Yeah, thats why the british banned opium. All there little yellow slaves werent working themselves to death to benifit the crown.
That has always been true and always will be. here in AL, you'll pay about 200.00 for an ounce, or 3,200 for a pound.
The main reason I believe they have not decriminalized pot is that once that hurdle is overcome, the next push will be for decriminalizing cocaine, and so on. People will use many of the same arguments to legalize other narcotics. I really think pot is not a big deal, but it stands for something bigger than itself. At least this is what I speculate is the fear that many politicians and the general public have towards it. I saw at least one post on here talking about kids only smoking pot because it was illegal. I agree with him completely. What does that mean though if it is legalized? To rebel, they will now turn to much more dangerous narcotics? I really wouldn't care personally if drugs were legalized as long as I know the government is not going to allow benefits to people who are admittedly drug abusers. If you are a drug abuser, I don't believe you should be awarded for irresponsibility on your part with other peoples hard earned money. Somehow I feel this would be the case in this country. That is the reason I do not support the idea at this time. The idea in my eyes does not work unless the government itself is one with a libertarian value system.
I dont think kids would turn to harder drugs simply because they are way more expensive. You can't get high off cigarettes, which is why people like pot.
... because the tobacco industry and big pharma would loose tons of money. Not to mention the health care industry, and we could throw in the paperindustry, cotton, even the oilindustry...
From 1984: 'You understand well enough ~how~ the party maintains itself in power. Now tell me ~why~ we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,' he added as Winston remained silent. [...] Nevertheless Winston did not speak for another moment or two. [...] 'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore - He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five. 'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.' He pulled the lever back and continued: 'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. <b>The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.</b> What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. <b>The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'</b>
if you legalize pot, the next thing you know they will want women to be able to vote..... i say no.... i mean what is this world coming to?
Ironically, women gaining the right to vote is precisely what <b>caused</b> the prohibitionist policies to be enacted in the first place! Women generally think that the proper role of government is to <b>mother us all.</b> The U.S. government was originally created, not to rule over us, but to provide the people with a bare minimum of legal protections. The U.S. was essentially a free <b>Libertarian nation</b> throughout it's first century and a half of existence. (<i>Essentially</i> Libertarian, as there were admittedly great flaws in the treatment of racial minorities.) From 1776 until the early 20th century, the government's attitude towards so-called 'victimless crimes' can be summed up with the following key quote: <i>A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. ~Abraham Lincoln</i> <b>...and then came Universal Suffrage and fucked it all up.</b> Almost immediately, the government began its exponential growth into nanny-state territory, with the federal government shoving its slimy hand into all our lives. Suddenly, the freedom of consensual adults to do as they pleased... was completely crushed out of existence. Institution of the new & unconstitutional income tax, alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, Overregulation of business, abandonment of the gold standard, Millions of new political prisoners... it just got worse and worse and worse... Until now?: Police State run amuck. The principles upon which the nation was founded- GONE. Right to bear arms- GONE. Right to due process-GONE. More marijuana possession arrests than all violent crime arrests combined! <b>400,000</b> incarcerated political prisoners for the 'crime' of violating drug prohibition. Right to privacy- GONE. Protection from unreasonable search & seizure-GONE. ...but its all <i>for the children!</i> Right?
If the motive is power for the sake of power, wouldn't they want to legalize drugs in hopes of creating more defunct people that are dependent on the government for support? Unless you are saying that they know the only way to stay in power is to keep drugs illegal for fear of the majority not reelecting them, I could concede that point. That was the intent of my post. I was not clear enough in my point. Politicians do not want to head down that road because the electorate will have their heads if it went from marijuana to other narcotics. I think more people would be open minded to legalizing marijuana, but for the implications down the line. This same argument is being made regarding same sex marriage. One thing I would like to say regarding your post although it is off subject is that it is a little extreme. There is a difference between communist rule, and an ineffectual government that does not want to take action on this issue for fear of losing their position in the government. You make it out to be more sinister than it really is. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I wanted to let you know what I think.
You can get a dime bag of any drug in this country. It may be in lesser amounts, but it is still available.