PDA

View Full Version : Drugs


Antibody
06-24-2006, 08:57 AM
Does anyone here know the real reason of drugs being illegal, particularly marijuana. I hear its something to do with the government not being able to put tax on it but I want to know more about it, and if there are any other reasons.

whitey
06-24-2006, 09:57 AM
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.
The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.
You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and GreedThese are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/images/2003/12/22/leaf.gif Background
For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.
The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.
America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.
The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.
The Mexican Connection
In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.
However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)
Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."
Jazz and Assassins
In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").
Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.
By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.
Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition
During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public's knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.
Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.
The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
At that time in our country's history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of "local" affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).
Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn't follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established -- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/images/2003/12/22/anslinger.jpg Harry J. Anslinger
Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity -- a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:
"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/images/2003/12/22/hearst.jpg Yellow Journalism
Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.
Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:
"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."
And other nationwide columns...
"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
This all set the stage for...
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress -- complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.
It was a remarkably short set of hearings.
The one fly in Anslinger's ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.
Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.
He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.
Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:
"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."
Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:
The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.
After some further bantering...
The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times: The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.
The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.
The entire coverage in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions."
Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars
Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.
Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie "Drug Addict," a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)
Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust -- the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:
"Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides."
After Anslinger
On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana -- all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said "You can't have this in your church. It's all lies, and the church shouldn't be about promoting lies." Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn't even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.
The story since then has been a continual litany of:
Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
Racist application of drug laws
Taxpayer funded propaganda
Stifling of opposition speech
Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

whitey
06-24-2006, 09:58 AM
kinda long, but you can skim through and hit certain points to make it go a little quicker.

hidden ninja
06-24-2006, 10:24 AM
check out the documentary "Grass" sometime too. it explains it all, much the same as the previous post.

june181972
06-24-2006, 11:05 AM
Bottom line, it keeps the prison industrial complex alive and kicking.
Cheap labor in our own borders.

I can't quote statistics, but one can imagine for themselves:
What percentage of people that are incarcerated were either selling or using, regardless of what they are actually locked-up for.

Slinging some drugs is an extremely easy criminal activity to get involved in.
And in comparison to other ways to make fast money, it's easy to do.
(I said do, not be good at)

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 12:05 PM
where i live there's so much cronic its unreal that its illegal. i just stole like a half ounce of bud this morning. but yeah, i live like 40 minutes from chilliwak bc which is where all the bc hydro weed everyone luvs comes from. chilliwak an some other places in bc. i remember when kids in highschool were gettin rich off runnin the border. i mean actually rich. some kid in blaine, 10 minutes from canada, bought his parents a house and bought his own house. ill see if i can dig up the article. he was a junior or senior at blaine highschool. i knew him but i was like 13 at the time. i remember running around selling acid an shit when i was a kid. mushrooms an cronic too. i was good at it no doubt. yeah. i luv selling drugs. there was so many drugs here back in 94 and shit. yeah!!! so ill never regret an........nevermind. ill get you an article. here nigga, heres a pic of my unclehttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/jameztwo/franciscorabang.jpg

He got 13 years, he's still locked in longpac or whatever, longpolk, down in cali. Federal prison. My uncle jojo visited him when we went to disney land. I didnt really go, i went san diego and got fucked up. He got 13 for organized crime, philipino mob or some shit. He'll be free someday. Personally i dont like the guy, he talks shit, i let have it than he tries to send kids after me and they dont do shit. Lil chink knows we run his fuckin hood and thats the way its been in rutsatz, souix cannon, 5 cedars, all of nooksack and lummi. Nobody fucks with us. Only 1 rabang i respect and thats debo but he got 13 years too. He's only 19 when the feds got him. I would nt fuck with him, he'll literally kill you. Yeah, he'll kill u over something small. He isnt a punk. He's a bad motherfucker. Heree ill get u an article but yeah,^^^^^^^all these fucks cept jojo are in prison for running drugs from canada to america.

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 12:18 PM
(http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=chart_film_openings)

Joe CarnahanJoe Carnahan (http://www.variety.com/studiosystems/index.asp?layout=studiosystems&ss_view=s_s_person&mode=creditsall&participant_id=89460) will co-write and direct a feature about the life of Will Wright, a high school prodigy who at 17 was the catalyst for a $70 million narcotics empire.
FilmEngineFilmEngine (http://www.variety.com/studiosystems/index.asp?layout=studiosystems&ss_view=s_s_person&mode=creditsall&participant_id=573380) is financing and will produce the film. Carnahan, who is shooting "Smokin' Aces" for Universal and Working Title, will team with Joseph F. Alexandre to script the story of Wright, who grew up in Blaine, Wash., and seemed the ideal overachieving teenager: The handsome National Merit Scholar was drafted by the Seattle Mariners. Meanwhile, Wright was caught by feds in a sting operation and revealed to be the mastermind of an international drug ring and money-laundering operation. He served eight years and was released two years ago at age 26.


Whatever^^^^6i dont know what i found but i knew this kid and i dont know what happened to him. I think he's dead. If i see him i know what i gotta do. I sure as hell aint gonna say "hi" and ask him to play some halo on my xbox thats for sure. This dude is probably a goner. He fucked up

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 12:29 PM
i could find the article, but whocares.....his dad was the principal of the highschool and his mom was a teacher. they all went into hiding. that cat had to snitch off like 300 dealers. fuckin punk. yeah, i dont see why all the fucks like him get the million dollar drug rings an shit. only gets 8 years for the shit. all my uncle did was make a few millions, not fuckin 70 mil. but we knew that kid, smart drug dealers dont kick it with natives. lol, that wouldnt be smart. peace

Antibody
06-24-2006, 02:04 PM
kinda long, but you can skim through and hit certain points to make it go a little quicker.

yeah thanks for putting that up.

not sure what ur getting at with all that stuff about your family, im talking about reasons why its illegal not experiences with it or whatever...

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 02:16 PM
yeah, i dont know, i thought all the other posts were boring, peace

Antibody
06-24-2006, 02:58 PM
yeah, i dont know, i thought all the other posts were boring, peace

haha fair play.

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 03:24 PM
oh no, im not trying to start shit, it wasnt that boring. peace

Gawd
06-24-2006, 03:42 PM
Weed is illegal so beer and tobacco companies can make money.....

crack
speed
heroin
tweek
etc
etc are illegal because they are bad drugs and shouldnt be used.

Sicka than aidZ
06-24-2006, 03:51 PM
Weed is illegal so beer and tobacco companies can make money.....

crack
speed
heroin
tweek
etc
etc are illegal because they are bad drugs and shouldnt be used.

I think they should legalize all that shit too. Crime rate would go down bigtime.

whitey
06-24-2006, 03:53 PM
^this is a true statement.

Frontal Lobotomy
06-24-2006, 05:12 PM
It'd be nice to legalize weed. Beats all the fuckin sneakin around. I dunno about the control of hard drugs though, it's a world the homegrower stays clear of if he's smart. I'd say if they were legal, it would be harder for the shitheads to shot to kids, and all the gear would be constantly pure.
Would the world be any different if everyone could get wasted on whatever they liked? I suppose bringing in the element of choice would at least make it a tad better, in some way.

Nice posts by the way, Whitey and Sicka, some interesting info there

Antibody
06-24-2006, 05:17 PM
"oh no, im not trying to start shit, it wasnt that boring. peace"

huh? i dont get that i didnt say anything against you... or anything defensively.

" I think they should legalize all that shit too. Crime rate would go down bigtime."

im not sure if u were jokin with that or not, but if u were serious then lol... then u could just legalise murder and the crime rate would go down.

can someone tell me how it is in england because thats a lot different to america.

Frontal Lobotomy
06-24-2006, 05:34 PM
In England Weed is illegal (Class C Drug) to grow, supply and possess., but possession/consumption at home they can't arrest you for unless they find anything incriminating ie; scales, loads of baggies, money etc. Also they can't arrest you for being in possession of anything under 7g (quart oz). I've been told that you can have up to 7lbs in your house, and it can be considered an 'annual supply' but don't quote me on that, I'm not so sure about the law on that one.
Magic Mushrooms were legal here up until about a year ago, and are now classified as a Class A drug, but they can't do shit about them growing in the wild, or you picking them (something you shouldn't do unless you have a good knowledge of fungi)
With regard to all other 'hard' drugs, they're highly illegal and the police will do you for it. I don't know specifics, but you won't go to jail for possession, unless caught committing another crime, in which case they'll add it to your charge sheet.
Hope some of this helps.

Easy

Gawd
06-24-2006, 05:53 PM
I think they should legalize all that shit too. Crime rate would go down bigtime.

I think more ppl would use freely without legal consiquences and children and families would suffer due to the legal crack and meth use.

Thats all we need is more children being burned with crack pipes and lil kids watching their moms and dads waste away....yeah lets do that

arto
06-24-2006, 08:37 PM
the reason drugs are illegal is simple and straightforward.

one thing you have to remember, is that a government needs to keep a stranglehold on it's subjects in order to keep its power over them. a governments worst enemy is the free thinker. they need people under control all the time, they need people to think what they want them to think. drugs are a way of rebelling against this.
usually, when you take drugs, you are able to think in a clearer and less intimidated way. we see this obviously in drugs like cannabis, speed, and MDMA. the government drills it into us from an early age that all these drugs are bad, they'll do X, Y and Z to you, but talk to any regular user of most types of drugs, and you will find a laid back free thinker, often someone who rejects consumerism and herd dynamics and instead opts for a simple life with little consumation. this is very bad for a ruling power, because if everyone were like that, their power would crumble. so they make up bullshit about how drugs ruin your life, how they ruin everyone elses life so as to deter you from doing it, and to make people who see you do it shun you.
there is another main reason as to why the majority of drugs are illegal, again about power. governments around the world are fighting a sort of mythical, everlasting war on drugs. the reason for this is so: when people feel threatened, when people feel like they are in danger, when they are at war, in fact, they will trust the ruling power more, and so will be more willing to give up their liberties in order to catch those they are "at war" with. this leads, ultimately, to what every industrial power craves, and that is totalitarianism.
as for the whole tax issue, i think it has an effect, but is certainly not the main issue here.

in conclusion, drugs are good. they make you think freely, and they make you break the mould.

Visionz
06-24-2006, 08:48 PM
^Speed will rot your brain you do that shit long enough. Don't glamorize that shit for yourself, I've seen firsthand what it can do to mothafuckas. Cracked out, crazy paranoid bastards with no teeth. In experiementing with mind altering events, the safest path is fuckin around with substances that occur naturally. Shrooms and weed is all the awakening anyone really needs. Also don't loose fact that the goverment is the main reasons drugs reach this country in the first place. If they wanted them gone they'd be gone already.

Gawd
06-24-2006, 09:54 PM
^Speed will rot your brain you do that shit long enough. Don't glamorize that shit for yourself, I've seen firsthand what it can do to mothafuckas. Cracked out, crazy paranoid bastards with no teeth. In experiementing with mind altering events, the safest path is fuckin around with substances that occur naturally. Shrooms and weed is all the awakening anyone really needs. Also don't loose fact that the goverment is the main reasons drugs reach this country in the first place. If they wanted them gone they'd be gone already.

dont forget violent

whitey
06-24-2006, 09:59 PM
I think more ppl would use freely without legal consiquences and children and families would suffer due to the legal crack and meth use.

Thats all we need is more children being burned with crack pipes and lil kids watching their moms and dads waste away....yeah lets do that


i dont.

tell me big head ed, if crack, H, and meth, was legal would you use it? just because it would be legal doesnt change what it does to someone. that is the reason why most people do not do those sort of drugs. there not fucking retarded.

it being legal would just be a way to regulate it. make sure the drugs were a lot more safe for people. them doing meth (or any other drug) cooked by some scientists would be a lot better than some redneck in omaha risking the lives of everyone that lived in a whatever yard radious around his meth barn.

whitey
06-24-2006, 10:01 PM
" I think they should legalize all that shit too. Crime rate would go down bigtime."

im not sure if u were jokin with that or not, but if u were serious then lol... then u could just legalise murder and the crime rate would go down.



he ment crime spured by drugs, not actually people getting arrested for doing drugs. ex. people doing drive-bys and killing each other for turf to sell drugs/a lot of other gang stuff ect.

Gawd
06-24-2006, 10:38 PM
i dont.

tell me big head ed, if crack, H, and meth, was legal would you use it? just because it would be legal doesnt change what it does to someone. that is the reason why most people do not do those sort of drugs. there not fucking retarded.

I would not use it. But making it legal takes away the consequence for being a dead beat drug user. do you think that more families would be happy and be good homes if you legalized that stuff? You take away the criminal element of the dealers and shit but that doesn't negate the fact that mothers and fathers would still be addicted and using drugs when they should be saving money for their children to get college educations. people do not think right when they are on those drugs. They do outrageous things to themselves and others. There would still be manic drug users. There would still be tweekers destroying their homes taking everything apart, ignoring their kids.

it being legal would just be a way to regulate it. make sure the drugs were a lot more safe for people. them doing meth (or any other drug) cooked by some scientists would be a lot better than some redneck in omaha risking the lives of everyone that lived in a whatever yard radious around his meth barn.

make the drugs safe? How would you suppose they do that? You want our scientists working on ways to make crack and meth safer? We really need our bright minds in that lab.

Lets say we legalized Meth. for what? so ppl could stay up for days hallucinating and being paranoid. how does that benefit society? in the tweekers mind it may benefit them but thats all that matters to tweekers. If you are trying to say we as a society could benefit because the tweekers could work long hours and be more productive then i have a solution. Coffee. A couple cups a day should keep you awake when you need. I understand what you are saying about the meth barn. I think more ppl die using meth and hurt others along their way then the man cooking in a neighborhood. and if you say he is hurting ppl by cooking the shit then your argument for scientists cooking or us legalizing it is not applicable.

btw my name is edbigghead kthx.

Godbrother
06-24-2006, 10:38 PM
Come back

whitey
06-25-2006, 12:05 PM
make the drugs safe? How would you suppose they do that? You want our scientists working on ways to make crack and meth safer? We really need our bright minds in that lab.

Lets say we legalized Meth. for what? so ppl could stay up for days hallucinating and being paranoid. how does that benefit society? in the tweekers mind it may benefit them but thats all that matters to tweekers. If you are trying to say we as a society could benefit because the tweekers could work long hours and be more productive then i have a solution. Coffee. A couple cups a day should keep you awake when you need. I understand what you are saying about the meth barn. I think more ppl die using meth and hurt others along their way then the man cooking in a neighborhood. and if you say he is hurting ppl by cooking the shit then your argument for scientists cooking or us legalizing it is not applicable.

btw my name is edbigghead kthx.


last time i checked those drugs illegal right now buddy?

whats stopping people from getting them now?

you act like no one does them. there going to be doing them either way.

no one would want people to do them. it wouldnt be like "o its legal, come destroy your life" be serious dog, what are you thinking?

Sicka than aidZ
06-25-2006, 01:05 PM
yeah dog, i live in the middle of fucking NOWHERE.... And ive prolly done more drugs than u can count ed. I aint lyin, ive been on acid 2 times a week for 2 years. I remember we could get these shrooms and they were like 350 a pound or some shit, 5 an eight, but yeah, i didnt have any pounds of em but i took em everyday for 2 weeks, or was it monrths, anyways, doesnt matter. Like right now, i could smoke all the bud i want cuz im surrounded by the shit. Thats why i smoked earlier. The closest street(2 miles away or some shit off the highway.) i can score coke 24/7, 1 sells powder the othr sells hard. IN THE MIDDLE OF ABSOLUTLY NO WHERE. dont need no parks or 42nd. Just a celly. OC's, 20 minutes, percs, 40 minutes, bud, i unno, dont have a stopwatch thats how quick the bud gets , lit....... Meth, somewhere, i unno, hour. I dont know what i m talking about but im having fun. We got our liquor store. Anyways, I was 13 in the middle of chronic heaven(40 min. From bc) and i had vials of acid. Dun seen white blotter, microdots, 4 way window payne, black pyramid gel caps with gold sprinkles on top. U name a cartoon and ive prolly taken half his body and dosed it.

Heroin, i unno, 1 hour.

Well, cyz

LHX
06-25-2006, 02:42 PM
Drugs make people unproductive and difficult to control.

The society does not want people to be unproductive or difficult to control.

They only make drugs available that they can use to control people such as TV.

Sicka than aidZ
06-25-2006, 04:50 PM
hey check this out. Im high as a kite and if i can get this... Fuck it, were equal, thats what im say

Gawd
06-25-2006, 06:48 PM
last time i checked those drugs illegal right now buddy?

whats stopping people from getting them now?

you act like no one does them. there going to be doing them either way.

no one would want people to do them. it wouldnt be like "o its legal, come destroy your life" be serious dog, what are you thinking?

No where in my argument do i suggest that no one is using. And no where in my argument am I saying that mass amounts of people will begin to use.

So why do you keep using the same rhetoric?

People need to be held responsible for their actions. Not coddled and serviced.

Sicka than aidZ
06-25-2006, 09:45 PM
dont sweat ed, everyone has there own view of the shit. I dont need to tell u that. Besides, it's drugs, they're always gonna be illegal. peace