Badmovies.org Forum

I started feeling bad that the debate between myself and Skull, with the contributions of some others, had unfairly hijacked the You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? thread. So, hopefully, this will steer this stimulating conversation away from there. In any case, the following link leads to the LEAP Statement of Principles. LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is an organization of members of various law enforcement agencies who are in favor of the removal of drug prohibition and the sensible, state-by-state regulation of the control and distribution of these substances. This statement of principles is nearly a mirror image of my own views on the matter, and anyone who was paying attention or had any interest in my arguments in the other thread will recognize many of the points in that statement. It is, in my opinion, a common sense approach to the failed decades old "war on drugs," and particularly poignant in that it comes from a collection of members of the law enforcement community who have seen, first hand, the damage that this so-called "war" have brought to our country. The organization is run by Jack Cole, a retired DEA undercover officer who has seen the war on drugs from a variety of perspectives.

I cherish the open discourse that this site encourages and has never restricted, at least not to my knowledge. I welcome opposing views. I think Skull will attest to that, as we have been disagreeing vehemently on this matter for several days now. But, from the bottom of my heart, I simply cannot understand what the American fascination with holding onto the war on drugs is. It makes no sense to me, and I can't understand how people haven't recognized the utter failure and lack of logic behind it. However, I am sure there are several who are up to the task. So, for those interested, please check out the following link, and I welcome your comments.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=61 (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=61)

Oddly, I wrote an article for high school about this very topic.  And even more oddly, years later would be a practicing drug user for a bit of time (that's a long discussion and I still struggle with it.)

Overall, I see where they're coming from and agree with it to a degree.  One thing I'm curious about is the amount of people being thrown in prison for drug offenses instead of some sort of other type of punishment.  Obviously, the war on drugs, while not completely 'futile', well, the fact that the war is still ongoing is a concern, that 20 some odd years after it started, they're nowhere close to ending it. 

From what I read, I support the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong), that police should have a very limited presence in the drug underworld, meaning they only get involved if some drugged up guy goes on a rampage causing damage or injuries to people and their property.  Fortunately, I haven't been arrested yet for anything I've done, but I dread that day. I kinda have some points to make but I'm a bit tired.

I'm saving the site to my "favorites' and I'm gonna look it over tomorrow.  Seemed a decent sized read with a pretty good point.

I was impressed with the site. It's a very no-nonsense approach to the issue. I was on a tangent with Skull on this in the other thread, and I completely appreciate his perspective, we're both operating from a concern for the well-being of our country, I don't deny that for a bit. Because I agree with the abolishment of drug prohibition and am NOT a drug user, I wanted to research for organizations coming from a similar perspective as my own, and stumbled upon LEAP. Here are a bunch of people from the law enforcement community who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs, and have come to the conclusion that it cannot be won, or even reasonably contained. If we can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, how in the hell do we ever hope to keep them out of our schools? Drugs flourish during in a prohibition environment, as does police and political corruption. One of my favorite points on the list is that drug abuse shouldn't be a law enforcement matter, it should be a public health matter, just like alcohol and tobacco. It's been a long road, but treating tobacco as a health concern rather than a legal issue, cigarette use is going down. Far less people are smoking now than they were 20 years ago. That's the point that all of these former law enforcement agents and judges and prosecutors are trying to say. The legal system is failing. For every drug lord they take down, another two pop back in his place. It's an endless cycle that can't be broken. Perhaps it's time to cut our losses, admit defeat, and perhaps we can win in another way. Hasn't the U.S. been fighting unwinnable wars long enough?

My favored approach to the drug problem is decriminalization (not legalization).  That is, don't punish mere users harshly, but continue to go after the dealers and suppliers. 

A single person smoking a joint (or even shooting up heroin) isn't an inherently evil or criminal act.  It needs to be discouraged because, like speeding or reckless driving, it creates societal risk; when huge numbers of people do it, many of them will inevitably cause trouble. 

I think the appropriate and just way to deal with mere users is with misdemeanors and fines.  To a large extent, this has already happened in states with regard to marijuana.  It would be ridiculous to try to put every marijuana user in jail, no state could afford that kind of enforcement.   
     

Not a bad notion, Rev. Your stance is fairly in-line with my own. Yes, law enforcement would likely still have to go after anyone who manufactures these substances in an uncontrolled way. This is also true of alcohol and tobacco. Without licensing, nobody can produce or distribute their own alcoholic beverages without breaking the law. If they want to make their own beer at home for personal consumption, fine, but they cannot sell it or distribute it to the public. This is pretty common sense stuff. I think the problem that those who think drug prohibition needs to stay in place get into is they assume that drug decriminalization means the wild west. Well, no wonder they oppose it, I would too if it meant that. I don't fault pro-prohibitionists for their position. They genuinely operate out of a concern for the health and safety of society. They just haven't come to the conclusion that prohibition doesn't work. It's not an easy topic. There are alot of emotions involved. People that have had someone close to them destroyed by drug abuse, it is very easy for them to become very militant about drugs, and very understandable. I get it. It doesn't change my position, however.

I can't help but think of britney murphy. I saw some thing on tmz of the drugs found in her meicine cabinet and her system: all legal.

I don't know much about this issue but the drug companies will be hit just as hard or harder than the american public if any of this stuff, especially marijuana, were to become legal

O.K. I've seen the debate between Skull and Flick James going on and on. Anyways I'll stand by my reasoning that legalizing certain drugs would give the unfortunate impression of their use being "acceptable" within society. I think natural by-product is more abuse and addiction. Suddenly it's like the government, and in essence overall society, would be giving the O.K. for people to get high and use drugs, many of which can be extremely addictive even on a first try. How this won't lead to more widespread recreational drug use and addiction is beyond me?  Do we really need to fuel the fire even further? Also I believe the government would likely come to profit off of drug sales (which I already kind of disagree with now - government profiting on poison), as they already do by heavily taxing legal recreational drugs where I currently live.

Dangerous substances SHOULD be taxed heavily. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, all of these substances cause health and addiction problems. So, the cost of treating these should fall on the user, not the rest of the taxpayers who don't use. So, heavily taxing substances that have a stong chance of leading to treatment for that individual is a good thing. Skull was talking about how treating addicts costs money. Well, problem solved. Tax the users, not the non-users.

Yeah I'll agree with you on that last point, although it still bothers me that government might profit on someone's misery.

That's the reason I'm against full-out legalization and support decriminalization instead.  There are also other factors besides the penal ones that make drug use socially unacceptable, including most importantly drug testing by employers.   

Yes I can't imagine too many employers who'd be thrilled with hiring someone with a drug problem. I think Skull's previous point of teen alcoholism is important to remember...more easy access to currently illegal drugs would likely lead to more youth culture users (not that we don't have too many already, as I understand high school is the prime place for acquiring illegal drugs these days :bluesad:)  and an even greater number of addicts. Abusing drugs aren't ever the way to go kids. Hard work & self-discipline - those very qualities gained from abstinence - now that can lead to success and respectability and it won't cost you your life, your family, your loved ones, your health, your record, your freedom.

This works only if the users are actually paying the tax. Users will go to great lengths to get around the extra cost added by taxes.  They will go to a 'black market'/illegal dealer in order to get what they want, cheaper.   As an example: Cigarettes are legal. In my neighbourhood (in Canada so yes it does affect health care costs directly) there is HUGE traffic in contraband (illegally imported from the US!) and tax-free (sold on the Reserves: illegally to non-natives) cigarettes because the taxes add significantly to the cost if bought legally.  (Which as an additional contavention of the laws are at the same time actively being sold to underage kids.)  So they are not paying more than anyone else for the additional costs to the health care system that their habit incurs. Oh and organized crime is involved in this. 

Yes Newt's right on that. In Newfoundland too, there have been cases of illegal cigarette and alcohol import seizures particularly from Quebec and St. Pierre and Miquelon where the laws are different and the items are often much cheaper. My own cousin was approached some time back to assist in hiding smuggled contraband cigarettes but he wisely refused. Not long after that, there were several arrests made connected to contraband tobacco. So again, it really wouldn't eliminate drug dealers, just move more to the black market. Heck, there's even black market codfish here given the restrictions placed on fishing.

Were the drugs legally prescribed? If so, by the same doctor? Cause there's many, many ways to get prescription pills legally prescribed to you.  I know many people who "fish", using many doctors to obtain pills.  But every doctor, when prescribing such strong medications like Percocet, OxyContin or Vicodin have to ask the patient if they're on ANY medication.  Granted, said patient can LIE to obtain said pills.

Pills are an epidemic.  My main concerns with her case were if they were 'legally' prescribed by her actual practicing physician, did he warn her as to the potential side effects of mixing such pills?  Taking Percocet or Vicodin by themselves can get you high, although they have medical reasons for being legal.  But, taking certain pills together or in too close of a timeframe can have counter effects, as the chemical compounds in said pills counteract each other in a lethal dosage, even if both pills have small mg dosage.  Sad thing is, many pills are on the streets as a result of said 'doctor fishing.' 

Often times the argument on taxes seems like a good idea (let the users pay) but in the only people paying the taxes are those that are willing to obey the law.

On a simular topic in another forum, I told those posters what if the Government does legalizes drugs but restricts the age to 21 years old and taxes are somethere between an additional cost of 10 to 100 dollars then you'll normally pay a drug dealer.


Newt, I agree that the drug market will be around and much stronger, because why would anybody need to inform on the drug dealer when you can tell the cops you got the junk from 7-Eleven.

I don't think too many people would equate what the extaordinarily unpopular people in washington think as what "society" thinks but then I'm an anarchist. I don't consider being a raging alcoholic "acceptable" even though it's legal and I don't consider being a casual marijuna smoker morally abbhorent even though it's illegal.

to me the government are far worse criminals than drug lords.  they take 33% of my paycheck, I don't give anything to drug lords.  

at the same time I don't like that this is coming up now simply to help the government get more revenue. it's a civil liberties issue.

the government isn't in massive debt because they aren't collecting revenue from drugs, they are in debt because they have no idea how to sontrol spending and say yes to every expenditure, war subsidiy whatever.

High school is a place where you could very much get any drug or substance you want.  I avoided many parties in high school due to that very reason.

Ironically, as much as I avoided them, I ended up having some substance problems. 

I'm curious to know, though.  You have a Straight Edge thing in your signature.  You Straight Edge?  How's that work?  I'm just curious...I'm a little familar with it but not overly so.  I know some punk bands proclaimed to follow it, and CM Punk from the WWE. 

I consider myself Straight Edge yes. To me, it means a commitment to a personal lifestyle choice. It means I plan on going through my entire life never drinking alcohol, never smoking cigarettes, never using recreational drugs, never being sexually promiscious and never abusing medication. It's all about being clean and doing the right thing. It's very much about self-discipline and the culture (which did start during the hardcorepunk era, kind of a subculture counter-reaction to the excesses often associated with punk, thanks to bands like Minor Threat, Youth of Today, Gorilla Biscuits and 7 Seconds) also tends to promote the values behind hard work, race harmony and environmentalism. Some Straight Edge people also believe you should be also Vegan or Vegetarian (which I'm considering) but personally I consider that element to be separate. Some hardliners out there also believe in trying to force others to live the same way even against their will and I understand there's even been cases of straight edge gangs attacking smokers or drinkers. Personally I don't believe in that at all as I think being Straight Edge is a simply a positive personal lifestyle choice, whereas others see it as a movement, and I think everyone should have the freedom to choose what they want to do as individuals within the boundaries of the law. A lot of teens do seem to embrace the lifestyle though which can be quite a positive thing for them I think although the more militant, hardline element of it is worrying.

if marijuana were legalized and others drugs weren't,  I bet alot of drug using people would make due with marijuana rather than risking getting arrested to get something a little more potent

Honestly, I doubt that's the case.  Certainly exitsing heroin and meth users wouldn't switch to pot, it's just not a substitute any more than alcohol is. 

On the other hand, there is some short-term evidence that decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal was followed by an overall decrease in drug use: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html.

As I recall the statistics on whether hard drug use increased or decreased in the Netherlands is a matter of hot debate.  Each side accuses the other side of cooking the statistics to make their case look stronger.  It would take a lot of work by a neutral party to sift through all the evidence and see what the truth is.

I'll tell you what else Grinds my Gears...
Huh?

Oh, wrong thread....

Sorry, my mistake.

 :wink:

Honestly, I doubt that's the case.  Certainly exitsing heroin and meth users wouldn't switch to pot, it's just not a substitute any more than alcohol is. 



[/quote]
I know a lot of meth and heroin users who certainly wouldn't go to marijuana if it were legal.  Hell, most of em HATE smoking pot.  I certainly wouldn't.  While I never used meth or heroin, I've used stronger drugs than pot, and frankly, I wouldn't have given them up to use weed legally.

That's why I typically keep statistics out of my arguments. People love to use manipulated numbers, and even made-up numbers, in an effort to prove their point and win. Now, the article you cite would support my position, and while I am very tempted to use it as such, my objective mind will remember that there are studies and statistics and numbers that support both that decriminalization works and that prohibition works, and in copious amounts in both cases.

I prefer to stick to the issue from an ideological standpoint. Freedom,both economic freedom and personal freedom, is what I favor over government intervention into out lives. I've made my own choices in life, just as xJaseSFx has made his, and I respect and applaud his choice be straight-edge. Since the adoption of this nation and its constitution, the government has slowly but surely instituted one control on our lives after another. I would imagine that Americans from 100 years ago would look on our life today with a mixture of wonder and horror, wonder over the technology we have, and horror over how much influence our government has over our lives, and how much information the government holds on us. I have no doubt that the institution of prohibition started with good intentions, but the amount of government intervention into our private lives is the inevitable result of prohibitive attitudes, laws, and policies. I have brought up various arguments that support my position, but if you want to know what really drives my position, and what drives my outlook on every view that I hold dear, it is that. I want xJaseSFx to retain his right to make his own decision to be straight edge, a decision, by the way, that he has had to make depite prohibition being in place, a system that does not work, and will not work no matter how much you try to crack down on it and no matter how much money and resources and govermental power you throw at it.

So, yes, when I see that article, Rev., it makes me feel good, and I am glad that you have shared it, but human-nature being what it is, people who stubbornly hold on the the notion that prohibition works will reject it as a lie, and people on the other end will gladly accept it, and neither will likely care whether or not it is the truth.

One more side note on that article, Rev. I forgot that it's been that long since they instituted decriminalization. I was in Lisbon on a port visit when I was in the Navy in 2000, a year before that was instituted. I was amazed how many times I was approached on the stree to buy drugs, usually hashish. The street was filled with young men and women who were, despite prohibition, trying to support themselves through illegal drug sale on the streets. My wife and I want to visit Portugal for vacation (it is a very beautiful country, afterall). I will have to bump up that priority. I am very curious to see how much the streets have changed. I have a strong suspicion that most of those strung-out kids are no longer there, but we'll see.

I don’t consider myself as a Straight Edge. I do drink alcohol but occasionally. Although my dad was an Alcoholic and my mom is a binge drinker, my choice is based upon the hangovers [I don’t like the feeling] and I don’t like the taste of beer.

I choose not to smoke cigarettes because I didn’t want to succumb into the same nicotine addiction that my grandmother had. This choice I made when I was 12; she would have me walk to a gas station to buy her a pack of cigarettes at the cost of 1.15 cents. [Yes, in 1982 you could buy cigarettes at 12-years-old in Chicago]. We were poor and sometimes it was very hard to find the 15 cents. [To me the addiction was an annoyance.] Then, I remember one day we started popping Buffalo Nickels from a bracelet so we could get the money for my grandmother’s habit. She died from cancer when I was 19.

In High School some of my friends started to smoke pot and they would often ask me if I would like to join them. From my observations their actions seem quite similar to my grandmothers addiction so I told them that I don’t smoke cigarettes so I don’t see why I need to smoke pot. They were cool with my choice but I soon became an outcast; in my second year I seen very few of them in my third year they dropped out of school.

I really do believe the major reason why people actually give in to such habits is the fear from being rejected and become an outcast. I did felt hurt when my friends started to disassociate with me but I also figure they were no longer the kids I knew.

But I do blame pop culture because drugs is a thrill yet nobody wants to be accountable for their own choices, pop culture gives these addicts a voice so they can point their finger at something else and say they are the victim. Pop culture then make fun of any attempt for doing something right, like Nancy Reagan say no to drugs, because pop culture wants people to believe that society has accepted drugs to be normal and its not normal for people not to try drugs at least once.

I am asking for accountability for your choices. If you do drugs and you get busted by the law its your fault (not mine), so accept your punishment and stop your b!tching!

Skull, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I even agree with your last point that if you get caught, there's no use b***hing. Everyone knows the laws are there. You and I just disagree on one thing: you think the laws should be there and I don't. In any case, you've made your choices, and I've made mine. I don't do drugs either. I used to smoke pot years ago, and I also used to smoke cigarettes for 19 years and quit cold turkey almost 4 years ago and haven't smoked since. Does that affect my opinions? I'm sure it does, because I made the choice to quit one of the most addictive substances there is and succeeded, and so my success influences my views. I accept that, just as I accept that your experiences have influenced yours. What I disagree with is that prison terms for small time users is going to help anyone, including society. A person who smokes a joint and goes to prison, by and large, does not gain anything from the experience, least of all rehabilitation. Prison is a breeding place for criminality, and, despite a very high level of monitoring and vigilance, a place where dangerous drugs make it in and get abused. The reality that drug abuse is epidemic in our prison system is a solid correlation that suggests, if not outright proves, that prohibition, no matter how extreme or vigilant, fails miserably in preventing drug abuse. I personally don't see how a rational person could deny that correlation.

We are clearly equally stubborn in our positions. That's fine. You have your reasons, which appear to be highly founded on personal experience, but I too have some personal resonance in my views. I hold, categorically and without exception, that whatever I do, from owning a gun, to engaging in consentual sex, to smoking a joint at home (which I don't do, by the way), that does not violate another's rights, nor endangers another, IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS, least of all the government's. I will not bend in that conviction in any way, shape, or form, which includes making an exception for substance consumption. You have made the claim that my views are insane. I am not surprised I'm being called insane. Some of my views are very against the grain, and being accused as insane comes with the territory. It could be worse. It could be three hundred years ago where I would probably be labeled a witch and burned at the stake for going against the moral majority. Still, to be considered insane for my views still hurts, but I can't complain or b***h because I suggested you were immature, a reaction that regret because it was neither productive nor nice.

I do, however, appreciate this site more and more every day, especially considering how much we've been able to go back and forth on such a sensitive topic with absolutely no restriction on the part of the site administrators. That is probably the most impressive thing of all, and a big part of why I keep coming back.

 

Everyone should know what the law is…  But I think its much more important that everybody should know the outcome from breaking the law.



Sorry but your still not understanding what I’m saying. I believe the law should be enforced because the act of enforcing the law will deter people from such behavior.



A personal experience is a very good schoolteacher ~ me.



I do agree that prison is a bad place. I would never wish my worst enemy to go to jail. But I really believe that prison is also necessary. It supposes to keep bad people out of society and deter other people from doing criminal activity. [I really don’t know how many times I need to express this, but I had sad it more then once.]

It is shameful that such criminal activities do happen in prison but many prisoners are already facing 20 to 40 year jail sentences and figure they are already serving life “so what do they have to loose?” This is why I said we need more efficient government. I figured 16,000 per prisoner and that includes 1 guard per 5 prisoners. If government were half or a third as efficient as my bogus numbers then most of the criminal activity would be reduced, although the reduction wouldn’t rehabilitate the prisoner.

Actually, prison will never rehabilitate a prisoner because the whole notion of Prison is to confine a person away from society, as an act of punishment without becoming aggressively abusive to that person rights.

(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg)

If prison were design to rehabilitate the criminal, then he/she would undergo reeducation and/or brainwashing, although the Eight Amendment protects the criminals from such activities.

(http://bizbox.slate.com/blog/CoolHandLuke.jpg)

Rehabilitation is based upon the individual in prison if they are willing to accept what they did is wrong and if they are willing to change. This isn’t easy (it’s like going cold turkey) and often times it’ll never happen. And you are right, they will move to other criminal activities, although it’ll be based upon their non-acceptance to society (like getting a good paying job based upon their criminal record) then what was learned in prison.



You think Prison is an act of Rehabilitation. (Which I explained cannot be done because such an act is against the constitution.)

Prison is supposed to deter criminal activity.



Besides my personal experience I’m always asking questions and looking towards history for the answer. Like I said before I’m often angry when people bring up the Alcohol Prohibition and they keep overlooking why such a law was passed. America did have a drug addiction problem in the turn of the century and alcohol was subjected for banning based upon its addictive properties.

Its not like government woke up one day and said ‘today we are going to ban alcohol,’ there are reason why that movement was made.
 
I’m also seeing a major problem with Teenage Alcoholism, since the law states that nobody under 21 should consume alcohol then we shouldn’t have such a problem; but we do because our pop culture want us to accept the idea that teens are going to consume alcohol which is natural and they are the victim. Again pushing the blame not on the one breaking the law but on society for its laws.



Sure a good idea for an argument but your missing the point… the person smoking the joint most likely needs to buy it from somewhere, again… Supply and demand. Therefore the person smoking the joint is keeping the drug dealers working, even if they smoke in the privacy of their home.

I just want to say my lifestyle choice is hardly typical where I live. Aside from the devoutly religious family members I have, I'm the only person I know who does not drink alcohol at all.

In high school, joining the crowd is almost encouraged outright as the correct behaviour (but then I never let anyone else decide what was right or wrong in my eyes) and in said groups, drinking and drug abuse is common especially at teenage house parties and the works. As a teen, I generally avoided these places and gatherings which did make me something of an outcast as well. My love of Sci-Fi, Pro Wrestling and my fascination with space and dinosaurs only added fuel to the fire. When I became an adult, I started to attend some dances but was still awkward until I realized I needed nothing for me to have a good time and I had no vice which would leave me with an hangover or other ill effects. I realized a strong person needs no bottled courage.

That said, I've never thought myself better than anyone else and I do believe people should have the freedom to choose for themselves. Sadly I think too many people are led astray by desire for popularity, acceptance, etc. and end up going down the wrong path. I really think a lot of these choices are made when we are still young, in our formative years, probably a lot during our teenage days.

 

I'm going to start looking for a part in the constitution that prohibits the government from offering rehabilitation to convicted criminals, unless you actually thought I was implying that rehabilitation be forced on criminals, in which case you would be right. My understanding is that once one is convicted in a court of law, they no longer have full constitutional rights. From my understanding, and you can point me to the part of the contitution that I'm unaware of, but the 8th amendment protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment, and the 5th and 14th provide due process and equal protection. Another right convicted prisoners have is the right of access to the parole process, except when given a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. This implies a correctional committment to rehabilitation or else there would be no parole system. Where in the constitution is it against the law to provide rehabilitation to convicted criminals?  If such a thing exists, I've never seen it, but I'm not claiming to know the constitution forwards and backwards.

I doubt my views are typical, but if they are, then that would make me glad. And my views are in no way careless. I spent six years defending our country and I will say whatever the f**k I feel like about what I see that is wrong about what I defended willingly of my own free will and would do so again. My service does not give me any special prerogative to speak my mind, everyone has that, but you are in no position to question my loyalty toward or care for our country. I have never questioned your loyalty to our country or accused you of being careless about that which I hold so dear. In my opinion you have stepped over the line, Skull.  

I think you have chosen the right path for you, sir, and because it was your choice, all that much more admirable.

In my opinion there is no point in Flick and Skull continuing to argue, they have proven they have no common ground and feelings are starting to get hurt.

I suggest both gentlemen discontinue responding to the other.

Just so Skull won't feel left hanging, I understood him to mean the 8th Amendment would prevent full scale coercive brainwashing a la the CLOCKWORK ORANGE picture he posted, not non-coercive rehabilitation.

My personal rule is if I go back and forward for two posts and no progress is being made or common ground is found, give it up as useless.  I also stop debating anytime anyone resorts to an ad hominem attack.  It's an automatic withdrawal for me.   

It wasnt a personal attack... I'm just calling Flick's view insane, which is a common view and a wrong view.

I'm not attacking Flick.

Surely you can see how if you substitute the word, say, "dumb" for the word "insane" someone might take offense, even if you stress you're attacking their view, not attacking them? 

I'd say most people in their teens do experiment with alcohol/drugs cause friends are.  Not always the case though, definitely not in my case.  I never did it to be accepted amongst others.  I did it slightly out of curiosity, and slightly cause I have an addictive personality, going back to my youth in 4th grade.  I ate a lot of food, getting fatter and fatter.  Then, I went on this extreme health kick, exercising to the point I was unhealthily skinny.  Then from there, I became an adult, and I turned 21, and having never drank before, started going out with friends.  Drinking, then led to pot, and eventually other things.  I think that could be the case in some people's situations.  But it's hard to say without sitting down each and every one of them and find out what went on in each person's mind.

Myself personally, I don't like being the way I am, and struggle to change it every day/week/month.  I sometimes make it long periods (3 months, 6 months), or only a few days. 

wow... I'm not sure what to say... I do agree this is a touchy subject. I think I've expressed my intentions deeply... I do need to commit on Flick's last reply (but I'll only talk about the first half)

I’d removed my last 2 lines from my earlier reply…

Government cannot force a person to change unless they are willing to change on their own.


I dont need to you did a good job in pointing them out. Bill of Rights was designed by the founding fathers to guarantee the American citizens that government is working for the people and will never, never control the people. This is why we have the second amendment.

This is why the Healthcare Law is a hot topic... (although another topic)


It's not against the law if a prisoner is willing to change but the law does protect the prisoner from government forcing rehabilitation. Therefore prison doesnt rehabilitate criminals, if it did then people would be 'forced' to stay in the prison system until they are actually rehabilitated no matter how long it takes.

Society assumes a prisoner is being rehabilitated because we like to think that the criminals has learned their lesson, "they paid for their debt to society." But we know most criminals didnt learn a damn thing since they are going back into the life of crime.

This is why I said the law was ment to deter crime.


I dont know the constitution forward or backwards... I'm only using common sense.

Let it go, guys.

Let it go.

Lifes too short.

 :smile: