Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Something New: Boycott Recreational Drugs

Posted 2 years ago on April 16, 2012, 10:34 p.m. EST by engineer4 (362)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's a direct action that would actually benefit everyone. All recreational drug users would stop using Illegal drugs. A compete boycott! Think of the enormous benefit that would occur. Immediate money into the economy. Loss of money to criminals. Loss of power to the street gangs. Loss of power to cartels. Less violence in the cities. No drug related shootings. Civil order. Improved Worker output. Better neighborhoods. More city, state and federal resources available for other functions. Better use of tax money. And on and on. So how about it? WHY NOT?

116 Comments

116 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Legalize them instead. End prohibition.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Don't do that. I like the fact that weed is the only commodity that has not went up in price in the last fifteen years. If you legalize it, it will cost more. lol, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Market forces ruin competition through consolidation of market shares. The dark little truth that no republican will ever admit.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

if it was legal you could grow some for absolutely free! what does price matter!

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Why is it so difficult to make a simple sacrifice that would bhave a maximum benefit for all of society. Seems like a bit greedy that you have to have it. Time to step to the line and take some responsibility.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

its time people like you stop trying to regulate other peoples lives. i bet you drink(drug use) wine at dinner or have a few beers(drug use) on the weekend. get over yourself

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

How right you are. Raise taxes!!!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Why are you so adamantly apposed to people smoking pot? Are you a product of the "Reefer Madness" propaganda campaign?

You know, the only reason the cartels are profiting off of pot is because people like you enjoy shoving your moral code down the throats of everyone else. I joke about wanting it illegal. I, like most Americans, want it legal, and out of the hands of the cartels, even if it is going to cause Marijuana to spike in price.

It is a shame though that illegal drugs are the only commodities to weather inflation. It kinda makes you wonder if market forces are really at work or if a band of speculators are the cause of commodity inflation. Why doesn't inflation effect drugs? Shit, you want to make drugs hard to get, allow them to be regulated, taxed and speculated on. That would make them cost so much that average youth wouldn't be able to afford them anymore. I guess the only real, free market is the illicit market. if you ain't taxed by the man, you are gouged by the stock holders.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

If smoking pt was legal, do you really believe that good things would happen as a result? I am old enough to have seen it all, and no, I am not a product of reefer madness, but someone who believes that in the overall, it would be a detriment, not a benefit to society. You can see the effects of alcohol on the underage drinker, what do you think would happen if pot was legal? Likely same problems or worse. Why would we want more harm?

[-] 2 points by DiMiTri (134) 2 years ago

Then you are ignorant. Look at the studies that show it fights cancer, arthritis, etc etc etc etc, can be used for thousands of industrial purposes, and even has been shown to reduce the number of TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS simply by making medicinal marijuana legal since it deters drunk driving.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Different subject is medical marijuana. I am not against that. Usage for industrial purposes, fine, but that is not smoking it. But medical usage is not near the recreational usage. Explain how medical marijuana would reduce traffic accidents. It sounds as if you are proposing medical marijuana usage as free usage for anyone. That's not the point of medical marijuana.

[-] 2 points by DiMiTri (134) 2 years ago

I'm not going to spoon feed and explain it. Look up the studies yourself. You seem to know very little about the war on drugs. Your idea of boycotting drugs is childish and ridiculous, it would never happen.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

"would never happen" or is it that you don't want it to happen? The point of this post was an idea to reduce demand, which in turn creates a benefit without cost. Responders seem to get caught up in legality, while I am trying to reduce demand. Nobody seems to want to sacrifice something which is pretty selfish. These types of drugs are not going to be legal anytime soon and you know that, so why not try something different to reduce all the violence and misery that is associated with the drug problem.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

why dont you fight to legalize instead of the opposite? it is legal in lots of places already and everyone else needs to get on that bandwagon instead of putting up road blocks... it reduces traffic accidents cause there are NO accidents attributed to recreational drugs.. only alcohol

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I hate to break it to you, but marijuana is easier to get than alcohol when you are underage. the illegality of marijuana causes more trouble than it is worth so, yes, I do "really believe that good things would happen as a result." Marijuana criminalization does more to employ prison guards than any public good you can think of.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I would agree with you there, but Would you agree that if it was legalized, it would be worse than it is now.?

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Is it bad now?

You obviously don't have any professional friends who use the stuff regularly and get by just fine. There is no rational justification for the 70 year prohibition of marijuana, end of story.

What would happen if more people started using it? Less aclohol use, fewer drunk driving fatalities, more happy people.

I don't like it, don't use it, and don't much care for being around the smell... but it isn't difficult to see why its a terrible policy that is causing a severe amount of harm to a lot of innocent people, and accomplishing absolutely nothing but wasting a colossal amount of tax dollars.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Since it is currently illegal, would not a stop in demand be a wonderful thing to reduce crime, shootings, governement costs and resources, etc?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

No. It should be currently legal.

The latent potential these substances have to catalyze a massive shift in human consciousness, creativity, communication... I'm glad people have been brave enough to keep it going for the last 40 years. And we've almost won by the look of things, you can tell because the system is starting to push back pretty hard.

I have no problem with some stuff being decriminalized as opposed to legalized, but there are a few things that defiantly need to be legalized and regulated. Those are the things that let you transcend the human ego, mainly psychedelics.

If you look around its ego that is killing our species, and very convenient that the earth has provided more than a few substances that can get us past that, if we would but take advantage of them before its too late.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You are someone who understands. Too many people are under the assumption that most drug prohibitions are because the substances are 'bad' for us, but the truth is, it's all about control. Have we learned nothing from the '20's? They didn't call that prohibition 'the experiment that failed' for nothing.

Hearst was instrumental in the prohibition of marijuana because of his massive timber interests, which supplied his newspaper empire with paper stock. Had hemp remained legal he would've lost millions.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets it.

Considering the massive shift toward positive social values surrounding 1964-1967, I'm honestly surprised this is not on top the the OWS agenda. Its not an accident these rapid changes among the 1960s youth began to happen after the introduction of psychedelic substances.

100,000 gather in 1967, 500,000 in 1969; millions of people talking about love, brotherhood, freedom, and respect for the planet in a completely backward conservative era. That did not happen merely because people were upset about the draft.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

It's not at the top of OWS' list because it's such an inflammatory topic. It would've labeled OWS as pro-drug, and as conservative as most the country is, at least when it comes to drug prohibition, it would've been gold to the MSM. Besides, getting money out of politics, our original intent, is highly important.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

ya then there's that... :/

Already enough "go take a bath hippie nonsense" on the media, and for good reason, millions of hippies once sprung up out of nowhere and scared the heck out of the government.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

It is a shame that you feel the need to have additional chemical substances to be creative. Is it because you can't compete naturally with out? So what do the naturally creative people do if others are more creative by chemical inducement.? Seems like cheating to me.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Its not a shame at all, why would it be?

First of all, we're not created equal. Secondly, psychedelics are harmless if used appropriately. and Third, I do not need anything to be creative, but the experience can be inspiring. (it's a matter of degree).

I'm not sure where fair play comes in here. Some of the best ideas of had have come sober, but some of the best ideas I've had have come from psychedelics. I don't really compare myself against others like that, there is no sense in it.

I've met people who are unusually creative, who notice the sound of a bird chirping a mile away as if its music. Sometimes I wish I had that kind of childlike imagination, but I'm designed to be more analytical and somewhat oblivious to my surroundings. That's just how I am, and I work with it. Other things I'm a lot better at then the artist types.

Anyway its nice to be able to have an enjoyable experience that incidentally enhances creativity, heightens the senses, and conveys a real spiritual connection. Music sounds amazing, you're struck by the majestic colors of nature... there are probably a lot of people walking around that think they've seen color, or felt a connection to the earth, but I think they'd be surprised.

Plus we've been interacting with the natural plant defenses throughout our entire evolution, its very natural. The practice dates back thousands and thousands of years.

I guess my point is, we are human beings. If we want to get across the water we don't swim, we build a bridge. If I want to access other states of consciousness, I fail to see why I shouldn't use something external for that purpose. That is the beauty of being human, we adapt and use our environment to our mutual advantage.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I prefer natural ability myself, am good at some things , terrible at others, but accept that. I understand your feelings on human nature and desire for other experiences. I get concerned about the slippery slope effect though. Just as a disclaimer; back ithe sixties I did try pot and hash a few times, hash was kind of scary. Saw the effect of psychedelics on some people around me at the time and that kept me away, which I am glad for.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

They're defiantly not for everyone that's for sure; and it makes a big difference who you are with, where you are, how you approach them, and whether you treat them with respect.

I think you are right about the free for all. I would much rather see a system where you you had to attend a course and get a license before you could use them. Have your first experience in a safe environment with people who knew what was up and that sort of thing.

And if you abused the privilege, your license gets cut up and you're done. Something like driving, because it is something that demands care & respect.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

better idea.. stop trying to control people and legalize recreational drugs..

Think of the enormous benefit that would occur. Immediate money into the economy. Loss of money to criminals. Loss of power to the street gangs. Loss of power to cartels. Less violence in the cities. No drug related shootings. Civil order. Improved Worker output. Better neighborhoods. More city, state and federal resources available for other functions. Better use of tax money.

same result.. extra bonus. freedom isnt that what we are all fighting for?

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, and shrooms? Sure, those are harmless, there is no point NOT to legalize them. Cocaine, heroine, crack, and meth? HELL NO!! Those should remain illegal but we should reform how we deal with addicts, like sending them to hospitals rather than prisons.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i agree about the heroin, crack,meth. i dont think lsd would make it onto safe drug list though as it causes psychosis in some people. cocaine and pot ecstasy and shrooms absolutely.

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I know coke users. It's not pretty and I think it's destroyed his life.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

dont you mean their lives? you know users but only one that destroyed his life? and as you see.. coke wasnt legal.. how do you equate legalization with that? what that caused was not only his demise but how many other lives were destroyed by being imprisoned getting the stuff to him? if it was legal.. it would only be the one instead of 20. you see how that reduces expenses and hardship on society as a whole?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Oh my bad, I know some coke users but I was thinking of one of my friends, the others are a bit new to the coke scene. It's something he should go to a hospital for but his dealer belongs in prison.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

sounds like personal choice to me. not something anyone else should be trying to legislate. and why are you blaming the dealer? i was just commenting to a guy that says the banks aren't to blame for the mortgage crash.. and just like that.. the dealer is not to blame for who uses.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Think of the dollars we would have to assist the addicted to get them off their dependancy and back into society.

[-] 4 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

You clearly don't mind spending money on jails, trials, prisons and then welfare for convicts no one will hire.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Please expand your comment. I have not discussed jails or other. But at the moment, these items are illegal. There should be some re-dress for people convicted of nkn-violent drug offenses as part of the solution. Why would I want more jails when this proposal reduces the need for them. Are you opposed to something that promotes something good for society?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

I fully support taxes and universal healthcare. Legalizing drugs would take the money OUT of prisons and put it into healthcare for the few who get addicted. The more money spent on healthcare in this country the longer I can live.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Money isn't the only important factor, so is people's health and civil order.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Why would you prefer to have more doped out kids wandering the streets. Why would you prefer to have the costs for addiction centers, more burden to the health system, etc. Why would you desire to have more car related deaths due to doped drivers? Time to grow up and think about how to make a better society and quit thinking selfishly.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

Strawman argument might be detected. Ignore troll detector and reply to troll:

How about doped out kids ending up in jail instead of getting treated for addiction?

How about early detection rather than hidden problem? Alcohol is legal so would you go after that and would you ask for a sleep requirement also because drowsy driving is just as dangerous and much less detectable than drunk driving? Besides we still have social stigmas around. Once legalization is implemented the difficulty of finding doped drivers is similar

////

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

im not concerned with what kids would do if it was legal , drugs would be regulated the same as alcohol, they are a small percentage of who uses.besides the fact that most of those kids you are referring to are not 'wandering the streets' they are driving that car that dad bought, texting on the phone, and working part time after school, going to college, getting jobs. there are how many car accidents due to dope? none. thats alcohol your thinking of. there would be no increase in addiction centers because pot is not addictive. meth is not a recreational drug. cocaine and pot are recreational. thinking that legalizing will increase an already billion dollar industry is just a false premise. it says you believe that being illegal actually reduces consumption.. 'billion dollar' should tell you that thats not the case. all those things you mention would not happen. what would happen , no more killing over the money, no more crime due to sneaking around dealing it, reduction in prescription drug crimes, instead of thousands dead and in prisons people could do as they please. im not saying we should legalize heroin after all.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

End prohibition. That would be realistic and would absolutely work!

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How about ending the criminal prohibition of marijuana! This would save hundreds of millions, and even generate tax revenue, like alcohol and tobacco.

As well many industrial uses of hemp would be greatly advanced in the same move.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Why would we want to add to the burden of health care systems? Why would we want doped drivers? Why add to problems in schools, workplace, etc.? Marijuana is not a necessity, so why do you selfishly want to keep it, rather than promote the common good?

[-] 7 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What burden? Marijuana is non-toxic i.e. you can not overdose on it, and it actually has many health benefits, hence the medical Marijuana exemptions in many jurisdiction. Stress is a killer and Ganja is a great tool for helping busy people safely relax in the privacy of their own homes.

The reason this plant was criminalized has nothing to do with it's euphoric effects, it was all bout the industrial uses, that where direct complication to Dupont and big chemical/plastic/paint corporations.

No plants should be made illegal. This is an affront to the god who made them.

In my view full decriminalized Marijuana is in the public good, it is those that benefit form prohibition that keep pushing for the status quo. Big-pharm, big-petroleum (paints, plastics, etc.), big-law-enforcment, and the current underground economy currently trading in it.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Well put, but it's falling on deaf ears, as evidenced by his comments. This is a 'distraction thread,' which I suspect was the intent all along.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

guess you have never heard of the health benefits of marijuana? doped drivers do not have accidents. why do you keep saying that?? the common good would be greatly enhanced by legalizing drugs you can see that the common good is not being enhanced while its illegal can you not. you do know that everybody has smoked pot. presidents, the queen of england, etc.

[-] 2 points by Yin7 (44) 2 years ago

Done! Good idea. I will stop all drugs even caffeine.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Yin7 (44) 2 years ago

Good one. I don't agree completely, but that is funny stuff.

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Wow, great idea! You are on to something there. I bet we spend $100 billion on pot alone. It could fund a vastly expanded education system.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Legalize all of it.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Are you including heroin, etc... All the hard drugs? If so, why? And a follow up question: would you provide health care to drug abusers, addicts and others who disregard their own health and burden everyone around them under your proposal? Would they be required to be responsible for the burden they would represent so that others can be safe from potential liabilities to the taxpayers? If yes, how would you do that?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I would legalize all of it. Those who want it have no problem finding it.

I would also make it very cheap, so whoever wants to go nuts can go and get it over with.

As far as treatment, yes that would be provided. Im not sure how, because we were supposed to get single payer, but that went out the window with this fascist shit they gave us.

So I would use the INCREDIBLE savings in our court systems and police forces to help pay for the treatment. Tax it (its all dirt cheap to make) to make up for the amount of revenue that the drug trade gives the counties.

As far being a burden, thats a tough one. HArd to draw the line at any one spot. I would say the current basic laws are enough.

I dont really see the usage going up with this. Like I said, anyone who wants the stuff now has no problem getting it at all.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm with you engineer4. This idea truly shows who is about helping the country and who just wants to "party".

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

Stop assuming every prolegalizers are drug users.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Apologies if that came across that way.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

END the PROHIBITION of recreational Drugs.

[-] 1 points by DiMiTri (134) 2 years ago

The war on (some!) drugs has failed and needs to end. Anyone who thinks otherwise is still brainwashed by the mainstream and seriously needs to open they're minds a little and think for themselves for once

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/graham-hancock-the-war-on-consciousness/

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

The war on drugs has failed because it has not reduced demand, and the terrible violence and corruption associated with the cartels and drug gangs. So I am proposing a way to reduced demand. As it is currently illegal, why do you insist on violating current law, which results in Demand! Why is there such selfishness on this subject. The responders just want to have drugs and everyone else be damned. And that is a real shame.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I think you just like WallStreet getting to take all coke, steroids and DMT they want, and then toss back a few martinis and trade millions in stock.

Did you bring this conversation to them yet?

Did ever even seriously consider it?

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

This seems like a productive plan.

Perhaps the masses will be less docile without their SOMA.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Hey Genius, How do we go about convincing the users to do this, tell em to just say no.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

You have to start somewhere, why not here and let it spread. Start with people you know and convince them to try. It has to be a grass roots effect and one that promotes personal responsibility and a common good for all. We all know users, so take on the challenge.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

"users" I love that word, almost as good a "dope fiend" then you get to know enough of them, and it seems as though the real weirdos are the ones with a sobriety complex... the weird ones that cause the rest of us have to pretend not to "use" when we're around.

Then you get the caffeine freaks, and booze hounds, who think they are not drug users, as they get high every day on legal drugs.

Anyway, I think by "users" you mean normal human beings. Like, you'd probably have an easier time trying to outlaw sex... and mandate artificial insemination as they only way to procreate. Drug use is a normal healthy human activity, provided it is not taken to the extreme.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I was not intending the word "users" in a negative sense, but rather as opposite of non-users.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

If that was your intent fair enough. But "users" usually has a very judgmental negative connotation that implies it is somehow different from a wide variety of legal intoxicants and stimulants, and that such people are somehow a lesser class of people or have some sort of social deficiency.

Anyway, I've been referred to as a "user" more than a few times, and never in a good context; but I appreciate your clarification.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Your right, it was a poor word choice. Thanks for the reply on that point.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

So you support universal healthcare. Very Christian of you.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

??? Not sure of your comment.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

"common good for all." That means taxes and universal healthcare.

[-] 0 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Ya don't get out much do ya ?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Oh I get out just fine. North and South America and Europe.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Oh yeah, then hows it going getting the users to give it up. If talking people out of the problem was ever going to do anything it would have decades ago. Remember Nancy Reagans " Just Say No ", I do, it went no where, it changed nothing besides being another political show of acting like your doing something about a problem. What you do about it i don't claim to know but it requires more than just talking. Yes, i have known some thru my years and long ago tried and most people just wont listen.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I agree it is a difficult thing, sometimes I was successful, sometimes not. What was worse was seeing two people I knew, back 20-30 yrs ago, die as a result of drug usage ( motorcycle crash, suicide) and a few others live a miserable life. But try we do.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Are you still chicken shit, to take this challenge to WallStreet??

yes of course you are.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I don't work on wall street nor do I know anyone there. But would I propose this to all? Sure, why not. Again you take an agressive tone. Why is that?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The aggressive, accusatory, insinuating, tenor of your thread, demands it!!!

You are aware that the AMMA, exists, and is under constant attack by the (R)epelican'ts in all the States it exists in?

This was a long, hard fought battle.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I have no issue with medical marijuana needs, but it is greatly abused by some who use it to skirt the rules. Pain medication and pain tolerance is a very subjective thing, and unless you have close contact with someone who suffers, it can be difficult to understand.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 2 years ago

Yes !!

But I do need caffeine to get my heart restarted in the morning.

[-] 1 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

wait so waht do you mean by recreational drugs?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, speed, and the rest. You know what they are.

[-] 1 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

Ya I know what they are, my uncle is a DEA agent. I thought you meant shit like prescription drugs.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I do believe that certain prescription drugs should have even more controls (I.e. Oxconden).

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

You are a control freak. How American. You love freedom as a noun but not as a verb.

[-] 1 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

ya and even then most sudo is still not secured enough

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

This is a very sensible idea in many ways. After all, current drug policy is designed to maximize cartel profits - for example, by light sentences for buyers and tough ones for sellers, targeted enforcement, deals to transfer prosecution to the beginning of the supply chain, and most tellingly, the prohibition on look alike substances (fake dope) punishing its sale with the same penalty as real dope, which is absolutely necessary to preserve anonymous street dealing of drugs, since otherwise people would be ripped off so often they would stop trying to buy them.

That said, I also have to wonder whether the outcome would simply be that workers' wages would be reduced, or inflation increased, by the average amount that they used to spend on drugs.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

There would be more money kept in local circulation, not in the black market of drugs. How would wages be reduced? If anything, companies would improve their bottom line through better workplace efficiencies, better attendance, lower benefits costs, etc. The general public welfare improves. Even schools would have better attendance, better attitudes for learning., etc.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Try posting this on WallStreet forums.

Their drinking and drugging have done the most harm.They just live in penthouses and such, and don't get caught so easy.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

You can do better than that. Why do you stray off topic.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I thought YOU could do better than this. Drugs are the topic!

A topic YOU brought up. How many iterations did it take you to get to #4?

Are you saying that WallStreet should take all the drugs they want, as long as your portfolio is growing?

But if a protester does, it's really, really bad?

You do realize, it's kind of difficult to snort huge lines of coke while marching down the boulevard, in the wind with a sign in your hand.

Whereas it's actually rather easy to that from a huge oak desk in your office on the 60th floor. Plus there's a LOT fewer cops up there.

I reject this thread as absolute BS!

Propaganda of the Nth degree. To comment otherwise, is to accept your insinuation that everyone who is part of Occupy is a druggie!!!

So why don't YOU tell us just what your agenda is???

Why would you come here after being banned, just to make such an insinuation?

A little honesty from you would rather nice.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

First, I picked the number 4 because I like the number, so back off your assumptions. I am saying everyone. I did not leave anyone out on this. I brought up this topic because I believe it has merit and actually does something good, creates a huge benefit, etc. I have no agenda other than to understand and discuss issues here. I am interested in removing money from politics which is a great challenge to all of us. I have never been banned so not sure what you are suggesting. Calm down, discuss and not just attack. It seems that anyone that has a different view point comes under attack by certain members of these forums as if this is thier personal turf. The topic is about removing "recreational" drugs from society by simply destroying the market for them, thereby gaining great common good for all. Is that such a bad idea? I did not attack the user, but rather challenged them.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Well you did bring this to the OWS forum.

Not to any one of a number of "investment" forums out there, where it would do the most good..

You also pretend that "recreational drugs" are the only substances, or even biota, that have a psychotropic effect.

What about, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and any number of other "drugs"?

The jury is still way, way out on this one.

You bring it here, and inject the assumption, that we must all be high!!!

So I therefor "challenge" you to take this to an "investment" forum and how far you get.

See how long it takes, before they ban you, and get back to us with that information.

You've attacked OWS with your assumption.

I for one, resent that insinuation.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

If this is the "voice of the 99%" then why not post here? I never made an assumption that OWS = drug use. Others have made that, including the media, and the encampments have not been the the greatest model either. I posted this idea as something that could be good for all society and to discuss it. You have made the assumption that drugs are an issue on wall street. I made the statement that removal of the desire of illegals drugs from society would be a great benefit to all. I make no attack on OWS. As far as other "drugs". Sure there are issues, but that's another larger topic. I chose to start on this one because it is something that actually could work. Even if it 50% achievable, why would you not be agreeable to that benefit? Instead of attacks, try a proposal or solution. Present it and discuss it calmly. And take a breath of air too. As for investment forums, I have not been on them, and likely this type of topic is not the place for it. Those forums are for investment and financial subjects. If every particular subject forum was clouded with non topic subjects, it would cease in it's intention it was created for. A topic forum should be respected for what it was created for, and not abused by selfish users.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I know I'm not going to get much love with this one. But I'd rather put food on the table of a pot dealer than spend my hard earned money in a consumer shop. At least I can relate to the pot dealer. The owners of many of the retail shops live a life I cannot relate to. So why would I want to make their lives easier. I guess this is one aspect that I do agree with Republicans over. Where a person decides to spend his money says a lot about the consumer. I choose not to be a retail consumer so I don't drink alcohol for recreational purposes, but I do enjoy letting off steam after a long day's work. I believe your pre conceived notions about drugs is a flowed premise. but you are probably too set in your ways to see the problem with your solution. One man's criminal is another man's neighbor. Buying weed on the streets is thinking and acting locally.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Sounds like you can't let go. A real shame. And you miss the entire point. Your not putting food on the table of anyone but criminals. Seems like a simple choice but you can not grow up and be responsible.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

If we legalize them it will be better

but a boycott would be nice to

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

That includes alcohol. Tee hee.

[-] -1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Ridiculous. What a waste.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

What are you doing!!! For shame, for shame. ;-)

I know. Sometimes you just can't help yourself.

[-] 1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Oops! :o Did I say that out loud?!

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Heh heh heh. Another 'like!'

Signing off for the night. See ya tomorrow on the battlefield!

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

I'll be ready. G'night !!

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

It is a shame that you seem to desire to support the cartels, murderers and the like rather than be on the obvious right side on this. Why is that?

[-] 2 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Well trashy, lets make light work of this rather heated topic shall we? So that I can get back to my thread of "Legalizing Drugs", that you are being paid to clearly use this thread to distract from.

You will NEVER be able to stop the use of mind altering substances.

Since the dawn of time, animals and humans have used substances for pleasure. The desire for this is in our DNA, indeed part of evolution. From infancy, babies are instinctually drawn to foods that make them 'feel good'. This is survival mode at its most evolutionary state. We later use reason and education about health to balance out what we need and want to ingest.

There's no getting away from it. From bugs to birds to animals to humans, our urge to use substances is almost as strong as our urge to procreate. Indeed, one could argue that the two are rather intertwined. Remember that on Friday nights when you are noticeably absent (heavenly) from this forum for several hours, and buying a drink for that pretty little number in hopes of getting laid.

Humans will NEVER stop using substances. The best we can hope for is getting it out of the government cartels and into the hands of the people with a regulated market. Here's a good list of the much debated reasons for legalization, and the only reason it is debated at all is because the government stands to lose billions of dollars by legalizing their 'cash cow'. This is an issue who's time has long since come. Most people are aware of the government monopoly on drugs and prohibitions have NEVER worked. No-one is that stupid any more...not even you trashy.

Here we go:

10 Reasons to legalise all drugs

comment from Transform: the campaign for effective drug policy

1 . Address the real issues

For too long policy makers have used prohibition as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the social and economic factors that lead people to use drugs. Most illegal and legal drug use is recreational. Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that we can hope to significantly decrease the number of problematic users.

2 . Eliminate the criminal market place

The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)

3 . Massively reduce crime

The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality

Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.

4 . Drug users are a majority

Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe.

Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide.

In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.

5 . Provide access to truthful information and education

A wealth of disinformation about drugs and drug use is given to us by ignorant and prejudiced policy-makers and media who peddle myths upon lies for their own ends. This creates many of the risks and dangers associated with drug use.

Legalisation would help us to disseminate open, honest and truthful information to users and non-users to help them to make decisions about whether and how to use. We could begin research again on presently illicit drugs to discover all their uses and effects - both positive and negative.

6 . Make all drug use safer

Prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users. Countries that operate ultra-prohibitionist policies have very high rates of HIV infection amongst injecting users. Hepatitis C rates amongst users in the UK are increasing substantially.

In the UK in the '80's clean needles for injecting users and safer sex education for young people were made available in response to fears of HIV. Harm reduction policies are in direct opposition to prohibitionist laws.

7 . Restore our rights and responsibilities

Prohibition unnecessarily criminalises millions of otherwise law-abiding people. It removes the responsibility for distribution of drugs from policy makers and hands it over to unregulated, sometimes violent dealers.

Legalisation restores our right to use drugs responsibly to change the way we think and feel. It enables controls and regulations to be put in place to protect the vulnerable.

8 . Race and Drugs

Black people are over ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences than whites. Arrests for drug offences are notoriously discretionary allowing enforcement to easily target a particular ethnic group. Prohibition has fostered this stereotyping of black people.

Legalisation removes a whole set of laws that are used to disproportionately bring black people into contact with the criminal justice system. It would help to redress the over representation of black drug offenders in prison.

9 . Global Implications

The illegal drugs market makes up 8% of all world trade (around £300 billion a year). Whole countries are run under the corrupting influence of drug cartels. Prohibition also enables developed countries to wield vast political power over producer nations under the auspices of drug control programmes.

Legalisation returns lost revenue to the legitimate taxed economy and removes some of the high-level corruption. It also removes a tool of political interference by foreign countries against producer nations.

10 . Prohibition doesn't work

There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy.

Legalisation is not a cure-all but it does allow us to address many of the problems associated with drug use, and those created by prohibition. The time has come for an effective and pragmatic drug policy.

"If the (drug) problem continues advancing as it is at the moment, we're going to be faced with some very frightening options. Either you have a massive reduction in civil rights or you have to look at some radical solutions. The issue has to be, can a criminal justice system solve this particular problem?"

Commander John Grieve, Criminal Intelligence Unit, Scotland Yard, Channel 4 1997

Copyright Transform Campaign for effective drug policy Easton Business Centre Felix Road Easton Bristol BS1 0HE Telephone: +44 (0) 117 941 5810 Facsimile: +44 (0) 117 941 5809

Email: rae@transform-drugs.org.uk

web:www.transform-drugs.org.uk

[-] 1 points by DiMiTri (134) 2 years ago

excellent post

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Well thank you! Legalization is a foregone conclusion at this point. We have bigger problems to take care of. Human rights, sovereignty, energy and on and on.........

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Why then, aren't breathalyzers standard issue on automobiles, requiring every driver to blow into the tube each and every time we want to drive that vehicle? How many die in this country because of drunk drivers each year? 11,000 fataities a year that are the result of drunk driving, according to the NY Times. I guess that's "acceptable?"

What I'm saying is this: the entire ethical issue regarding de-criminalization/legalization based on the arguement of "damage done to society" is hypocritical at the very least. The arguemant lacks any consistancy throughout the spectrum of drug abuse, and that flaws the logic.

Many people are going to seek drugs in order to alter their state of consciousness and that obviously includes alcohol, legal drugs, illegal drugs, huffing, etc. "The right side of this" has little basis in reality.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

DWI is unacceptable of course, but that is another topic. Great advances have been made in reduction of drunk driving fatalities, but we have a ways to go there. The point is why alter your state of consciousness in the first place with use of illegal drugs. Why not some personal responsibility for yourself and friends? This is something that can happen. Will it be 100%? Not likely, but what would occur if it was 50 or even 70% effective? Enormous!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Why... might as well ask why small children make themselves dizzy on the marry-go-round. It's fun, and can be completely harmless.

There are studies showing that a life-time of regular peyote use has no impact on a person whatsoever, if fact it shows a small benefit.

There are studies on the deep spiritual experience of unity you get on psychedelic mushrooms, ordinary middle class people rated this as the top 5 experiences in their entire lives. Nearly all of them saw positive life changes result from 1 experience that persisted 16 months. These plants are non-addictive, and completely non-toxic.

The better question is: why not?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Sounds like you can not let go.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Let go of what?

Why would I not want a periodic transcendental experience where I feel a wonderful sense of unity with the planet, and the people on it? It's a great reminder that there is something very special about life.

I don't want the experience all the time, otherwise I'd live in a cave and practice yoga non-stop. I prefer the part-time route, its a nice contrast between spirituality, and getting stuff done.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Here's an article for your consideration concerning the subject at hand.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/truthseeker/drugabuse.html

I believe your thoughts on the great cost of substance abuse and the impact a boycott might have are interesting. I just think that human nature, being what it is, makes such a thing undoable

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

Interesting article. Thanks. Your point on human nature is important, but that is where I believe one on one discussion could work. If you could convince one friend or someone you kwow to stop, and tell him to convince a person, there may be a way forward.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Looks good on paper. Will never fly in the real world.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

It comes down to taking some personal responsibility. Why is that so hard for people?

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Just being realistic. We can't get a few thousand to organize an effective boycott, for example, so the chances of getting ten million to give up mind-altering substances is effectively nil.