"We're not at war with people in this country."

[SineSwiper]

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."
Geesh, it only took them 25-30 years to realize that declaring a war on the American people is akin to treason.

Regardless, though, they are FINALLY getting it!

[Julius Seeker]

It's not so much the product that I am against, it's the people who abuse it and the people who support those habbits/addictions. People who abuse drugs are a burden to society; just like any other type of abusers.

Drugs perhaps should be legalized. Drug abuse should not be; there would need to be legal limits; perhaps doctor approval. I don't think our society is ready for this.

[Mental]

You're against treating coke abusers and crack abusers the same way and removing the racial disparity in harshness of treatment? You support keeping pot illegal and enriching the Mexican Mafia?

Come on, Seek. We have the highest rate of incarceration among all developed nations and it's because we lock up so many nonviolent drug offenders. They have all this stuff over in Europe and society hasn't fallen apart. Nobody's going to be legalizing the street use of heroin or crack, it's just that there might be needle exchange programs, and they might let the nonviolent potheads out of jail or even (God Forbid!) legalize and tax the stuff.

I personally think this is one of the most hopeful things I've ever seen.

[Shellie]

Apparently its what the American people want too.

[Julius Seeker]

I am not against legalizing drugs for appropriate levels usage. I just don't think our society is able enough to prevent abuse; we already have much more than enough of a burden due to abuse of cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy food. In each case, abuse often leads to addiction or a bad habbit. Ultimately this effects the health (both physical and mental) of individuals which causes a strain on society.

[Mental]

Why don't you go read about Prohibition and how great that was for American society? It took fifty or sixty years to break the power of the mob after how rich and powerful they all got bootlegging liquor.

Especially with something like pot, it doesn't work. Cocaine, heroin, meth, all those drugs are far more likely to ensnare and disable people, but plenty of people smoke pot and lead perfectly productive lives. Our dumbass pot legislation makes criminals out of peaceful people, causes us to have the highest lockup rate in the developed world, and like Sine said on another thread, costs the country tens of billions in additional prison costs and fees. You legalize pot, you solve a bunch of problems in one blow. I truly believe the only adverse effect would be a bunch of pissed-off, terrified conservatives who are still repeating Hearst's propaganda about Mexicans, insanity, and death a hundred years after he came up with that garbage.

[Julius Seeker]

You're discussing people who aren't drug abusers; the same sort of people who I think are alright using them. I agree with you on pot; there is probably (I don't know for certain) a higher ratio of regular users vs abusers than alcohol, and yet alcohol is legal. Alcohol abuse is probably the largest cost on the economy, and leading cause of death, than any other drug; I doubt pot would come close to the level of alcohol.

[Mental]

I'm sure it wouldn't. But you can't criminalize booze either. People just drink it anyway, then you have to send more people to jail, the mob gets rich and etc. Legislating some of these things is difficult because the governing body has to face a hard lesson - even the most powerful government has limits on how much control it really has over its populace.

[Kupek]

If we, as a society, identify an activity as a problem, criminalization of that activity is not the only means we have to mitigate its harm.

[Zeus]

If we, as a society, identify an activity as a problem, criminalization of that activity is not the only means we have to mitigate its harm.

Tell that to the bible-thumpers, they constitute the majority of your voters (well, up to the last election, anyways)

[Mental]

Correction: They constitute the most consistent majority of our voters, who vote in every election. Democrats and liberals are notoriously flaky as a group about voting, which is why they lose.

I think that is likely to be different in the future. As one Newsweek article put it, "George W. finally got the voters out in droves. Unfortunately for him, it was the Democrats." Another article by David Frum, a prominent conservative advisor, said "Young voters could be voting against George W. Bush well into their fifties and sixties."

And I think he hit the nail on the head. I sure won't vote for anything that looks remotely near this current batch of Republicans. I may not vote for the Dems, either, but the neoconservatives pushed it right over the edge with their neglect and maybe even more importantly, their tone towards the people they disagreed with. They're off the table for me now, and a lot of other young people (including some of you guys and girls, as far as I can tell) feel the same way.

[Zeus]

Although I agree that Bush will have a negative effect on the Republican party for years to come and likely force them to rebrand themselves, I'm not convinced the liberal-minded people will vote consistently. The turnout for Obama was a perfect storm. First serious black candidate (he's black, Lox, deal with it), younger, fresh voice, and SEVERE anti-Bush/Republican feelings all grouped together really polarized those who are more liberally minded. To say that will happen in the future is a bit premature.

[Mental]

Oh, I doubt the Democrats will stay in power forever. They often blow it on the overspending tip. I just don't think the Republicans will be seen as the compelling alternative.

There might be a real, viable third party or two emerging...the Greens could do it if they kicked Nader out on his stringy-haired ass already and found someone who had real 21st-century charisma. (I'm actually a registered Green as of last year.)

[Tessian]

There might be a real, viable third party or two emerging...the Greens could do it

Hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha... oh man you're funny. If there's ever going to be a viable 3rd party it'll take another 50 years (optimistically). Face it, we're stuck with these 2 parties for the foreseeable future. Rebranding might be the only way for anything to change, but I doubt it'd ever be change for the better.

I like the way Mexico is going with their drug laws... but we're not ready to outright legalize it yet. Decriminalize small amounts retroactively and take it from there.

[Mental]

I didn't say "will", I said "might", but I'm sticking to it. The parallels between today and the 1840s are pretty deep. It's rare for a party to break and crack up in our history, but it's happened, most notably to the Federalists and the Whigs. And third parties have captured local office and put up viable contenders in the wake of those breakups.

The Greens, sadly, are a mess, and have no shot in their current state. (I suppose I'm supposed to show more party loyalty than this?)

But you didn't give me any particular reasoning for that "hahahahaha", just a dogged insistence on the status quo and that things aren't going to change. It was impossible that a black man would get elected President, too, before last year.

[Tessian]

Actually one could easily argue that a black man did have a shot at president for the past election or two, it just was going to take the right man and the right circumstances to do it. If Bush Sr had fucked up as badly as his son back in the 90's who knows what would happen.

I laughed at your comment that the Green party could become a viable third party... and yet in your reply you tore your own comment apart and now you're saying they have as much a shot as the libertarians or any other party so nevermind then. If there's a third party anytime in the next 100 years, even with today's track record it'd have to be one of the 2 splitting apart... but doing so would just give the other side majority stake so who knows. I don't think Republicans can survive the way they are now... the neo conservatives need to go off in their own crazy boat or they'll sink the decent moderate side of the party that I used to like.

I'm a moderate, I hate it that the right has gone so fucking crazy that I'm forced to side with the left 99% of the time now.

[Mental]

I wasn't tearing down my old comment, just qualifying it. I think that the Green Party WITH better leadership, pragmatism, and a far, far better understanding of economics and how it relates to their community-development plans could become a national force. The current party and its alliance of no-charisma policy wonks with economically ignorant super-tree-huggers is not going to fly.

The party has good ideas, and good principles underneath it. But they have no idea how to relate the economics of local community development to today's capitalist system, too much uncompromising alarmism over environmental issues, and too much far-left policy idealism to have any shot in the condition they're in.

Perhaps I should put it this way: I can see a different kind of Green Party, or perhaps a different environmentally-focused party that's sharp, clear, and focuses on extreme competence instead of policy wonking, actually becoming a dominant force. I kind of hold out hope for one, in terms of a new generation of more practical environmentalists coming into political awareness.

And, in any case, the driving factor is not that any third party is in any way compelling, it's just that the Republicans have completely alienated millions of people, particularly young people, for decades to come. I absolutely believe that to be the case. So something needs to fill the gap, and I don't think the Dems are going to do well enough to satisfy a majority of people.

[Tessian]

I wasn't tearing down my old comment, just qualifying it. I think that the Green Party WITH better leadership, pragmatism, and a far, far better understanding of economics and how it relates to their community-development plans could become a national force.

See now this to me basically says "The Green party sucks, but if it was actually good it would succeed". You could say that about any of the other political parties. "I would eat broccoli every day if it tasted good"

[SineSwiper]

There might be a real, viable third party or two emerging...the Greens could do it

Hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha... oh man you're funny. If there's ever going to be a viable 3rd party it'll take another 50 years (optimistically). Face it, we're stuck with these 2 parties for the foreseeable future. Rebranding might be the only way for anything to change, but I doubt it'd ever be change for the better.

The Reform Party had a seriously shot, but it just never launched properly. Also, if Perot hadn't jumped out of the race and jumped back in (while picking a VP that couldn't talk), he was well on his way to becoming president.

I like the way Mexico is going with their drug laws... but we're not ready to outright legalize it yet. Decriminalize small amounts retroactively and take it from there.

I disagree. With the economic need for the taxes, we might end up being the second country to legalize weed.

[Lox]

(he's black, Lox, deal with it)

Never! But, hey, you don't like Lost, so you're already off in my book. heh

[Mental]

I wasn't tearing down my old comment, just qualifying it. I think that the Green Party WITH better leadership, pragmatism, and a far, far better understanding of economics and how it relates to their community-development plans could become a national force.

See now this to me basically says "The Green party sucks, but if it was actually good it would succeed". You could say that about any of the other political parties. "I would eat broccoli every day if it tasted good"

No, not really. I think the principles underlying the Green Party are sound. It's just the leadership that sucks.

If I look at some of the other parties, I couldn't vote for them no matter how good the leadership was - like the Libertarians, I just don't agree that society functions at that level of deregulation. I couldn't vote for the Peace and Freedom Party no matter what, because I don't think their platform really understands international defense. I couldn't vote for the Constitution Party, because they're explicitly about Biblical principles in government and that's just off the table. I couldn't vote for the American
Independent Party because they're more or less conservative white separatists and that's nothing to found a government on.

Do you see what I'm saying? I think the platform of the Green Party is sound, which is why I registered. I think the current leadership, on the other hand, is crazy. But it's one of the only third parties, maybe the only one, where the platform could actually work, and where I could see them getting their act together to become more of a force. The others, not so much - the Libertarians could actually get national attention with better leaders, but they'd never get my vote.