How to stay within the rules of the law.

[fatmanstan]

I never said it was true, I simply brought it up. PO, I happened to notice that you never really stated your opinion on drug laws as applied to psychedelics. I am not American, so I was unsure about the validity of that guy's claim, especially since, as you pointed out, he didn't really have alot of intelligent input on this forum. I did not, however, take the time to look it up myself.

However, it was really satisfy my curiousity if you could tell me if you believe that someone who is possession of something like cannabis or magic mushrooms which were produced on a small, personal scale for personal use should be treated the same as someone who is in possession of a similar quantity of say meth or crack. Or hell, someone who got drunk and beat up their significant other.

Can you give me some kind of clue as to why all drug infractions are painted with the same brush? Why is something like LSD or mescaline in the same schedule of substances as heroin, as far as sentencing is concerned. Hell, both coke/crack and meth are legal to possess if you have lisence or perscription allowing you to do so. (source: erowid). Does that really make any kind of sense?

Please, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this, you keep dancing around the issue.

[bewilderment]

Marijuana is in the same schedule as heroin as well which is ridiculous. Alcohol (as well as MANY of the drugs in lower schedules)does more damage and has a higher potential for abuse than LSD, mescaline, and marijuana.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

Marijuana is in the same schedule as heroin as well which is ridiculous. Alcohol (as well as MANY of the drugs in lower schedules)does more damage and has a higher potential for abuse than LSD, mescaline, and marijuana.

Its true! Think about the average drugs that will lead to long term physical harm, making people act violently, etc. Most of them will be schedule II or below, if not unscheduled (alcohol). Its rare that a schedule I drug will make a person dangerous to themselves or others, with the possible exceptions of GHB and cathinone.

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by forthesevenlakes

Its true! Think about the average drugs that will lead to long term physical harm, making people act violently, etc. Most of them will be schedule II or below, if not unscheduled (alcohol). Its rare that a schedule I drug will make a person dangerous to themselves or others, with the possible exceptions of GHB and cathinone.

Yep, even meth is a schedule II. It makes one wonder what the government has against marijuana...swim typically uses marijuana as a substitute for alcohol because it's safer and because it's more enjoyable (she does drink, but gets almost no enjoyment when just drinking and if she drinks when she smokes she usually has one drink and is done...unless it's some sort of special occasion). It seems that the government simply has something against things which alter (or expand based on one's opinion) consciousness...maybe because those drugs are more likely to make the person question the existing norms of society? I know a number of people who smoke and drink and they became violent...their temper became a problem so they gave up the drinking but not the marijuana and guess what? Their life and their situation improved significantly and they learned how to better manage their anger.

Although, I will admit that people using psychedelics sometimes sound and act crazier than those on lower scheduled drugs (ever watched vids of hippies back in the day? They look pretty crazy), but it's no harm unless they're just dumb in which case they would probably get themselves into more trouble on coke or meth. If swim had never taken hallucinogens and watched someone else trip then they'd probably think that they were doing a lot of harm and were damaging their minds, but studies say otherwise. I think the law-makers just need to chill out, smoke a blunt, drop a tab, and get to work on rewriting these messed up laws.

Reputation Comments on this post:

nice points! we are on the same page here.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

It seems that the government simply has something against things which alter (or expand based on one's opinion) consciousness...maybe because those drugs are more likely to make the person question the existing norms of society? I know a number of people who smoke and drink and they became violent...their temper became a problem so they gave up the drinking but not the marijuana and guess what? Their life and their situation improved significantly and they learned how to better manage their anger.

So true. most of the drugs which could expand consciousness are very illegal. This is done under the guise of them having no medicinal value, but with all the work being done by MAPS recently, hopefully this will change. SWIM doesnt smoke marijuana, but he has noted that several friends who do are alot more well behaved now. For some people it seems to even them out...swim would like to see a study done on the effects of marijuana on bipolar disorder. Could be a safe alternative to lithium with fewer unpleasant side effects.

Originally Posted by bewilderment

If swim had never taken hallucinogens and watched someone else trip then they'd probably think that they were doing a lot of harm and were damaging their minds, but studies say otherwise. I think the law-makers just need to chill out, smoke a blunt, drop a tab, and get to work on rewriting these messed up laws.

Same here. Luckily there are facts on the side of hallucinogens endorsing their safety. SWIM figures there is probably alot more negative aspects to long term use of desoxyn (prescription meth!) or coke than the average hallucinogen.

[VincentVan]

I´m sorry to see that Nagong has censored my post and decided that it should fall into the "Flaming" category.
Of course I accept that his judgement as moderator is not questionable nor I intend to question it , I just would like to make clear, particularly to PoliceOfficer that the post, while surely not flattering, did not include any profanity of any sort.
It was just a somewhat "ironic" analysis of the behaviour PO exibited in his posts and his answers.
While the intention of my post could surely be defined as polemic no offense was intended.
As soon as I have an half an hour time I will explain why I am convinced that no cop could be trusted in any situation, why even when he might sound to be reasonable and wanting an honest exchange of opinions and points of view , in reality his goals and intentions will necessarily always be different from those of the rest of the population; and why hypocrisy is an incouraged, necessary, and prominent feature of the character of any cop; as inevitable as belief in God is for a priest, or an interest in animals for a zoologist.
This is not flaming , these are reasoned conclusions to which I arrived after many years of reasoning, experiences and study and that surely are not held by me alone.
I promise I will explain why I reached these conclusions as soon as possible.
VV.

"My revenue is the silly cheat.
Gallows and knock are too powerful on the highway.
Beating and hanging are terrors to me."
( Shakespeare.- "The Winter´s Tale."-)

Reputation Comments on this post:

agrees 100%

[VincentVan]

I logged on some moments ago to keep my promise of explaining why I arrived to the conclusions I mentioned above.
Before I started writing however, I received some PM that asked me to desist explaining the reasons for this request.
While I do not agree with these reasons and I stand by my opinions 100%, I´m also aware of my status here as a low ranking guest and besides I don´t see the point in starting a useless polemic, therefore I bow to the higher authorities and I obey.
I really don´t want to be any trouble.
VV.

"It is perhaps as difficult to write a good life as to live one"
(Lytton Strachey)

[grandbaby]

Well, geez, Vince, I just read your censored post and considered giving you negative rep for it because it bordered on flaming... glad I didn't. I'm sure your analysis would be interesting, and I'd like to read it; this thread is not where it belongs, though. WAAAAY off topic. Might it be more appropriate in Political Interest or some other forum? I shall defer to the mods in this, as in all things, Allfah be praised.

[korky8097]

I too would like to see PO's opinion on psychadelic drugs in which no brain damage, no bodily damage, no damage to society, and no addictive properties occour. LSD i believe has never caused any legitimate deaths, every report I have read in which somebody died on LSD was caused by the persons stupidity or another drug mixed in (usually downers and tranq's such as thorazine).

My theory of why these substances are illegal is this: back in the 1960's the Gov. made the connection that these drugs were causing these hippies to act the way they do and think the way they do, which was geared against them. And that their open minds were more difficult to govern. Now we know that every situation is more complicated than we can comprehend, and in no way could substances be the only reason for the peace movement. Most people were just angry as hell at war.

The way things are portreyed (sp) to the public through the media has its faults. When an extreme event happens like somebody jumping off something while tripping, that is the only drug news the majority will see. They dont get to see the good. They dont see people having a good trip and enriching their lives spiritualy. Becuase to the majority, thats not interesting. But this only delivers a small glimps of the story. Many laws are passed just because of a few small extreme cases. Law makers use the idea that this is a pattern. But what only few seem to see is that there is no such thing. The future can and will happen in unpredictable ways, and trying to predict it is foolish. Plus patterning is a very good example of simplifying an event or situation that is more complex than can be fully understood.

I hope these are some valid points, i tried to maintain as unbiased as possible. Oh and BTW PO, you should look deeper into the begining of drug prohibition in america, way before the 60's. Most if not all drug laws started as very racist concepts. Opium was made illegal because they viewed it as something that made the chinese railworkers lazy and good for nothing. Cocaine was viewed as something that created "crazed negro's". Really very interesting stuff, i believe you can run a search on here and find a thread about it, i will look for the link.

PS, thought i would add this: I in no way intend this as anything against PO, i think it is such a great and important thing to get the other side's opinion, really juices up threads and makes officers a little more 3d to me. Thought i should put this as the whole post kinda challenges PO's thoughts and i can see in some places where it could be interprited as sinical and condisending(sp), just to clear that up.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by korky8097

I hope these are some valid points, i tried to maintain as unbiased as possible. Oh and BTW PO, you should look deeper into the begining of drug prohibition in america, way before the 60's. Most if not all drug laws started as very racist concepts. Opium was made illegal because they viewed it as something that made the chinese railworkers lazy and good for nothing. Cocaine was viewed as something that created "crazed negro's". Really very interesting stuff, i believe you can run a search on here and find a thread about it, i will look for the link.

Yes, I am more than aware of that. I pride myself in knowing quite a deal about the history of drugs in America. You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.

Want to know something thats really interesting? Find out about the marijuana tax stamp.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Yes, I am more than aware of that. I pride myself in knowing quite a deal about the history of drugs in America. You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.

Want to know something thats really interesting? Find out about the marijuana tax stamp.

Me too, though I know more about the ancient and international history of drugs than specifically in the US, but the US is sort of my home as well (if only in name) so I try to learn as much about it as I can.

I like learning about the beginnings of the drug prohibition movement, but what I find more interesting is how the government tip-toed around legally to create the scheduling system so they could make lsd and other drugs illegal, which also helped make MDMA illegal so fast after it became popular.

Another good set of programs that aired recently, though a bit more in favour of the drugs (though it does show consequences), is "The Drug Years" on VH1 and the Sundance Film Channel. These were particularly well done and did a good job of showing the cultural movements that went with the drugs and how society as a whole changed with the drugs and spurred on the use of the drugs. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.

Though there are plenty of great shows/videos posted in the video section of this website so most people should be set for a while.

[~lostgurl~]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Another good set of programs that aired recently, though a bit more in favour of the drugs (though it does show consequences), is "The Drug Years" on VH1 and the Sundance Film Channel. These were particularly well done and did a good job of showing the cultural movements that went with the drugs and how society as a whole changed with the drugs and spurred on the use of the drugs. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.

do you have a link for this? I checked vh1.com but there was no free viewing, and I have read about it somewhere else and am keen to view for myself. Cheers

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Laura76

do you have a link for this? I checked vh1.com but there was no free viewing - (I don't have a credit card) and I have read about it somewhere else and am keen to view for myself. Cheers

http://www.torrentportal.com/details...ip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details...ip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details...ip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details...ip.SoS%29.html

Thats the best I could do on short notice. There are a decent amount of seeders so it shouldn't be too long to download. I recommend you use uTorrent.

[~lostgurl~]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.

The link below (from multimedia - movies about drugs - drugs-forum) has 2 of the above mentioned history channel documentaries on the history of drugs:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/loc...d=807&catid=43

[fatmanstan]

SWIM remains curious as to why he has still seen no reply from PO regarding his view on the criminalization of certain drugs which have been proven to carry with them essential no harm to an individual or society in general. In fact, as far as SWIM can tell, the only harm that would come from them would be to be caught in possession of them. One would lose financial aid (for students), prospects of certain jobs, get a criminal record for what? Something that amounts to far less harm than alcohol has caused for mankind over many centuries?

Still curious PO.

Perhaps your personal opinion contradicts your professional opinion, and you would rather not jeopardize career by stating what you know is right.

Perhaps you don't want to get into a discussion with "drugged out losers" about how mushrooms and LSD melt one's brain because you really have no proof to back yourself up? SWIM doesn't know. He really means no offense, but is desperatly seeking your opinion on such things.

Thank you PO.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by fatmanstan

SWIM remains curious as to why he has still seen no reply from PO regarding his view on the criminalization of certain drugs which have been proven to carry with them essential no harm to an individual or society in general. In fact, as far as SWIM can tell, the only harm that would come from them would be to be caught in possession of them. One would lose financial aid (for students), prospects of certain jobs, get a criminal record for what? Something that amounts to far less harm than alcohol has caused for mankind over many centuries?

Still curious PO.

Perhaps your personal opinion contradicts your professional opinion, and you would rather not jeopardize career by stating what you know is right.

Perhaps you don't want to get into a discussion with "drugged out losers" about how mushrooms and LSD melt one's brain because you really have no proof to back yourself up? SWIM doesn't know. He really means no offense, but is desperatly seeking your opinion on such things.

Thank you PO.

Fatman, ya have to give me a little time to respond. Job, family, house, posting on here is a leisure that I rarely have time for.

OK...I only have a personal dislike for certain drugs that I have personally seen ruin peoples lives. The drugs that I personally think are distructive are:

Meth
Heroin
Crack
Cocaine

Meth is really a bad drug.

Now I know you want me to talk about Marijuana ("The harmless drug"). Have I worked an accident where the driver was intoxicated by marijuana, and he killed a mom and her 3 year old daugher, both who were survived by the dad and two older brothers? Yes, I have. Fatman, that little girl was one of the most adorable people I have ever seen. I seen her picture at her wake. She looked different at the accident because she was ejected from the car.

As for the other stuff? I dont care. I know its illegal to have acid, shrooms, etc. So if its illegal, you have to get arrested. Thats my stance I guess.

Do I personally get offended when people use drugs? Nope, not in the least. People are going to continue to wreck their lives with meth, heroin, crack, etc., and there is nothing I can do about it.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Do I personally get offended when people use drugs? Nope, not in the least. People are going to continue to wreck their lives with meth, heroin, crack, etc., and there is nothing I can do about it.

And an overzealous anti-drug government will continue to wreck the lives of many people who choose to expand their minds with lsd, dmt, mdma, etc. and it appears there isn't anything we can really do about it.

[~lostgurl~]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

As for the other stuff? I dont care. I know its illegal to have acid, shrooms, etc. So if its illegal, you have to get arrested. Thats my stance I guess.

Are you saying that as a police officer who's job it is to enforce laws, that you don't "actually care" whether the laws that you are enforcing are justified?

Also, I am curious as to why you became a police officer? Do you enjoy your job? Do you ever feel that certain things you do as part of your job have long term negative effects on people that may not deserve it? I realise that there must be a great deal of satisfaction in putting away some of the truly evil people in this world, but when it is the opposite do you find it difficult or do you right it off as just being part of the job?

I am not judging you at all, am just very curious as to whether your beliefs as a person affect your chosen profession, and I wonder how many people do things in their jobs that go against their beliefs, and how many people do their jobs without questioning the reasonings behind their duties.

[fatmanstan]

Thank you for your reply, PO. SWIM agrees with you on your selection of "destructive" drugs, and he believes he mentioned something about addiction earlier on in this thread. All four of those fit the bill. This is not to say that there aren't people out there who are completely in control of their use of such drugs (at the moment).

SWIM also mentioned something about the responsible use of the drugs he mentioned. Operating a motor vehicle does not fit this type of use. Yes, SWIM would agree that it would be a terrible tradgedy to witness an accident scene where the driver was intoxicated, but why is it still legal to buy and be in possession of alcohol, if the majority of devastating collisions are caused by the US's good taxable drug? What about sleep-deprived drivers? Or those on perscription pills? Marijuana can intoxicate a person, there's no debate on that. Not everyone thinks its right to climb behind the wheel, though. Just like not everyone who enjoys a few cocktails gets out on the freeway for a "booze cruise". Responsiblity. <-- That's key right there.

SWIM also does not seem terrible convinced as to your position either way with the "that's my stance I guess" comment. This leads him to believe that you may question some of the laws that you are employed to enforce. Is this a common thing in your profession, or are most of the people you work with of the "duhhh... drugs are bad" camp? Don't get SWIM wrong, there should always be controls, but prohibition simply DOES NOT WORK. Was that not learned with respect to alcohol in the earlier part of last century?


Again, thank you very much for your time, PO.

[Nagognog2]

"Have I worked an accident where the driver was intoxicated by marijuana, and he killed a mom and her 3 year old daugher, both who were survived by the dad and two older brothers? Yes, I have."

I have no real problem with this answer as a matter of perspective and what might have been causative in the situation. However:

There is a person who ran the Drug Task Force for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union to those across the imaginary lines) by the name of John Holmes (no relation to the porno star - he gets asked that at least once a day). I had occasion to do a radio interview with him, and this same situation came up as a reason why pot should remain illegal (it was a call-in show). He simply replied that "I don't care if you've been drinking whiskey. I don't care if you've been smoking dope all night. I don't care if you just had a fight with your wife. If you can't make 10,000 in Pacman - I don't want you on the road." That settled that in the simplest and most eloquent way! Some people should have their driver's permit torn up in their face - with no blame attached to a substance or a emotional response. They are a menace at any speed behind the wheel of a two-ton shopping cart.

While it is quite possible that some people's motor skills are reduced from smoking a joint, it is equally possible that they are impaired without the joint. This possible connection between pot and a fatal car accident exists - but this does not excuse a law passed in the 1930's, using racism as it's method to pull the public heartstrings, that was passed at the behest of two major corporations with a vested interest to get rid of hemp (Hearst Paper and DuPont Chemical), to make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding and intelligent citizens. We might as well pass a law making it illegal to get behind the wheel if you had a fight with your spouse within the last 72 hours.

Instead of spending taxpayer's dollars scaring kids in school with ghastly horror stories of marijuana being the devil's weed - the money could be better used to launch a no-nonsense educational awareness campaign to teach young people the wrong times to go driving down the road and possibly endanger others. Social Responsibility 101.

And Police Occifur (grin) is quite right. The series on the History Channel is excellent. Very much worth looking for and recording on your VCR if you are out those nights.

[Tokyo-expat]

For those of you who live in the US. Do you feel that you can trust the rules set in the law? That you will be safe following reason and didactics?Or do you think that anything may happen? Laws are applied with utter insanity and it's getting crazier month after month. I have stopped amazing myself overmad laws and infantile justice operationslong ago.
That they are trying to close the research chemical loophole I regret, but I can understand. Making information on drug production, spoons andpipesillegal shows bluntrandom prosecution, violation of freedom of speech and information. Rights that go beyond national law. It is not logical nor compliant with first first amendments or international law, so how can anybody be expected to know the law and not to break it?

This is the exact reason I left the US for greener pastures... I promised those who would listen that if Bush got re-elected I would leave the US and not come back until sanity and freedom were the order of the day. Until that day comes I will be and remain "Tokyo-Expat"

Once upon a time there was a dream called the United States of America.. which was a beacon of freedom in a cold and dark world. That day has since passed since those drunk on their new found power after WW2 realized they could rule the world. The dream has now become a nightmare.. and those that live within it dont even realize it from the daily dose of propaganda and distraction they are fed by the main stream media...

For those who are interested in the true begining of the American Dream I recomend reading the Constitution of The Untied States of America.. and the Declaration of Independence (with a dictionary).. and realize how far the US has drifted from its begining. (and the Federalist Papers for those who are really intersted). It will make you sick to see what America has become.

I find it funny (in a sick way) that the president who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has done nothing but shit on it since taking office.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	We could debate for hours! Nicely put!
	nice rant, so true
	True, even if the belief of an american golden age before WW2 is a bit naif

[old hippie 56]

Damn good reason to leave, you might be one of the lucky ones. Swim found this quote the other day, and seems to fit this thread as well.
"If we choose to ignore the rule of law and subvert the Constitution in the name of "safety", we will raise the specter that, in the loss of American values and American freedoms, America will become a place name rather than an ideal to be emulated" by District Judge John Murphy

[Nagognog2]

"This would be a lot easier if I could be a dictator." - G. W. Bush (2001)

[TheTrueBlackMeat]

The majority of the human populace has always required someone else to do their thinking for them and set their values. Our society caters to weak people who have their personalities dictated by their environment/television. If society didn't cater to these people, the people at the top would have less power.

As for staying within the rules of the law... Be smart. 99% of bad things that happen to you in life are a direct result of a choice you make. There is a saying... If you keep all the small rules you can break the big ones.

As for the government... Don't trust it, take advantage of it like it takes advantage of you and everyone else.

There's no revolution, no salvation coming. Everything is just going to get worse.

Take what you are able to and enjoy it while you are still able to.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by TheTrueBlackMeat

The majority of the human populace has always required someone else to do their thinking for them and set their values. Our society caters to weak people who have their personalities dictated by their environment/television. If society didn't cater to these people, the people at the top would have less power.

As for staying within the rules of the law... Be smart. 99% of bad things that happen to you in life are a direct result of a choice you make. There is a saying... If you keep all the small rules you can break the big ones.

As for the government... Don't trust it, take advantage of it like it takes advantage of you and everyone else.

There's no revolution, no salvation coming. Everything is just going to get worse.

Take what you are able to and enjoy it while you are still able to.

You do know that optimists tend to live longer right?


Winston Churchill said that "Democracy means that when there's a knock in the door at 3 am, it's probably the milkman.".

Unfortunately thats not quite true in the US today if you are a drug user. You never know what could happen.

Political action is the only way to change things. It may take time but I believe if the conditions are right and people work for it we can achieve a better environment for recreational drug use in the nation.