that's what floats your boat...

jbooth4• 16 years ago

The election's tuesday. It's topical.

hugh32• 16 years ago

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

0-44• 16 years ago

It's topical to people in California, who care about drugs. Not really hackery is it.

paul3• 16 years ago

For me, it's all connected. The SF area is one of the most innovative places in the world because in it's also one of the most free places in the world.

ciupicri• 16 years ago

Speaking of freedom, are people are allowed to drink beer on the beach? Are teenagers allowed to drink small quantities of alcohol?

Without these I don't think that you can consider SF one of the most free places in the world.

nkurz• 16 years ago

While there are many fine features of the Bay Area, as someone starting a business here who has spent most of my life living elsewhere, I don't see any greater freedom. If you are concerned with obeying the law as written rather than merely avoiding it as enforced, I think it has the least freedom and most regulation of anywhere I've lived in the US. That said, perhaps there are social values associated with lax enforcement?

davidmurphy• 16 years ago

I resent seeing stuff like this on Hacker News. Sorry for the angry rant, but I am extraordinarily opposed to this Proposition, with the strongest fiber of my very being, and to see this be the top story on hacker news, which I come to for entrepreneurship stuff, just makes me pissed. :(

I don't want politics on Hacker News. Get. It. Off. Please. Thanks!

</angryrant>

nkohari• 16 years ago

Why not explain why you're against it, rather than getting angry? To me, HN is a place for debate.

seanalltogether• 16 years ago

I find conversations about the black market in general to be an interesting topic on the desires of society versus the realities of society and how we attempt to reign in human behavior.

My personal stance is that governments need to admit that the black market is a fundamental condition of humanity, and trying to stamp it out is impossible. However it is the governments responsibility to monitor the black market and prevent it from becoming too large, and the only way of doing that is to legalize the most popular activities found within the black market.

If America legalized prostitution, marijuana and cocaine today, i would guess that the black market would be put on life support here in the states.

0-44• 16 years ago

What about the freedom and safety of being able to breathe clean drug free air?

edit: yay hackernews! Just downmod me because your liberal hippy viewpoints disagree. The chances of prop19 passing are 0.

dannytatom2• 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure this won't allow you to walk around town smokin' blunts.

guelo3• 16 years ago

I think that's exactly what it will let you do, that's the whole point.

VladRussian7• 16 years ago

The most powerful CA union - prison guards union. More convicts - more power to the union. Most of the convicts are war on drugs victims, with majority - marijuana related.

ghotli• 16 years ago

Man. Prison guard unions. Those don't seem like a great idea. I guess having that right to unionize is out there, but in this case it certainly doesn't seem right.

Sounds ripe for corruption.

VladRussian7• 16 years ago

>Those don't seem like a great idea.

Well, with your taste to great ideas you'll have fun looking at this one as well http://www.correctionscorp.com/ :

"CCA's 19th Annual Chairman’s Charity Golf Classic hosted nearly 300 golfers and donated almost $150,000 to nonprofit organizations in Middle Tennessee. "

hristov2• 16 years ago

What is your point? AFAIK the prison guards union is not against prop 19, they said they are neutral.

VladRussian7• 16 years ago

They aren't that direct. Look at least an inch deep beyond the surface, What they do, whom they support. For example, in the Oakland mayor race among the 2 front runners, one favors more police cuts vs. cuts in public programs (like after school, etc...) while the other would cut 180 degrees differently. Question: whom the union supports? Hint: whose policies would allow for higher yield and harvesting of more inmates? Bonus question: why would the union support anybody in the Oakland mayoral race?

johngalt• 16 years ago

What I've always found odd about pot smokers:

They will generally have a diatribe about "evil corporations are poisoning us with HFCS/Vaccines/GM food/etc..." Meanwhile they are saying that the federal government shouldn't regulate what someone puts in their body.

Personally I'd like to err on the side of freedom, but all the same there are real risks out there. We can't expect society/government to take care of all dangers, then turn around and say "I should be able to take whatever I want!"

Or to put it more bluntly imagine medicare costs if we legalize all drugs. Imagine the emergency rooms?

aneth• 16 years ago

I think that people who think this way tend to smoke pot, not the other way around. There are plenty of fully functional pot smokers without conspiracy theories.

This is like sitting in a bar listening to the same sob stories repeated week after week at a local dive bar and saying all drinkers are defeatist losers.

rick88825• 16 years ago

"I think that people who think this way tend to smoke pot, not the other way around. There are plenty of fully functional pot smokers without conspiracy theories."

Smoking pot makes many people paranoid. This is fact. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine that these people are conspiracy theorists.

"This is like sitting in a bar listening to the same sob stories repeated week after week at a local dive bar and saying all drinkers are defeatist losers."

When you hear the above from many different groups of people in different parts of the US/world that smoke pot, it really makes you wonder.

ChRoss2• 16 years ago

Sorry for my ignorance, since I'm living in Asia, and I have never deal with drugs, so my knowledge are basically from news.

How is this Prop19 will 'surely' change everything? Especially related to drug cartel.

eli2• 16 years ago

If people are allowed to buy, sell, and even grow their own drugs legally they will no longer have to participate in a black market that often benefits Mexican drug cartels.

ChRoss2• 16 years ago

Well I'm not sure if they can grow it. But, isn't that mean you're going to provide a legal way for the cartel to make money? Now they can sell in legal market, and sure more people will be able to consume it since it's legal now, and the cartel will make 'more' money?

My previous question is actually to find out what kind of measurement, precaution or whatever it is, to make sure that Prop19 will cripple drug cartels, without creating another problem.

hasenj2• 16 years ago

> If we are always held back by our own fears and self-limiting beliefs, then we aren't really free.

Similarly, if we are controlled by our desires, we're not really free. An addict is not really free because he can't control himself.

> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Drugs are definitely not essential.

> prohibition also provides a multi-billion dollar subsidy to violent criminal organizations that threaten our physical safety and security

Crime networks exist not because of strong government or strict laws; they exist because of moral corruption in the society. A strong government, strongly connected coherent society with powerful social moral values actually reduce the size and power of crime networks.

Dennis_• 16 years ago

Hats off to this fellow for promoting freedom and liberty. I am glad that people are slowly starting to realize we don't have a right to tell others what they can do with their bodies. If 19 passes it will be one tiny prick in the side of the petty tyrants who believe they have a right to force others to follow their views.

stretchwithme2• 16 years ago

Right on. The drug war is a huge waste of money and lives and foreign policy capital. It needs to end.

I really feel drug rules (not laws) need to be set at the neighborhood level by simple majority vote.

That way you can live where the limits suit you and you don't need to try to control what the whole country does.

Freedom is not just about allowing everyone to do anything. Its also about people being able to make the living arrangements that suit them without having to impose their choices upon others.

Its too much work anyway, always fighting these battles. Lets call a truce and go our separate ways together.

Mz• 16 years ago

I don't know what the answer is. But whenever a topic like this comes up, I can't help but think about Prohibition and how it failed to stop people from drinking alcohol and, instead, just created powerful crime lords. Ultimately, it was repealed (but only after Capone and the whole legendary Chicago gangland era).

The quest for freedom and safety: Why I donated $100,000 to YesOn19

Related Stories