Opinions - Drug prohibition "successes"

[malcolm kyle]

#1. It provides criminal enterprise with an endless source of tax free income.


#2. It increases the power of the state over the power of the people.


#3. It's a success for fascism, dictators, the prison industrial complex, the'drug' testing industry, cops on the take, corrupt politicians, gangs and terrorists, secret government agencies wishing to conduct expensive covert operations.


#4. It gives people who need it a politically correct group to blame and hate. Example: "Those druggies and legalizers are destroying everything good and wholesome in the world".


#5. It paints the world in black and white for people that are unable to see that reality comes in infinite shades.


#6. Drug prohibition is a incredible success at using fear, prejudice and ignorance to accomplish it's immoral goals.



Can anyone add to this list?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great thread topic. Also, a clever way to discuss the topic of drug prohibition.

[Salvinorin A]

#7 As a whole, it limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug. (Refer to the "Noble Experiment.")

What is the point of this thread? to vent off anger for drug laws? So far all swim has read was an angry rant....these get nothing done...and not only are there several threads like this.....but swiWE should working on ways to fix it...rather than complain about them.

hxxp://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php <- example

[malcolm kyle]

Salvinorin; your claim that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug is far from correct.

You obviously have not read anything from THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS before the SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY April 5 to 24, 1926

It is quite clear from these hearings that prohibition in no way curtailed the flow of alcohol.

"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever." The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describing what happened in the opening years of Prohibition.

"I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperance back twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only among men but has extended drinking to women and even children"~William Randolph Hearst, initially a supporter of Prohibition, explaining his change of mind in 1929.


So now please explain to us why we should continue to provide trillions in nontaxable income for rampaging tattooed gang members, Colombia guerrillas and paramilitary thugs or the CIA etc?


The drug war cannot be won and is in fact the very cause of most of the violence that we and our families are now subjected to.

Just remember ~once prohibition ended, so did all the gunplay to control the market.


Salvinorin; those of us who have taken the trouble to research this properly have good reason to be angry; the Constitution has been trampled on and we are slowly being led down the path to enslavement and tyranny.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by malcolm kyle

Salvinorin; your claim that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug is far from correct.

You obviously have not read anything from THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS before the SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY April 5 to 24, 1926

It is quite clear from these hearings that prohibition in no way curtailed the flow of alcohol.

"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever." The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describing what happened in the opening years of Prohibition.

"I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperance back twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only among men but has extended drinking to women and even children"~William Randolph Hearst, initially a supporter of Prohibition, explaining his change of mind in 1929.


So now please explain to us why we should continue to provide trillions in nontaxable income for rampaging tattooed gang members, Colombia guerrillas and paramilitary thugs or the CIA etc?


The drug war cannot be won and is in fact the very cause of most of the violence that we and our families are now subjected to.

Just remember ~once prohibition ended, so did all the gunplay to control the market.


Salvinorin; those of us who have taken the trouble to research this properly have good reason to be angry; the Constitution has been trampled on and we are slowly being led down the path to enslavement and tyranny.

You may have just cause but his point is that you're doing SFA about it through threads like these - yes you oppose the drug war and think Nazis are taking over the country - we've heard it already and we're all real worried, but we also know that we can't just sit here bouncing the same old arguments off the forum walls, we can't keep posting the same angry rhetoric, we have to actually reach out and start to change things for the better. Salvinorin and I have both taken the trouble to do our own research, I'm sure, and although I can't speak for him I'd be pretty damn sure that he knew every last detail of that little lot before you posted it, just like I did. The real question is why are you preaching to the priests? If you have something new and interesting, perhaps based on contemporary events, fresh historical findings or new scientific research then please, please share, but you can leave out the tired old arguments that we are not only well acquainted with but SWIM (aha) in every time we log onto this forum.

I would say that this isn't criticism, but it is, I just hope that it's constructive. I also apologise in advance for any insult you may derive from this, I did not intend a personal attack.

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by FuBai

You may have just cause but his point is that you're doing SFA about it through threads like these - yes you oppose the drug war and think Nazis are taking over the country - we've heard it already and we're all real worried, but we also know that we can't just sit here bouncing the same old arguments off the forum walls, we can't keep posting the same angry rhetoric, we have to actually reach out and start to change things for the better. Salvinorin and I have both taken the trouble to do our own research, I'm sure, and although I can't speak for him I'd be pretty damn sure that he knew every last detail of that little lot before you posted it, just like I did. The real question is why are you preaching to the priests? If you have something new and interesting, perhaps based on contemporary events, fresh historical findings or new scientific research then please, please share, but you can leave out the tired old arguments that we are not only well acquainted with but SWIM (aha) in every time we log onto this forum.

I would say that this isn't criticism, but it is, I just hope that it's constructive. I also apologise in advance for any insult you may derive from this, I did not intend a personal attack.

FuBai; Salvinorin clearly stated that he believed that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug. Or did I miss something?
If i did miss something then I apologise to both of you, but if Salvanorim stands by his initial statement then I believe that I was fully justified in countering his statement with the facts that I unearthed. Educating each other should be viewed as a neccessary step towards ending this dangerous fiasco.

So please, may we hear Salvinorin again on this; I'm quite sure that he's capable of speaking for himself.

[Salvinorin A]

Malcom, swim is reading this out of his history textbook (the person who wrote that segment in particular is a PhD and professor at Stanford in American history (his name is Kennedy swim thinks). SWIY can go argue it with him.

Nonetheless...

Malcom, swim thinks swiy needs to check up on history. When the prohibition came out, how does swiy think it got passed? Women? church groups? NO! they always wanted prohibition because they hated seeing drunk husbands. The people who passed it are the people in the south and west. Most of them were protestant farmers who didn't have time to participate in drinking. The only people it really affected were the people in the east and mostly New England where the german and italian immigrants were, that's why all the organized crime and speakeasies started popping up over there. Everything else was simply miniscule in comparison to the national picture of things.

Anyway....this doesn't have much effect now because a lot of people are keen on alcohol.....way different from back then. SWIM figured that people with decent knowledge of this subject would simply understand the sarcastic nature of swim's comment. So for that, swim will apologize.....he really doesn't believe prohibition works.

SWIM is only trying to emphasize what Fubai was saying, it really is pointless to talk about all the harm it's doing to people who already know. (Talking about how much swiWE all hate anti drug laws on a drugs forum......if anything it's damaging swiOur credibility). SWIM doesn't support these drug laws at all, so swim doesn't see the necessity in lashing out so violently, swim has his own opinions (and guess what....who would of thought.....they happen to be similar to swiys!).

And even if there was something constructive going on in this thread, it would be off topic and would belong in a thread that most likely already exists.

Sal-A

[zera]

#8 By stigmatizing and sensationalizing a relatively innocous activity it makes you seem like more of a badass than you are and can potentially get you laid.

Reputation Comments on this post:

so there are one liner's that deserve rep

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

SWIM figured that people with decent knowledge of this subject would simply understand the sarcastic nature of swim's comment. So for that, swim will apologize.....he really doesn't believe prohibition works.

SWIM is only trying to emphasize what Fubai was saying, it really is pointless to talk about all the harm it's doing to people who already know. (Talking about how much swiWE all hate anti drug laws on a drugs forum......if anything it's damaging swiOur credibility). SWIM doesn't support these drug laws at all, so swim doesn't see the necessity in lashing out so violently, swim has his own opinions (and guess what....who would of thought.....they happen to be similar to swiys!).

And even if there was something constructive going on in this thread, it would be off topic and would belong in a thread that most likely already exists.

Sal-A

Salvinorim; With all due respect; It was in no way apparent that you were being sarcastic. And what on earth are you on about when you use the term 'lashing out violently'?

The job of any anti-prohibition activist is to inform, and that includes informing each other, and if that's not necessary than at least it's our duty to inform the audience --these threads are read not only by ourselves.

[cra$h]

#10- today swim was offered a drug that heroin addicts use to get off the shit, and learned quality cocaine is easily availible. In other words, swim's gettin high, and fucking the government, who regularly fucks swim, possibly even more