The Shotgun Blog

« "Hey, jackass, get your government off my freedom!" | Main | The Tories Raise Taxes »

Friday, February 26, 2010

William F Buckley Jr. on Legalization of Drugs

Posted by Richard Anderson on February 26, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

He's right, of course. The cost of "helping" those with drug problems, is miniscule compared to the cost of enforcing prohibition.

I'm going to head for high ground, now. This is an avalanche zone.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-26 8:01:55 AM

It would cost less to "help" other kinds of criminals than to incarcerate them for lengthy stretches, too. And even less to put them all to death, along with the sick, the lame, the poor, and the indolent, and do it quickly and efficiently, without fuss, employing a hydraulic guillotine and a conveyor belt.

Fortunately, human culture generally evolves with input from all sorts of groups (many of whom consider ethics and morality important), and not just the bean counters--or even worse, from anarchists, iconoclasts, and nickle-ante crooks posing as bean counters to lend themselves a veneer of credibility.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 9:44:31 AM

Yea Shane. Getting rid of completely ineffective and economically draining law on something that doesn't hurt anyone but the user, whom decides to use it, as well as cutting off the flow of billions of dollars into gangs and cartels is the same as genocide. Good freekin call man lol! Ur a joke.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 10:06:17 AM

sry, mass murder**. I guess there isnt a specific group you talking about killing. just to clear that up b4 you start debating words...

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 10:15:17 AM

Give it up, Baker. The harm drugs do to everyone who comes near them (and even those who don't) has been rehashed at length. We've been there; drugs once were legal. Access was restricted because of their incredible capacity for harm when used outside a doctor's supervision. Hell, the Muslims figured that out in the seventh century.

The point is that when it comes to social policy, there are issues to be considered beyond mere monetary cost. Merit is one. And what do drug addicts merit, Baker?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 11:11:41 AM

Don't bother Baker. Matthews doesn't seem to see the difference between violent acts of aggression and ingesting harmful substances.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-26 11:12:29 AM

"The harm drugs do to everyone who comes near them (and even those who don't) has been rehashed at length."

Yes, all the famous successful stoners are examples of this. Your correct lol.

"We've been there; drugs once were legal. Access was restricted because of their incredible capacity for harm when used outside a doctor's supervision."

No they were made illegal for economic and political reasons that were presented through racist claims, do some actual research. Show me the legitimate studies they used in the 1920's to come to the conclusion drugs caused this unstoppable widespread social harm you claim.

"Hell, the Muslims figured that out in the seventh century."

Go live in an Islamic state then? I prefer not to make decisions based on others morals.

"The point is that when it comes to social policy, there are issues to be considered beyond mere monetary cost. Merit is one. And what do drug addicts merit, Baker?"

All depends on what you call an addict, which is likely anyone whom uses an illegal substance. But lets see, past 3 presidents were once addicts, world renound scientists have been addicts, musicians, painters, writers (Pierre Berton), media moguls, the list goes on. So what do they merit you ask? Exactly what they accomplish, which in many cases is MUCH more then you will ever accomplish.

Furthermore the merit of the drug war must be taken into consideration. On any given day the DEA intercept 10% of all drug shippments, leaving 90% in the hands of drug dealers that will get it to market, this is with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS spend, and everyday use and availability increases, it empowers gangs and cartels by allowing them to hold a monopoly on the market and rake in BILLIONS. It costs a lot, doesnt make a difference, and has only seen the opposite of its intended results.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 11:32:31 AM

Don't bother Baker. Matthews doesn't seem to see the difference between violent acts of aggression and ingesting harmful substances.

Could that be because the latter act often leads to the former? Perhaps you simply aren't looking far enough.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 11:36:03 AM

Yes, all the famous successful stoners are examples of this. Your correct lol.

How many of those "famous successful stoners" went on to the hard stuff and remained successful, Baker? Statistically they've a 1 in 5 chance.

No they were made illegal for economic and political reasons that were presented through racist claims, do some actual research.

And this happened simultaneously throughout the entire world, did it? Every single country had a Randolph Hearst or a Harry Anslinger or both. I would like to see the research that supports that contention. Got any?

Show me the legitimate studies they used in the 1920's to come to the conclusion drugs caused this unstoppable widespread social harm you claim.

The examples of the opium epidemic in China, as well as narcotics-addicted Civil War veterans in the U.S., was pretty convincing. Have you ever actually spent any time around drug addicts, Baker? Or do you think that they only became addictive after they were outlawed?

Go live in an Islamic state then?

Why? Virtually everything we now know was first learned by someone else. Does that mean that the truth applies only in his ancestral homeland?

I prefer not to make decisions based on others morals.

Morality never enters your decision making-process at ANY point. A moral outlook requires accepting the belief that you are not the world.

All depends on what you call an addict, which is likely anyone whom uses an illegal substance.

The medical definition of "addict" will do nicely. According to you, there is no such thing, or at least there wouldn't be, if drugs were legal.

But lets see, past 3 presidents were once addicts...

Were they addicts at the time of their accession?

...world renound scientists have been addicts...

"Renound" by whom? And "renound" for their scientific contributions, or something else?

...musicians, painters, writers (Pierre Berton), media moguls, the list goes on...

But what is the success rate of the addict compared to the non-addict? For that matter, what is the ratio of intact vs. broken homes for people in those fields compared to the population as a whole? You're pulling the celebrity card, quoting exceptions and presenting them as examples of the norm. Nice try.

"Shippments," huh? Well, if the DEA is doing such a poor job, why is supply drying up, leaving the gangs to fight increasingly vicious turf wars over the remainder?

It costs a lot, doesnt make a difference, and has only seen the opposite of its intended results.

How would you know it doesn't make a difference? Despite the drug revolution of the 1960s, the addiction rate today is half of what it was in 1900. You call that not making a difference?

All of this, though, is mere academic fluffery for you. You don't care about cost, or damage to society, as your support of blood products demonstrates. For you, as for most of the potheads on this forum, it's about you doing what you want, when you want, and fuck the world for telling you different. First, last, always, it's all about you. I've never known a pot smoker who wasn't a selfish jerk, and you're certainly not going to be the first exception.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 11:50:45 AM

I like the idea of a hydraulic guillotine, with a conveyor belt. It sounds like something I saw on Monty Pytnon, years ago. That sort of automation, along with a good recycling plan, could solve a lot of our social, and economic problems.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-26 12:13:15 PM

on this one? As far as "nartocits-addicted Civil War vets" again im having trouble finding proper documented evidence of this, not even a reference, care to shed some light? These dont seam like legitimate research into the subject of drug harms, do they shane?

"Why? Virtually everything we now know was first learned by someone else. Does that mean that the truth applies only in his ancestral homeland?"

Um ok? You said muslums had it right, i said you should live with them then.. I dont see what your trying to get at. But i will say, what others have previously "learned" is not always correct, take the earth being flat and all those other examples. Your original point is random and has no bearing on our debate. Thats why my only response was for you to live there.

"The medical definition of "addict" will do nicely. According to you, there is no such thing, or at least there wouldn't be, if drugs were legal."

LOL i never said that friend. But luckily all my examples will fit the definition which is quite inclusive.

""Renound" by whom? And "renound" for their scientific contributions, or something else?"

By the scientific community. And yes, for their contributions, take for example carl sagen and his contributions to quantum physics. Or the man (forget his name) who came up with the concept used for DNA amplification (which made all this genome/genitic stuff happening today possible) while under the influence of LSD. Supposed addicts have contributed quite a bit.

"But what is the success rate of the addict compared to the non-addict? For that matter, what is the ratio of intact vs. broken homes for people in those fields compared to the population as a whole? You're pulling the celebrity card, quoting exceptions and presenting them as examples of the norm. Nice try."

Who knows, many successful people are very quiet about their use. Take ann muray for example, she recently came out reporting she used to use cannabis, and this was during her success. Or Michale Buble (or however you spell it), he just recently came out as a user. There are many more, but some are afraid of what some will say, others feel its their personal life and others dont need to know what their up to. Think about the odds, its illegal drugs were talking about, guaranteed this is a "tip of the iceburg" type situation. The point is, their use doesn't ruin their lives nor did it make them who they are, they are separate issues.

""Shippments," huh? Well, if the DEA is doing such a poor job, why is supply drying up, leaving the gangs to fight increasingly vicious turf wars over the remainder?"

Drug shippments, duh? do you not understand that drugs move from place to place, and this is the point where authority's try to intercept them? And supply isnt drying up my friend, access is greater then ever, notice all the talk last summer about the IMMENSE amount of cannabis grows? They fight each other not because drugs are scarce, but because the territory is profitable due to high supply and demand.

"How would you know it doesn't make a difference? Despite the drug revolution of the 1960s, the addiction rate today is half of what it was in 1900. You call that not making a difference?"

LOL, use has increased, availability has increased. There is no way "addiction rates" are half that of the early 1900's. Infact prohibitionists often use the claim that more people are in rehab then ever for drugs as a point against legalization. SO WHICH IS IT SHANE?

"All of this, though, is mere academic fluffery for you. You don't care about cost, or damage to society, as your support of blood products demonstrates. "

Please define fluffery.

Bla Bla, You sir, you support and promote the cause of the single biggest income source for GANGS AND CARTELS (which allows them to operate/grow), prohibition. Dont even try to spin this like your trying to.

"For you, as for most of the potheads on this forum, it's about you doing what you want, when you want, and fuck the world for telling you different"

Because, for the simple fact it does not concern them whether i smoke a joint or not. They need to get off my nuts. And i do not say "fuck the world", if you ever bother to pay attention i have legitimate reasons for legalization that are based in improving things for everyone.

"I've never known a pot smoker who wasn't a selfish jerk, and you're certainly not going to be the first exception."

Yes because i want to get rid of useless, wasteful legislation. Cut income into violent gangs and cartels, and stop ruining peoples lives because they decide to use the safer substance. Really, im good myself, have a solid connection for a very good price, i can get my cannabis and smoke it as i please currently, and everyone who wants to does so also. The only thing that would change with legalization of cannabis, is gangs will no longer make all the profit, we will save wasted money on the prohibition of cannabis, as well as raise much needed money for all the debt the "great leader" has made for us... Yea im the jerk. lol

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 12:43:53 PM

Oh yea, and regulated models actually reduce use! Unlike your prohibition model which has only seen a drastic rise in use. You sir, are a selfish jerk who supports organized crime and wasting every canadian tax payer money without legitimate reasoning besides "drugs are bad, mkay".

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 12:46:57 PM

Are you serious dp? I hope not. That's the talk of a psychopath. Your starting to sound like Matthews.

I totally agree with WFBJr. Prohibitions have never worked. Spend the money on education, and research the root problems. Why do people do addictive drugs when they know they are addictive? And try and fix the problem. Obviously, prisons and punishments aren't working.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-26 12:49:58 PM

Good one Baker. Lets see how he twists it.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-26 1:38:43 PM

As far as "nartocits-addicted Civil War vets" again im having trouble finding proper documented evidence of this, not even a reference, care to shed some light? These dont seam like legitimate research into the subject of drug harms, do they shane?

Change "nartocits" to "narcotics" (or better yet to "morphine") and Google again.

Um ok? You said muslums had it right, i said you should live with them then.. I dont see what your trying to get at.

That's because you're an idiot. The point is that it is the information (and the factual validity thereof) that counts, not the source. The Chinese invented paper; does that mean only the Chinese should use paper?

But i will say, what others have previously "learned" is not always correct, take the earth being flat and all those other examples.

I love it when the the mouthy activists bring this one up. Educated people have known the Earth was round since ancient times. The fact that Columbus believed it round while all his contemporaries believed it flat is a total myth.

LOL i never said that friend. But luckily all my examples will fit the definition which is quite inclusive.

Everyone you mentioned was a confirmed ADDICT, or simply had a few puffs of pot or did a couple lines in college on frosh night? Proof, please.

And yes, for their contributions, take for example carl sagen and his contributions to quantum physics.

It's Carl Sagan, you moron. And where is your evidence that he was a drug addict? We have only the word of his biographer that he smoked even pot, and many of his theories, particularly those concerning the greenhouse effect (comparing Venus's atmosphere to Earth's) and nuclear winters (a single volcanic eruption spews more crap into the atmosphere than would the global nuclear arsenal, and civilization doesn't end) into question.

Or the man (forget his name) who came up with the concept used for DNA amplification (which made all this genome/genitic stuff happening today possible) while under the influence of LSD.

The man's name was Kary Mullius, and he also said that use of LSD was more important to this theories than all the courses he had ever taken--a patent absurdity. He would not have invented the polymerase chain reaction if he had never learned biology. His remark is pure speculation. He also believed that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Who knows, many successful people are very quiet about their use.

Underreporting, huh? Just like domestic-violence ballbreakers--when the numbers don't line up behind your theories, blame underreporting. Unverifiable and untraceable. Perfect for the discriminating spinmeister. By the way, you should probably stop citing entertainers as success stories, because they make up a vanishingly small portion of the population as a whole, and their fondness for drugs is well known--as is the fact that their personal lives are often train wrecks.

Actually I heard that the number of grow ops in the greater Vancouver area was down by several thousand, and the gang wars have virtually dried up now the cops have arrested most of the big players.

LOL, use has increased, availability has increased. There is no way "addiction rates" are half that of the early 1900's.

Only someone who has not actually checked would make a "faith statement" like that. It's like telling someone that you're "sure." If you have to say you're sure, it means you're not, and can't prove otherwise.

I advocate putting the gangsters and cartels to death. You openly support providing them with a livelihood by directly lining their pockets and counting yourself a better citizen for having done so. Sure, you claim, it would be better if drugs were legal and therefore didn't contribute to crime, but as things are now, being forced to choose between supporting crime and going drug-free, you do the former. But, like most crooks, you blame the lawman for your lawlessness, because nothing could possibly be wrong with you.

Because, for the simple fact it does not concern them whether i smoke a joint or not. They need to get off my nuts.

No, YOU need to grow up. Something pot smokers are famous for never doing, by the way. The angry, juvenile rants that pervade every discussion about marijuana provide ample proof of this.

And i do not say "fuck the world", if you ever bother to pay attention i have legitimate reasons for legalization that are based in improving things for everyone.

Yes, that's what you'd have us believe. But in truth, it's all about getting people off your nuts.

Yes because i want to get rid of useless, wasteful legislation. Cut income into violent gangs and cartels, and stop ruining peoples lives because they decide to use the safer substance.

You could do that by not buying drugs and encouraging your mates to do likewise. But that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?

Really, im good myself, have a solid connection for a very good price, i can get my cannabis and smoke it as i please currently, and everyone who wants to does so also.

"Good"? What does that mean? Does that mean he's gone at least 100 days without wasting anybody? What does that mean? All this proves is that you support the illegal drug market. If you really cared about cutting crime, you wouldn't. But it's not about cutting crime; it's about getting people off your nuts.

The only thing that would change with legalization of cannabis, is gangs will no longer make all the profit...

But, as your continued use of pot demonstrates, you don't care about that. You're just pretending to care to make yourself look better. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 1:41:34 PM

Are you serious dp? I hope not. That's the talk of a psychopath.

No, Steve. Proposing to send an innocent man to jail and pocketing a reward for doing so is the talk of a psychopath.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 1:42:18 PM

Oh yea, and regulated models actually reduce use!

Of course! Increasing supply always decreases consumption. Funny how leftists apply this logic to legalizing pot, but take the exact opposite view when it comes to building more highways.

Unlike your prohibition model which has only seen a drastic rise in use.

You have yet to explain why marijuana, restricted in 1937, did not see a surge in use until 30 years later. The answer is that the reason for pot use is not legal but demographic and cultural. Meaning, its current popularity is a fad that will fade.

You sir, are a selfish jerk who supports organized crime and wasting every canadian tax payer money without legitimate reasoning besides "drugs are bad, mkay".

You pay the criminals, but I'm the one who really supports them, huh? You sound like a common street thug who mugs a guy for "walking like he owns the street." Rationalization of one's own ill-doings while transferring the blame to another is classic criminal behaviour.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 1:45:41 PM

I totally agree with WFBJr. Prohibitions have never worked.

Then how do you explain an addiction rate that is half of what is was in 1900 (and which was many times lower than before the drug revolution in the 1960s)? Or the fact that alcohol consumption, and related deaths, dropped by about half during Prohibition? No law prevents ALL crime.

Spend the money on education, and research the root problems. Why do people do addictive drugs when they know they are addictive?

Because they have poor coping skills, are idiots, or both. Unfortunately, current psychotherapy techniques are remarkably ineffective at curing either, although I will admit the former is less intractable than the latter. You might as well ask why some people turn to crime where others raised in the same circumstances do not.

Obviously, prisons and punishments aren't working.

The strongest punishments are meted out to those least likely to use the stuff--the suppliers. Any cartel worth his salt knows you don't get high on your own supply. Those who do don't last long. Even in the U.S., punishments for mere users are a pittance in comparison.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 1:51:42 PM

Shane is an empty vessel. He takes his guidance from his Nigerian parish priest who echoes the pronunciations of the Roman Church. The Church says marijuana should not be legalised, because the intoxicated will not inherit the Kingdom of God (drinking alcohol in moderation does not intoxicate, according to the church, however, dope always gets you stoned. Plus of course the RC are big on sacramental wine consuming copious amounts during prohibition; apparently a lot of folks found religion) Shane says the same. The Church denies race realism, not because racial differences are not real but because it is a materialistic view of creation and thus cannot be condoned. Thus Shane objects to race realism and Pat Buchanan's assertion, despite the fact Buchanan is a fellow Irish Catholic, not because the view is invalid, but because it is materialistic and thus contradicts transcendence. It's quite predictable really.

Posted by: DJ | 2010-02-26 3:01:31 PM

It pains me to do so, but I must defend myself.

"Proposing to send an innocent man to jail and pocketing a reward for doing so is the talk of a psychopath."

I did not say I would do such a thing, I merely suggested it as a way civil forfeiture could be abused. Suggesting people should be killed for doing drugs, as you so often do, is psychopathic.

"Then how do you explain an addiction rate that is half of what is was in 1900 (and which was many times lower than before the drug revolution in the 1960s)? Or the fact that alcohol consumption, and related deaths, dropped by about half during Prohibition? No law prevents ALL crime."

I would have to see proof of that. I think you just pull these numbers out of your ass. And if I had to explain it, I would say humanity is getting more intelligent, better educated, and more aware. Comparing society today to 100 years ago is nothing but a red herring.

"Because they have poor coping skills, are idiots, or both. Unfortunately, current psychotherapy techniques are remarkably ineffective at curing either, although I will admit the former is less intractable than the latter. You might as well ask why some people turn to crime where others raised in the same circumstances do not."

Ok professor, how do you propose to fix it? If this is your reasoning for people that have problems like this. I think it is all behavioral.
You are a creature of your environment. I think society is fucked, and its producing fucked up people. I already know your solution, hang em high. Right?

"The strongest punishments are meted out to those least likely to use the stuff--the suppliers. Any cartel worth his salt knows you don't get high on your own supply. Those who do don't last long. Even in the U.S., punishments for mere users are a pittance in comparison."

More words pulled out of your ass. Man, I gotta stop taking the bait......

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-26 3:24:55 PM

Whatever happened to Emery? You remember him, right? That insignificant little man who made a completely futile sacrifice for something that landed him into jail for the next half-decade.

Yeah I forgot about him too.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-26 4:06:05 PM

lol... dont have the time for shanes multi threaded arguement atm.. God its multi threaded lol. But heres one for u zeb, since your obsession seams to have gotten the best of you again. Last i saw he was on some European TV station talking about the increased business he has been having since the olympics started.... Oh yea, he was also at the Womens gold medal hockey game, was said to have lit up a joint every time they scored. :)

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-26 4:22:52 PM

Hes living in my basement Zeb. Sheesh, one track mind.....

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-26 5:14:47 PM

Hiding a known fugitive now? Tisk, tisk. I'd call Calgary 911 if it worked ;)

Never trust a word Emery says - he's a known drug abuser who has fried his mind. One might as well talk to a member of the Toronto District School Board who thinks that blacks students are better off in their segregated school.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-26 5:21:39 PM

DJ has nothing of value to say, so like so many in the pro-pot camp, he hucks mud (from behind an alias, no less). How does it feel to be a member of a horde, DJ? Here's your membership pin.

Oh, and by the way, the Church does NOT say that drug users are excluded from the Kingdom of God. As you might learn if you ever set foot in a house of worship instead of leaving dead cats on the front porch and running away in the night like a hyena.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 7:35:56 PM

It pains me to do so, but I must defend myself.

Was I right or what?

Oops, I forgot—because it’s me, it CAN’T be so, regardless of truth. Silly me.

I did not say I would do such a thing, I merely suggested it as a way civil forfeiture could be abused.

Your exact words were, and I QUOTE: “In fact, if I knew where Zeb lived, I could plant some ‘evidence’ on his property and call the cops.” You went on to say, “And I could make a tidy sum from the call as well.” Don't try and back out of it, Steve; even you later admitted you’d overreached yourself. But you know what? I totally believe you could convince yourself to do it, if you were mad enough. You’ve already shown you pay scant heed to laws when you think something you desire lies on the other side of them.

Suggesting people should be killed for doing drugs, as you so often do, is psychopathic.

On a roll: A lie and a mistake in a single sentence. First, I said that the pushers and cartels should be executed, not the users. Second, the definition of psychopathic is “lacking remorse or empathy.” It is selfishness taken to the far edge of insanity. A person who thinks that those who traffic in human suffering and misery should be made to pay is not demonstrating psychopathic tendencies. However, a person who bankrolls violent crime and bloodletting rather than give up something he totally does not need most certainly is.

I would have to see proof of that.

According to this article in the Schaffer Drug Library, between two to five percent of the entire adult population of the U.S. was addicted to drugs, mostly opiates, in 1900. Since the population in 1900 was 76 million, that equals nearly 4,000,000 addicts. Today, on the other hand, according to drug-rehabs.org, the number of heroin addicts today is about 600,000, or about 0.5 percent of the population.

One interesting difference was noted in the Shaffer report, however. Whereas today, most people who become addicts take the drugs on purpose, in those days, addiction was more likely to be accidental, because owing to its “tonic” properties, narcotics were including in damned near everything. Cocaine was a popular cold remedy (and soda pop additive). Opiate syrups were given to children to calm their crying. And, of course, there was also the large number of iatrogenic cases (those inadvertently caused by legitimate medicine) left over from the Civil War.

I think you just pull these numbers out of your ass.

That’s all you can do, really, because YOU DON’T KNOW. And you’re afraid to go look, because you know I’m probably right. You also don’t care enough one way or the other, because either way, you want what you want and there’s an end to it.

And if I had to explain it, I would say humanity is getting more intelligent, better educated, and more aware.

Which explains, no doubt, why drug addicts are now destroying themselves willingly, instead of doing it by accident, as they did a hundred years ago. Again with the unsubstantiated opinion. And why is it I have to prove all my theories, but you don’t have to prove any of yours, hmm?

Comparing society today to 100 years ago is nothing but a red herring.

It isn’t, actually, because human nature has not changed much in the last 100,000 years, and certainly not in the last 100. But even assuming this were a valid point, the time to make it would have been at the beginning, rather than making a half-assed, losing attempt at haggling over numbers you don’t even have.

Ok professor, how do you propose to fix it?

By minimizing it. Something that will not be accomplished by increasing the supply.

I think it is all behavioral.

What you think does not matter, Steve. Only what you can prove matters. All you’ve managed to prove so far is that you’re a crook with psychopathic tendencies.

You are a creature of your environment.

Then explain why most people, even those reared in poor neighbourhoods, do NOT turn to crime.

I think society is fucked, and its producing fucked up people.

Like you, for instance? Is funding organized crime your way of getting back at society for locking you in an orphanage or something? Because if you really want to know, the number-one cause of fucked-up people is fucked-up families.

I already know your solution, hang em high. Right?

A solution more likely to be successful than your proposal, which seems to be putting them in charge.

More words pulled out of your ass.

Another limp-wristed serve that hits the net and fall flat because you have nothing to put behind it.

Man, I gotta stop taking the bait......

You’ll NEVER stop taking the bait, Steve. Never in a million years. You’re hooked right through the fucking bag. I said you’d be back; who’s your daddy?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 8:21:51 PM

wipehead army update--

FLASHBACK
Bud the oracle- who has trailed wipehead culture saliva all over these boards in the recent past had pretty much the same take as Steve on the serious subject of controlled substances , the drug laws, prohibition history and the divine right to be a stoner- Both Bud & Steve routinely resort to remarkably similar out of ass fantasies passed off as fact..

in short- Bud the Oracle and Steve have a lot in common as bold defenders of all things wipehead.
News this wek is Bud the Oracle was busted--yet again-- in Vancouver on drug vending charges.

Citizen Oracles' arguments in BC court this week are very similar to Steves' stance : that the law presents an unsuitable obstruction to their personal goals of attaining stoneristic perfection.

The crown wants Bud held for psychiatric evaluation before he faces trial. The last time Bud was held in jail pending trial he got beat up bad, not by the guards but by his fellow wipehead inmates who had-- heard it all before

Take a hint Steve -

Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-26 8:55:37 PM

The CROWN wants psychiatric evaluation? It has to be bad if it’s the crown, rather than the defence, making this request (assuming Citizen Oracle has even retained a defence; somehow I doubt it). Was this man once a patient at Riverview, by any chance? Looks like he might be headed back there.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 9:26:23 PM

Out of context Shane, as usual. You are a master word twister. Here is what I said.

"This could easily be abused. In fact, if I knew where Zeb lived, I could plant some "evidence" on his property and call the cops. I wonder how much he would back such a stupid policy then?"

I picked Zeb to make the point, due to a comment he made earlier. I was just making the point of how it could be abused. I am not that kind of person.

"even you later admitted you’d overreached yourself.

about a comment 419 made. I had hastily read his comment and thought he had called me a scumbag. My mistake, I apologized.

"It isn’t, actually, because human nature has not changed much in the last 100,000 years"

Oh really? What is human nature? If that statement was true, we would still be living in caves. It is learned behavior that shapes us. I bet your parents were much like you. In fact you yourself state this. And I quote "Because if you really want to know, the number-one cause of fucked-up people is fucked-up families." Society produces these families.

"By minimizing it. Something that will not be accomplished by increasing the supply."

We have tried the crime and punishment routine, hasn't worked so well, and its going to get worse unless we change tactics. I have no desire to live in a Big Brother society. In fact, I am fast becoming a fan of Jacque Fresco. I think he has the right ideas to face the human race in the right direction. He would probably just give you the willies.

"What you think does not matter, Steve."

I beg to differ. What I think matters a great deal, to me. It is my opinion, not yours. And your ceaseless barrage is not likely to change it on this matter. I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong. We have tried it your way for over 30 years, hows it working out for you? Do you think drugs are harder to find now than 30 years ago? I could probably find a dealer or 2 in your own building. Lets give it 30, or even 10 years, of the legalized approach and see how it works out. If it all goes to shit, then you can say " I told you so." Whats the worse that could happen?

"Then explain why most people, even those reared in poor neighbourhoods, do NOT turn to crime."

Because of the prohibition on drugs, there is a lot more crime than you think for one thing. And the other is the system is set up to offer hope. People are just generally good Shane. I don't wish to harm anyone. Do you? Oh ya, "A solution more likely to be successful than your proposal, which seems to be putting them in charge."
How are we putting them in charge, btw. No, we would be taking control.

"Another limp-wristed serve that hits the net and fall flat because you have nothing to put behind it."

No, the serve may have been weak, but its over the net. You can go out and find studies to support your argument, and I can go out and find some to support mine. In the end, its just a bunch of meaningless numbers, in a never ending argument. I don't trust most of your sources because in my view the government lies to you almost everyday, so why believe them on anything? And in your view, most of my sources come from a biased view. Just a bunch (many millions) of pot heads. Get the point? We are never going to agree. So why argue about it constantly. We supposedly live in a democracy. I guess we will have to let the people decide, eventually.

Are you sure you don't get an income somehow from the Drug War? Your not secretly a DEA agent or something are you? You have to admit, you are awfully vehement on this topic. Makes ya wonder .....

"You’ll NEVER stop taking the bait, Steve. Never in a million years. You’re hooked right through the fucking bag. I said you’d be back; who’s your daddy?"

Your right Shane.... I just can't quit you!!

Shane! Come Back Shane!

No, seriously, its not healthy. I am going to give this a rest. I will argue with you on other topics. They do post articles about other things here ya know.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 2:40:07 AM

yes Steve, we resolved the Scumbag thing way back there. It was another day, about another topic on another thread..
Please, what is the purpose in revisiting that again, or here?

Re Bud Oracle..it seems he set up an erratic clumsy messy storefront to sell dope and only dope ( aka controlled substances: cannabis hash and chemicals ) in Vancouver. Design wise, resembled a bombed out squat featuring a large billboard posting what drugs were on tap and at what prices. Streams of sketchy customers and underage players came and went, some loitering outfront on the sidewalk. Soon his neighbors complained to both his landlord and the police-Bud became hostile and produced some YouTube clips condemning his neighbor merchants by nam and address as informers and enemies of his freedom, then strongly recommended the world boycott theses businesses, drive them to ruin so he could sell his dope to all comers

Bud was busted< again> and represented himself in court as a freeman of the land, not subject to Canadian law--However the crown pointed out Bud was peddling dope to Canadians, some underage. and painted his resume as a addled drug user on a mission to assert his personal welfare at the expense of everybody else.

Take a lesson at Buds expense.
Maybe William F Buckley can help him -
everybody else thinks he's an asshole

Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-27 7:14:05 AM

I picked Zeb to make the point, due to a comment he made earlier. I was just making the point of how it could be abused. I am not that kind of person.

Yes, you are. You’ve already demonstrated both jaw-dropping self-absorption (by feeding organized crime and then blaming someone else for it) and a criminal mentality. We have only your word on the matter, and by returning to this forum at all, you’ve already broken it.

Oh really? What is human nature? If that statement was true, we would still be living in caves.

Now who’s talking out of his ass? Some people in the world still do, because they’re content to do so. When they’re no longer content, they’ll figure out something else.

It is learned behavior that shapes us.

It is learned behaviour which shapes, duh, behaviour. This does not alter our basic, instinctive drives.

I bet your parents were much like you. In fact you yourself state this. And I quote "Because if you really want to know, the number-one cause of fucked-up people is fucked-up families."

The fact that neither my parents or I were fucked up enough to matter doesn’t mean we’re similar people. I know this fact comes as a shock to most druggies, but most people are not fucked up. It doesn’t mean they all come from the same cookie cutter. Leave the thinking to me, Steve; I’m trained for it. And I don’t need to pickle my brain in drugs to accomplish it, either.

Society produces these families.

No, poor genetic material produces these families. No matter how skilled the builder, he can’t construct an edifice from a pile of manure.

We have tried the crime and punishment routine, hasn't worked so well, and its going to get worse unless we change tactics.

The statistics I quote you beg to differ—and I note you no longer question them. Even if we change nothing, it will eventually get better on its own, for the same reason people have stopped smoking—people simply changed their minds about it. In 1980, with smoking rates among young teens heading up and up and up, no one would have believed a prediction that tobacco sales would fall off the cliff within 20 years as the result of simple curtailment of tobacco ads. Yet that is exactly what happened.

I have no desire to live in a Big Brother society. In fact, I am fast becoming a fan of Jacque Fresco. I think he has the right ideas to face the human race in the right direction.

YOU think, YOU want, YOU want. Don’t you EVER think about ANYTHING except what YOU want? Oh, wait...

I beg to differ. What I think matters a great deal, to me. It is my opinion, not yours. And your ceaseless barrage is not likely to change it on this matter. I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong.

Unlike you, however, I have a lot of facts to support my position. Yours is entirely based on what you “think” (on the few occasions when you can be said to think at all) and what you want. The rest of the world can always go to hell. So I was right about something else, too; you are a narcissist. Like most potheads.

We have tried it your way for over 30 years, hows it working out for you?

Actually, we’ve tried it my way for nearly a hundred, and only since the 1960s have drugs been a widespread problem. No doubt you have an explanation for this that you’ve simply chosen to withhold for reasons unknown.

Do you think drugs are harder to find now than 30 years ago? I could probably find a dealer or 2 in your own building.

But would you have been able to do it in 1955, despite the fact that pot had already been illegal for 20 years and narcotics for 40? How do you account for this discrepancy?

If it all goes to shit, then you can say " I told you so." Whats the worse that could happen?

How about skyrocketing property crime and medical costs, millions of addicts, tanked productivity, and an utter destruction of civility, if not civilization? Do you REALLY think society will be better off if more people get high? If you toke too much, someone loses data which is probably backed up anyway. But if people with REAL jobs toke too much, bridges fall, buildings collapse, planes crash, locomotives collide, chemicals get mixed wrong, food gets contaminated, scalpels slip, fortunes get lost, and so on ad infinitum. Not everyone is as useless as you, Steve.

Because of the prohibition on drugs, there is a lot more crime than you think for one thing.

Do not evade the question. The question was why most people turn out reasonably well regardless of environment, posed in rebuttal to your contention that people just can’t help themselves provided their upbringing was crappy enough?

How are we putting them in charge, btw. No, we would be taking control.

Yeah, good luck with that. Even those who offer weak support for legalizing pot would break out in a cold sweat at the prospect of these potheads actually being in charge of anything that mattered to them. You can’t even control your own habit; what makes you think you can control a society?

No, the serve may have been weak, but its over the net. You can go out and find studies to support your argument, and I can go out and find some to support mine.

Well, would you? Because it would be a welcome change from listening to you admire yourself. And I want a reputable source, not some activist blog.

In the end, its just a bunch of meaningless numbers, in a never ending argument.

In what way are they meaningless? The only way data can be meaningless is if it is inaccurate, incomplete, or irrelevant. You have not proven the data I provided is any of those things. Largely because you don‘t care about the data any more than you care about reality.

I don't trust most of your sources because in my view the government lies to you almost everyday, so why believe them on anything?

And activists have a better track record than official sources as far as honesty is concerned? This is just a weak excuse to dismiss inconvenient facts. You may as well come right out and admit it—you already know the facts, and don’t care. Because in the end, it’s all about you.

And in your view, most of my sources come from a biased view.

I’ll be happy to pronounce judgement on them, if you ever provide any. But here’s a hint: Any site that includes an opinion, a position, a call to action, an accusation, or an attitude in its domain name is probably NOT a reliable source of impartial information.

Are you sure you don't get an income somehow from the Drug War?

Thanks to you, the criminals get an income from it.

Your not secretly a DEA agent or something are you? You have to admit, you are awfully vehement on this topic. Makes ya wonder .....

Yes, I know. Everything’s a conspiracy; every corner conceals a spy; behind every smile, a knife. You know what the worst part of being a liar and a crook is, Steve? It’s not that no one will ever trust you. It’s that you will never be able to trust anyone. Your last few points show just how far along the paranoia curve you’ve gotten. Sounds awfully lonely, in spite of the “millions” of pot heads that could theoretically keep you company. Well, more power to you. Because unlike smoking dope, choosing your associates (or refusing to choose any) is a protected Charter right.

No, seriously, its not healthy. I am going to give this a rest. I will argue with you on other topics. They do post articles about other things here ya know.

So debating online isn’t healthy, but smoking dope is? Maybe I should be doing the wondering.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 1:19:14 PM

'Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.'

William F Buckley.

illegitimi non carborundum Mr. Emery.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-02-28 6:44:31 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Friday, February 26, 2010

William F Buckley Jr. on Legalization of Drugs

Comments