i don't know about the rest of you guys, but i still hate how people think cannabis is a gateway. how they get introduced to other and harder drugs by being introduced to marijuana. before i ever seen a joint, i saw crack and coke and needles all over town. people need to stop believing the lies. alcohol and cigs are legal and i do neither. now why can't the same be said for cannabis?legal or illegal, it's the person's choice to do it or not. FUCK! let is be the judges of what goes in our body.
All drugs are legal but the rights to purchase/use are granted after completing a educational program of the CERTAIN drug. This way everyone will be doing something they know of.
The educational program should have some 1 to 2 months education + a graduation test at the end. A pass in the test would grant a citizen the rights to buy the substance that the test was about from (example)gov.pharmacy.
;) Supporting You Pinky, with all my heart ***Prpht.Lght***
if drugs are legal then how will police make their money doing swat raids on gangs? ANSWER IS THEY WON'T! All that money will be gone and police will focus on crimes that don't produce as much revenue like traffic tickets and it will make us all less safer. less gangs means less crime which means less money for police.
Legalize all drugs and tax them relatively to the damage they do. You will see: alcohol and smoked tobacco will be the most expensive, and ... the insurance company will pay you for smoking pot and salvia divinorum. Those seems to be among the safest and efficacious medication. They prevent the use of many other legal or illegal dangerous drugs.
Wow, you can almost hear the straw man splinter as they take turns beating away at it.
I mean Jesus Christ, there's no challenge or inquiry here, not even devil's advocate, just 30 minutes of jacking each other off agreeing "oh yeah, guber'ment doing EVERYTHING wrong. Better if they just made it all legal"
@Treblaine No, I just think that if you're an American than you should have the courage of your convictions and allow people to have the Freedom you speak so highly of. Of course, we have to disregard the fact that America has more people in jail than any other country on the face of the earth. Land of the free my ass.
@TheBamChug America has a lot of people in jail because it
(1) has a lot of crime, and
(2) refuses to compromise on sentencing
It is perfectly reasonable that people who commit crimes should be imprisoned.
Though I have relented recently, mere possession of weed should not be a felony. The punishment must fit the crime, weed possession should get a fine like speeding
But I respect America's long sentencing for violent criminals, something we are far to reluctant to do or follow through with.
@rjmunt HAHAHAHA!! what pathetic logical fallacy. Caffeine is harmless,
But let's look at the experts: Doctors are NEVER allowed to self prescribe Cocaine and Heroin analogues because they are so addictive and dangerous even the most experienced medical professionals cannot safely self administer... how can the general public consume these drugs safely?
(PS: weed is mostly harmless, it can be dealt with just by restriction like 70% taxation rate and large duty)
@stjimy Ask a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL if Cocaine and opioid drugs are "more or less the same" as alcohol and tobacco... I HAVE asked several, included a highly respected academic at my university and they have universally warned me that regardless of legality you should NEVER consume those casually. Far too dangerous, worse than rat poison as it is as poisonous but you WANT to take more.
Also stated extreme annoyance a self-proclaimed experts - like yourself - making flawed equivalence arguments
@Treblaine I mean both legal or illigal are adictives, both can kill you or will kill you maybe more fast or whit less pain but, just asking to people that is adict to alcohol, or painkillers if his lives are too different to an adict to cocaine or heroine so I mean at the end legal or illegal this could take you into a suicidal spiral
@stjimy stop making sweeping generalisations and twisted equivalences. Alcohol is no where near as addictive as the likes of cocaine or heroin quite simply as it is no where near as pleasurable per hit. People take a long time to fall into a destructive alcoholic spiral and it's less due to addictive qualities and more social/psychological aspects.
Prescription painkiller addiction aren't much different as they usually ARE opioid/cocaine based which is why one MUST follow the doctor's orders.
@Treblaine What? Cocaine based? How do retards like you even figure out how to turn a computer on? Do you have your smarter younger sister help you out? And alcohol is far more addictive than cocaine. There IS no physical dependence for cocaine, however there is for alcohol. It's called the DT's and that shit can kill you man. Alcohol kills more people than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED! Do a little research you friggin' tard.
@Treblaine Show me one study, a SINGLE study that shows opiod addiction is unhealthy. I challenge you. How long did Benjamin Franklin live? 83 years. Florence Nightingale? She lived to be 90. Guess what, they were both life long opium addicts. Don't tell me you can live for 90 years taking rat poison daily. Friggin' retard.
@mrAdalkall just becuz becuz somone smoke weed, dosint make them a criminal.. its bad attitudes and Ignorence like that that have the world so fucked up! think what u want... but im right ;)
con boys every people request some kind or drug illegal or legal dosent care!! alcohol, tabaco, mariguana. cocaine, extasis, ritalim all are the same soon or later are going to send u to hell!!!
In the late 1800's most of the "medicine" sold by the traveling medicine man and his wagon moving from town to town had pretty good dose of opium or morphine. Many prairie housewives used their little bottle of "medicine" nightly. Cowboys sitting around the fire smoked a little weed (American Indians & Mexicans used it for centuries). Post Civil War America had a higher % of morphine/opium addicts than modern % of Heroin addicts and the USA functioned fine. Our modern War on Drugs is a joke...
'per the un' 11:12. i understand the plight of minorities within the us. ' Not around the world.' However, per the 'UN control', mind altering states have been a source of power since the dawn. Some are good, most or bad. Water is a drug, if you discern it from this mans point of view.
ive stopped this interview and thought a couple of times. im about 40% through 10:27, he wants more money for the masses. Same thing that got us into this mess.
Take the money out of the equation end of story. Some of the chemical,s we consume in our processed food,s are far,far more deadlier than any heroin, or cocaine, remember come,s from the earth a gift but like any gift they can be perverted.
The War on Drugs was introduced by Nixon - does anyting more really need to be said? Calling it a "War" is in itself a ploy to grab the attention of the flag sucking so called patriots in this country. I'll admit it was a sharp political move to call it a "War" - that is one reason why it hasn't gone away, it makes the narc cops feel like they are heros when they kick in an americans door and put an automatic weapon in a babys mouth
The "War on Drugs" is really a War on Freedom of choice.
If one does not understand racism, classim, white privilege, terrorism and the war on drugs--what these terms mean and how these concecpts work then everything else you do understand will only confuse you
Its not a war ON drugs. Its a war FOR drugs. The global trade in illegal/recreational drugs exceeds that of automobiles and textiles *combined*.. in other words, $10s of billions annually. Who stands to lose out if drug use worldwide was regarded as a medical, rather than criminal issue (as it should be)? Organized crime and the banking/financial industry.. they are all in bed together and have symbiotic relationship. Its the same with the so-called "war on terror"... just follow the money.
If one does not understand racism, classim, white privilege, terrorism and the war on drugs--what these terms mean and how these concecpts work then everything else you do understand will only confuse you
I am a convicted felon for drug possession. Every street hustler know that they don't want to legalize it for the same reason he speak about in the video. Like they said in the Movie America Gansta, they don't want to stop the drug war. One felony conviction will cripple you for life. After you serve your time pay your debt to society. You still have to pay for the rest of your life. No good job,school or living.
@ataye1 Hey, it's not THAT hard to obey the law. If you went to jail for tax-fraud employers would be equally unlikely to hire you as they'd conclude: "this guy thinks the rules don't apply to them. How can I trust him?"
That is NOT a reason to disband all tax laws. Laws are not optional. If you don't like the law, move to some place where the law is different.
@ataye1 This interview was nearly 21/2 years ago and in the news today, March 7, 2011 this question is being raised "What Could Obama & Calderon Do Differently?" When Nixon declared His War on Drugs, in 1971! HELLO! It is about Money!!
I've been thinking. Is morality a popularity contest? Do you think people would be trying to represent the rights, freedom and equality of homosexuals if there were only a few hundred of them worldwide? I would hope so, but it's unlikely. So, what about drug use? It's considered immoral by millions, and millions use them. At what point is it a matter of community standards? If a large percentage of an adult population use drugs, is it not then common? Should common behaviour be illegal?
Good questions. What is lacking as with other so called radical is critical thinking. Gays have all rights granted humans and this goes for drug users as well
Doctors treat symptoms at the same time as treating the disease.
I have always proposed that more money is spent on anti-drugs effort but for ever dollar/pound spent on enforcement, there needs to be a dollar/pound spent on economic incentives, education for skilled jobs, financial security and investment in utilities and services.
This makes sense economically, wipe out the drugs, the organised gangs lose their income and the cycle of crime can be broken.
If you're going to be "anti" anything, by the way, you should be anti-alcohol. Alcohol messes people up in a way pot, for example, never, never, ever does. I speak from experience! If we legalise drugs then in my opinion we would see violent alcohol crimes decrease . . . nobody is violent on pot or opiates.
But whatever they do to you, you should be allowed to take any drugs you want. This is called "liberty".
Well I don't drink anyway. But by your logic unless I'm a health fanatic then I can say anything to oppose narcotics.
I also speak from experience that any mind altering drug (including alcohol) leaves to the increased possibility of violent or otherwise dangerous behaviour.
And your definition of "liberty" is not shared by the majority of people. Far closer to the definition of Anarchy.
As it happens "most people" do not understand anarchy or anarchism.
Also, pot decreases the possibility of violent behaviour. In the '50s the US government complained that it made people too peaceful (this was during the Cold War and that was their excuse).
I don't want a docile, calm and submissive population, though that is exactly what a totalitarian government would want as the point was made in Orson Well's 1984. And I think even in more peaceful times the majority of people wouldn't want that.
The very definition of the word definition is "the way most people interpret it". You can't just redefine anarchism as and when it suits you, that is intellectually dishonest.
Just because I don't accept the common definition, it does not mean that I am "intellectually dishonest." Anarchism, as expressed by actual anarchists, is far different from what "most people" think of it as being - and stating that fact is in no way a "redefinition."
I don't want a docile and submissive population either. But it does, however, seem to be what most governments want. And to be honest, it seems to be what you want, too . . .
Indeed, anyone who thinks that the government should lock people up for doing things that concern only them should perhaps consider relocating to North Korea . . .
I don't know about locking people up for taking drugs. Any cop could easy to round up all the drug addicts in their jurisdiction but in both UK and USA it's not illegal to BE a drug user. Even if you are documented taking drugs you can't go to jail.
The crime is having drugs in your possession, where you could use, share or sell them.
If anything I am opposed to drug DEALERS. And the dealers would not exist without the users. I have nothing but sympathy for those wretched addicts.
If we got rid of anti-drug laws then we could get rid of the dealers. When was the last time you saw anyone selling alcohol in a dark alley? Legality makes everything easier to regulate.
No, that just brings the dealers out of the alley and into the convenience store. You really think my problem is the fact that drugs are "sold in some back alley" or by "some DRUG DEALER" with all the connotations that come with that.
It is NOT about that.
It is ALL about preventing people making the horrible mistake that they will regret for the rest of their lives which is to try any of these drugs just once... that is enough to get them hooked and destroy their lives.
Legal drugs could be regulated appropriatly, or at least MORE appropriatly than now. Cracking down while keeping them illegal makes no sense because you hurt the user (who you supposedly have no problem with) when they are in posession. It would take massive amounts of regulation and reform, but it would be all for the best in my opinion. My problem with drugs IS about the crime, violence etc. This would be erradicated. Responsible, educated (dis)use would ensue. It is never going to happen.
The crime/violence with drugs is inherent due to their addictive and/or mind altering properties.
It is like everything that is wrong with alcohol x1000.
Here is some education on responsible drug consumption:
DON'T TAKE DRUGS AT ALL!
That's what medical professionals who use these chemicals all through their career say. There is NO SAFE WAY TO SNORT COCAINE! No one knows what is the safe consumption for cannabis either in terms of brain damage.
Your alcohol x1000 argument is fallacious in my opinion, although it may apply to a system with illegal drugs based on what we see today. So many drugs are more dangerous because of their criminal uncontrolled nature.
Although I disagree with it, I find your statement 'don't take drugs at all' a fair one, it's the safest option. However, we are talking about solving the problem that people will always do drugs. So it doesn't suffice. We need control, scientific education to motivate correctly.
It does not imply such a thing, it implies that there will always be people who use drugs in this society, for whatever reason or circumstance. THAT is the reality, as long as drugs are available in any way. We can also NOT make the drugs disappear. THAT is the problem. The enforcement you advocate does not work and therefore the alternative must be explored!
Also, It's not about sending a message, the real message should be put in education! That way we can solve the problem and still protect!
That is like saying it is pointless to keep trimming our fingernails we should just let them grow long. There will also continue to be murders, rapes, thefts and trespassing, the prevalence of a crime can never be used as a justification for it being decriminalised.
No one ever claimed drugs would disappear, but if we had done nothing it could have been worse
It doesn't matter what the government education says. Addicta are literally blind to all logic, only where they will get their next fix.
Well murders, rapes, and trespasses are all crimes that inflict harm on other individuals. It cannot compare. Also, the harm illegal drugs inflict on families would be DRASTICALLY reduced by legalization and more education, for all the reasons I have stated.
It does matter what government education says, because we are talking about PREVENTING people from being addicts and allowing a safe environment for people who already ARE, and people who are always going to be. Irrelevant statement there.
OK how about suicides, prostitution, under-age sex, pyramid schemes + safety laws like seat-belts? You saying all the laws for these should be abolished? No one is "harmed" by trespassing. Is the ADDICT not a victim of them self?
What about the very fact that these mind altering drugs directly make people dangerous?
"the ham illegal drugs have on families would be drastically different"
O RLY!!
Ask someone who had a drunk for a father how the fact alcohol was legal made it ALL JUST FINE!
The examples you have given have nothing to do with drugs or the way humanity should handle them. They are all their own cases in their own way: They cannot compare because of a variety of reasons.
And as a response to your O RLY, I didnt say it would be JUST FINE, but better. Id the drun kfather had to get alcohol illegally, he would be invovled with crime. WORSE.
Also, many of the mind altering drugs that are illegal dont compare to even alcohol in dangerous behaviour.
And to state some reasons: What laws are there on suicide that are at all relevant to the argument? Underaged sex is deemed harmful to the individuals involved from society's moral point of view, be they fair or unfair. Seat belts, are necessary to prevent you from immediate death by car crash. A lack of seatbelt laws would not spawn criminal illegal trade in seatbelts needing to be solved (oops, where'd the comparison go?). What a profoundly stupid argument, I am seriously done with this. Peace
The point therefore being that, even if there isn't a safe way to snort cocaine, there may be a safer way to help existing addicts stay out of a voilent criminal life by medicalization. There may not be conclusive evidence on cannabis health effects, but most people start smoking it with no idea what it is, because it's exciting and they are not properly educated about it aside from demonization. If it were legal, kidns couldn't get it as quick, and adults could decide in an educated manner.
Medicalization is utter bullshit, it disgraces the medical profession and trivialises the idea of prescription. I've seen those Californian "doctors", they will "prescribe" cannabis not just for the mildest ailments but mere "lack of creativity". THAT IS NOT A MEDICAL CONDITION! They are PUSHERS, they give it for anything because they know they will love it and come back for MORE!
There is ZERO education with medicalization only obfuscation to ease the flow of recreational drugs.
The medicalization of cannabis is one issue only, one on which I disagree with you on fair terms of opinion on the nature of cannabis.
HOWEVER, medicalization for drug like heroin means making it safely available for people who are already addicted, immediatly protecting them from crime and violence, and helping them to subsequently get off the heroin. Your approach will throw them in jail, where their criminal and drug contact will just increase, and that too is a FACT.
Right so rather than throwing them in jail where a relatively small amount of drugs could get through*, you think it would be better to just hand out any drugs they want?
How the hell are you going to get people to stop using heroin by just giving them more heroin? No amount of lecturing will stop addicts coming back for more, especially if you make it as easy as possible for them to shoot up.
*It wouldn't be hard to eliminate contraband in Specialised facilities to insignificant levels.
Its not about the drugs present in those facilities, but the people they come in contact with. Gang life is a big factor, which you are forced into in prison and cannot get out of. That's the biggest example. And the drugs won't just be handed to them as much as they want, there would be control so that people wouldn't be there in the first place. Drug related crimes wouldn't exist.
Again, it's about preventing people from BECOMING addicts, and keeping addicts out of crime.
You sound so naive, any system handing out free drugs will be exploited mercilessly, controlled environment my ass. This is nothing but appeasement from people who have given up trying to find a solution.
Addicts don't need softly softly approach, they need to be thrown in solitary for 2 weeks to detox then spend the next year in a controlled facility... one failed drug test, back in the hole for a month and another year added to their sentence.
Jail is a last resort though sometimes very necessary. There is a whole lot before that from fines, oh yes, lots and lots of fines, not everything is paid with taxes. I say means tested so rich can't just coast on by. Then there is community service, basically unpaid labour cleaning the streets, restoring vandalism, etc.
Short jail sentences can be very useful, a couple months forced detox and it really scare some individuals straight.
@facelessone86 hmm, it's almost as if there are a lot of drug addict in prison, drugs are easily smuggled and US Prison security is very lax. That's why there is a certain drug use in prisons.
I also don't buy it that drugs are MORE easily available in prison. If that is the case, why do inmates resort to brewing "prison wine" in toilets and other such desperate efforts to get a high?
Show me the objective measure of "more available" and how that applies more to any prison than a crack-den.
All in all I have to say we've spent a while talking about this, and I don't feel that you are taking in any of my points based on what you say in your replies. I don't think it's worth continuing the debate. I recognize your desire to do the right thing as your motivation, even though I disagree with your proposed means and don't think we can come to terms in a youtube chat. I hope you can recognize the same, have a good life and hopefully we could one day have seen more eye to eye, given time.
So in my view your argument boils down to: Keeping the criminal violence in place, just to keep all people from contact with drugs in an effort to protect them, is better according to you than making sure youths have less access to it (legalization and control) and allowing adults to make their own responsibly educated decisions with the benefit of ending the crime.
I disagree.. Some people will make mistakes, allow them to do so without spiralling into crime due to addiction.
Look. Cigarettes are legal yet presumably for adults only. Yet around 30% of high school students in the USA regularly smoke cigarettes and it is even higher in UK (though the smoking age was only recently increased to 18).
"...without spiraling into crime due to addiction"
How does making drugs legal make them non-addictive? The exact same thing will happen: lose job, lose family, lose home, on streets, prostitution + crime to feed it only the big corporations get rich rather than gangbangers
I didn't say making drugs legal would make them non addictive, I said that addicts would not need to mix with crime if drugs were legal.
Also, sure it's not going to stop all use, like in your cigarette argument. However, that is a business with COMMERCIAL investment history that had so much ignorant propaganda that it lingers today as a widely used drug. If it were illegal, however, that would cause the same problems as cannabis does, if not more due to the history. Your point doesn't work.
And how will the same not happen to crack cocaine? What in the world makes you think unscrupulous companies (Enron anyone?) wouldn't jump on such an incredibly addictive substance as soon as legalised.
Think about it, they are so addictive, you can charge any price any they will pay. It WILL be no different from street gang's drug dealing today, probably worse.
The minority of drinkers who become alcoholics are destroyed by their addiction. Most narcotics are almost 100% addictive.
No, because legalization and control is not a commercial endevour andwill not be set up as such. As I have already said. Man...
'Most narcotics are almost 100% addictive'
Simply is not true. Please if you're not going to let it rest please just stop replying, I cannot resist replying back when your statements are so full of misunderstandings in my opinion. And yes, it's just my opinion. Bye.
Oh come on, you are not going to debate whether these drugs are addictive right after you argued that the government should be handing out drugs just because the users are so desperate for them.
So you expect the government to feed the habits of the drug addicts in presumably controlled and clean environments... what then? Will the government play babysitter with them for the rest of their lives, eventually they will want higher and higher doses to get the buzz they crave... lethal doses.
You literally said most narcotics are 100% addictive. This is absolutly not true, go do the reading, I didn't point out anything other than that.
And I don't know if you watched the video, but I am talking getting addicts to be able to administer controlled amounts of their drugs based on clinical data so that they can get over their addiction in a safe way. The way you turned my point into a huge strawman here is showing me that you're lacking in critical thinking skills, just bugger off.
1-5% may take try drugs and through various factors not become addicted but the overwhelming majority of people who use powerful narcotics like opioid end up powerfully addicted.
Only a complete idiot would not treat these substances as anything other than extremely addictive and never touch them at all.
Administer controlled amounts? No addict will visit those clinics, they want to get HIGH!
And to add to that, the 'keeping them out of cantact' bit doesn't work at all and that is a fact of the situation. So it's a choice between attrition of a limb with a torniquet, when the wound is in the torso, if you don't mind the vague metaphor.
This is about drugs and even after all this debating even the most laissez faire American or Brit, ask them how their feel about their son or daughter walking into any convenience store to legally buy potent weeds, pills, or pre-loaded syringes of god knows what... not going to happen mate. Not in a hundred years.
And I think if you would likely feel the same way.
If people don't want their kids using drugs, then they should try being better parents.
By the way, in the 19th century you really could walk into a store and buy what you wanted. And there was no "drug problem" then. The "problem" arose when the govenment stepped in and put everyone into hysterics.
Hate to break it to you, but the US already has a docile and submissive population. The assault on our civil liberties over the past 8 years can attest to that. Even as our right to peacefully assemble and maintain some level of privacy were effectively eviscerated the people did nothing.
Indeed a large and vocal minority of people here cheered the slaughter of our constitution. Sacrificing liberty supposedly in the name of security is a hallmark of republican governance.
Yeah, the evidence for that is how Bush's selected successor John McCain won the 2008 election by a landslide... oh wait, not he didn't, Barack Obama was elected President, just about as non-republican as you can get, democrats have the house and senate and the PATRIOT act has been torn to shreds by the supreme court even before it was neutered by the legislature.
BTW, since you are so constitutional, how do you feel about the second amendment?
america has thelargest population in prison, drugs are the financial backbone of the legal system, and without it man there would be fucking hell on earth for the institution.
The "war on terror" is a scam just like the "war on drugs" is. They are both aimed at controlling the population by taking away rights. When was the last time a "terrorist" was found "terrorizing" your neighborhood? We are doing essentially nothing to stop them from crossing our borders so why havent we been attacked again? answer; Its a scam. 911 was a financial attack. They want to bring down our corrupt, and dangerous system. Their ways & means are evil but so is the U.S. power structure
More of Mr Thornton, to him I would like to say thank you for getting to the issue and talking so frankly and openly about the consequences of our current dire drugs legislation. Such a shame that the same steps aren't being taken over here than are in the USA. Oh and thank you for making the point about the potential revenue to be made from legalization, come on people you know it makes sense.
"Maintenance" refers to accommodating an addiction with doses of the actual substance of abuse or a facsimile so that the addiction can then be controlled and diminished, right? You can't do this with MDMA. Nobody is physically addicted to ecstasy. There might be psychologically dependent people who have done damage to their bodies from overindulging but a "maintenance" model for remedying this would be ridiculous, don't you think?
serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit
When your government boasts about the jobs they created, they never tell you where they created these jobs, they just throw out a number. The majority of the jobs government creates that are long term are government jobs, the rest are private sector which quickly diminish. The reason we are here now with an ever shrinking GDP and larger deficits and debt. The next time you vote, think about it, do not vote for D or R, these are people who are paid for by interests that don't include your own.
They want you to buy their drugs. Adderall or Ritalin is nothing more than prescribed Methamphetamines. Over 90% of all pharmaceutical drugs contain derivatives of the Marijuana plant. So drugs seem to be perfectly OK if you buy them from drug manufacturers that get people hooked on the drugs to begin with when they are children. What the hell is going on? They want the money and in that respect this gentleman is absolutely correct. The system is morally corrupt. They don't care about us.
the organizations fighting drugs make mad loot "fighting" drugs.. if illegal drugs were free, these organizations would wither and die.. check out the yearly budget for DEA.. avg. rise like 30 mil or sumthing regardless the amount of employees... just like he says its about power control... pot is not healthy, but neither is alcohol or cigarets
This man is the voice of reason on drug regulation. He needs to become mainstream: appear on Oprah, Larry King, the View, etc. When the populace sees that legalization is the only reasonable option, then the laws will follow.
I agree but unfortunately because it is all about power, and because he would be putting many of the people dependent on the money they make pretending to fight a war. The likelihood of this happening is dismal to none.
The gentleman makes a lot of sense, but critical thinking is something the Gov. does not want. Pot makes you think, 1 of the reasons its illegal. Go Pinky..
The reagan administration started this supposable war on drugs and what happened was this campaign backfired all througout the US.
People want what they can't have. The more you tell people they cant have something, the more you stir up their curiousity. Leading to more people expirementing with al sorts of crazy drugs.
Legalize marijuana and stop the madness! You lost your war against drugs.
News said "Obama has no intent to decriminalize marijuana". It was said by his opponents, Obama smoked pot during college, so he knows first hand it's not a deadly dangerous plant. So apparent decriminalizing pot is not politically correct. It seems the gov. is basically a number crunching machine and when ANY factor produces a negative value (-$) that factor is removed from the equation. So apparently big numbers are impressive. ( I don't use drugs so don't bother)
pkay so whats step two? Is it just keep educating people untill enough people see the truth becasue that would take forever! Peition the govt? YA RIGHT! what do you think people have been doing? WHAT IS TO BE DONE NOW?
Indeed our conservitive government in canada is trying to shut our safe injection sites. I just heard today our medical establishment is telling the government to start looking at real evidence and stop using this issue for their political gain.
the doctor allowes u time to decrease your heroin use well on the methadone, which transfers your addiction to methadone. this slow transfer means u dont get withdrawls, instead of feeling desperate for drugs many times a day, i now just drink my methadone once a day, i dont get high- it keeps me from sickness, but its this assumption that a doctor being able 2 give u a drug like this is bad just because it is addictive is hurting addicts chances to getting clean
i live in vancouver- im a recovering addict. im on the methadone program which is a long lasting synthetic heroin. i oftin hear people on local talk radio opposed to methadone thinking they are funding and supporting addiction. but that ignorance is the problem. to get methadone i need to go to a doctor, give urine tests. when u start- u must take the drug infrount of a pharmacist, so u cant sneek it out n sell it- after 6months ur allowed to take 3days of the drug at a time.
My husband worked with a man, a former heroin addict, who was prescribed methadone and used it for years. He was able to lead a productive life and raise his daughter as a single dad (his wife never recovered from her heroin addiction).
TWO supporters of Prohabition. The Woman's Christian League and the MAFIA. What you say, the MAFIA wanted Prohabition? Yes! When something is illegal and popular that price is driven UP, the MAFIA made BANK supplying alcohol. But legalizing drugs you INSTANTLY put drug cratels and dealers in a BIG financial crunch, they can't make their business worth their time. The GOV makes MONEY off drugs, DEA, fines, Jail time, the GOV is the biggest drug cartel for them all, that why they WONT legalize it.
uhm..the government spends more money then they get in busts- true there are employees of the government that depend on these busts to have a job- but they arent law makers. they also are not the ones doing studys on these legalization ideas. so to say they depend on drugs for a job so they wont legalize doesnt make sence. also- drug treatment would be increased not decreased, if the money is nolonger spent on police/court time. it can be spent on government funded treatment for all addicts
in the frst video it said hr videos will be short but in this video its over 28 minutes long
TheChernandez2020 3 months ago
if it becomes legal, will the prices drop?
Monte3207 8 months ago
i don't know about the rest of you guys, but i still hate how people think cannabis is a gateway. how they get introduced to other and harder drugs by being introduced to marijuana. before i ever seen a joint, i saw crack and coke and needles all over town. people need to stop believing the lies. alcohol and cigs are legal and i do neither. now why can't the same be said for cannabis?legal or illegal, it's the person's choice to do it or not. FUCK! let is be the judges of what goes in our body.
Monte3207 8 months ago
Just say no to drugs... it that easy to end the whole war. And at the same time the hardest part ...
IsaacBG84 9 months ago
Kid vs Kat.....Why they alwat try to pervevrt the cat reputation :( lol
IsaacBG84 9 months ago
THE WAR ON POVERTY :FAIL:
davetileguy 10 months ago
The Ideal Drug Law:
All drugs are legal but the rights to purchase/use are granted after completing a educational program of the CERTAIN drug. This way everyone will be doing something they know of.
The educational program should have some 1 to 2 months education + a graduation test at the end. A pass in the test would grant a citizen the rights to buy the substance that the test was about from (example)gov.pharmacy.
;) Supporting You Pinky, with all my heart ***Prpht.Lght***
illSpeetzY 1 year ago
Under the Taliban there was almost no heroine production in afghanistan, now there is more than 80% of the world production in heroine over there!
Gideonwarrior1974 1 year ago
@Gideonwarrior1974 The us army is guarding there poppy fields
f328owner 1 year ago
There's a urine industry?
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies lol you know, clean urine, the whole detox pass-a-drug-test products
uwmbigb 1 year ago
THE CIA SUPPLIES THE INNER CITIES PEOPLE. THATS HOW THEY FUND ALL OF THEIR OPERATIONS, THEY SELL SMACK!!!
YOWHATTHEHELLUP71 1 year ago
Pinky is a genius :p
HipHopGuardian 1 year ago 5
drug war ,,, very stupid , foolish , dangerous & damaging.
USA power corrupted.
catscratchass 1 year ago 4
if drugs are legal then how will police make their money doing swat raids on gangs? ANSWER IS THEY WON'T! All that money will be gone and police will focus on crimes that don't produce as much revenue like traffic tickets and it will make us all less safer. less gangs means less crime which means less money for police.
planck0001 1 year ago
very good pinky very good!!!!!!!!!!
stjimy 1 year ago
Legalize all drugs and tax them relatively to the damage they do. You will see: alcohol and smoked tobacco will be the most expensive, and ... the insurance company will pay you for smoking pot and salvia divinorum. Those seems to be among the safest and efficacious medication. They prevent the use of many other legal or illegal dangerous drugs.
BRUMARTUBE 1 year ago
Wow, you can almost hear the straw man splinter as they take turns beating away at it.
I mean Jesus Christ, there's no challenge or inquiry here, not even devil's advocate, just 30 minutes of jacking each other off agreeing "oh yeah, guber'ment doing EVERYTHING wrong. Better if they just made it all legal"
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine No, I just think that if you're an American than you should have the courage of your convictions and allow people to have the Freedom you speak so highly of. Of course, we have to disregard the fact that America has more people in jail than any other country on the face of the earth. Land of the free my ass.
TheBamChug 8 months ago
@TheBamChug America has a lot of people in jail because it
(1) has a lot of crime, and
(2) refuses to compromise on sentencing
It is perfectly reasonable that people who commit crimes should be imprisoned.
Though I have relented recently, mere possession of weed should not be a felony. The punishment must fit the crime, weed possession should get a fine like speeding
But I respect America's long sentencing for violent criminals, something we are far to reluctant to do or follow through with.
Treblaine 8 months ago
what an amazing interview. And I'm sorry but what is up with that stupid fucking cat.
dannyboy11490 1 year ago
Thank you for this video. This man really knows what he's talking about and is able to make him understandable very clearly.
turmhan 1 year ago 2
great job cats!!!
stjimy 1 year ago
Legalize everything already and get the government to stop passing laws which do not help whatsoever.
youvebeenthunderstru 1 year ago 4
@youvebeenthunderstru yay! Legalise everything then that means high-explosives as well of course.
Don't worry, you can trust me, I just need a truck load of C4 plastic explosives for... err... home defence. Yeah. [/sarcasm]
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine yes ... because drugs (including caffeine and other LEGAL drugs) are in some way linked to weapons. </sarcasm>
rjmunt 1 year ago
@rjmunt HAHAHAHA!! what pathetic logical fallacy. Caffeine is harmless,
But let's look at the experts: Doctors are NEVER allowed to self prescribe Cocaine and Heroin analogues because they are so addictive and dangerous even the most experienced medical professionals cannot safely self administer... how can the general public consume these drugs safely?
(PS: weed is mostly harmless, it can be dealt with just by restriction like 70% taxation rate and large duty)
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine more or less the same thing than alcohol and tabaco!!!
stjimy 1 year ago
@stjimy Ask a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL if Cocaine and opioid drugs are "more or less the same" as alcohol and tobacco... I HAVE asked several, included a highly respected academic at my university and they have universally warned me that regardless of legality you should NEVER consume those casually. Far too dangerous, worse than rat poison as it is as poisonous but you WANT to take more.
Also stated extreme annoyance a self-proclaimed experts - like yourself - making flawed equivalence arguments
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine I mean both legal or illigal are adictives, both can kill you or will kill you maybe more fast or whit less pain but, just asking to people that is adict to alcohol, or painkillers if his lives are too different to an adict to cocaine or heroine so I mean at the end legal or illegal this could take you into a suicidal spiral
stjimy 1 year ago
@stjimy stop making sweeping generalisations and twisted equivalences. Alcohol is no where near as addictive as the likes of cocaine or heroin quite simply as it is no where near as pleasurable per hit. People take a long time to fall into a destructive alcoholic spiral and it's less due to addictive qualities and more social/psychological aspects.
Prescription painkiller addiction aren't much different as they usually ARE opioid/cocaine based which is why one MUST follow the doctor's orders.
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine What? Cocaine based? How do retards like you even figure out how to turn a computer on? Do you have your smarter younger sister help you out? And alcohol is far more addictive than cocaine. There IS no physical dependence for cocaine, however there is for alcohol. It's called the DT's and that shit can kill you man. Alcohol kills more people than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED! Do a little research you friggin' tard.
TheBamChug 8 months ago
@Treblaine Show me one study, a SINGLE study that shows opiod addiction is unhealthy. I challenge you. How long did Benjamin Franklin live? 83 years. Florence Nightingale? She lived to be 90. Guess what, they were both life long opium addicts. Don't tell me you can live for 90 years taking rat poison daily. Friggin' retard.
TheBamChug 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treblaine err ... you said it, not me.
rjmunt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youvebeenthunderstru yay! Legalise everything then that means high-explosives as well of course.
Don't worry, you can trust me, I just need a truck load of C4 plastic explosives for... err... home defence. Yeah. [/sarcasm]
Treblaine 1 year ago
Hey nice video
xxxrandomjamezxxx 1 year ago
GOOOD
sarinc 1 year ago
The only thing that exceeds (acrosswalkmassacre) ignorance are those that condone it.
Efficacy2 1 year ago
if everyone smoked a joint once in a wile. the world would be a better place
Wacked420 1 year ago 32
@Wacked420 no it would be a much worse place because criminals would get even richer.
mrAdalkall 1 year ago
@mrAdalkall just becuz becuz somone smoke weed, dosint make them a criminal.. its bad attitudes and Ignorence like that that have the world so fucked up! think what u want... but im right ;)
Wacked420 1 year ago
@Wacked420
it would also be a more confused and forgetful place ;-)
lordsong7 1 year ago
@lordsong7 lol couldent be much worse then it is now xP
Wacked420 1 year ago
con boys every people request some kind or drug illegal or legal dosent care!! alcohol, tabaco, mariguana. cocaine, extasis, ritalim all are the same soon or later are going to send u to hell!!!
stjimy 1 year ago
ur a fuckin idiot
Wacked420 1 year ago
You're an bigoted idot.
acrosswalkmassacre 1 year ago
In the late 1800's most of the "medicine" sold by the traveling medicine man and his wagon moving from town to town had pretty good dose of opium or morphine. Many prairie housewives used their little bottle of "medicine" nightly. Cowboys sitting around the fire smoked a little weed (American Indians & Mexicans used it for centuries). Post Civil War America had a higher % of morphine/opium addicts than modern % of Heroin addicts and the USA functioned fine. Our modern War on Drugs is a joke...
randy95023 2 years ago
'per the un' 11:12. i understand the plight of minorities within the us. ' Not around the world.' However, per the 'UN control', mind altering states have been a source of power since the dawn. Some are good, most or bad. Water is a drug, if you discern it from this mans point of view.
TheBlueMidKnight 2 years ago
ive stopped this interview and thought a couple of times. im about 40% through 10:27, he wants more money for the masses. Same thing that got us into this mess.
TheBlueMidKnight 2 years ago
'in a babies mouth' shame on you. if you dont understand language please dont speak.
TheBlueMidKnight 2 years ago
excellent interview!
AngusMcSpuds 2 years ago
Take the money out of the equation end of story. Some of the chemical,s we consume in our processed food,s are far,far more deadlier than any heroin, or cocaine, remember come,s from the earth a gift but like any gift they can be perverted.
asistaatpeace 2 years ago 4
The War on Drugs was introduced by Nixon - does anyting more really need to be said? Calling it a "War" is in itself a ploy to grab the attention of the flag sucking so called patriots in this country. I'll admit it was a sharp political move to call it a "War" - that is one reason why it hasn't gone away, it makes the narc cops feel like they are heros when they kick in an americans door and put an automatic weapon in a babys mouth
The "War on Drugs" is really a War on Freedom of choice.
jfarris4417 2 years ago 7
If one does not understand racism, classim, white privilege, terrorism and the war on drugs--what these terms mean and how these concecpts work then everything else you do understand will only confuse you
Efficacy2 2 years ago
Its not a war ON drugs. Its a war FOR drugs. The global trade in illegal/recreational drugs exceeds that of automobiles and textiles *combined*.. in other words, $10s of billions annually. Who stands to lose out if drug use worldwide was regarded as a medical, rather than criminal issue (as it should be)? Organized crime and the banking/financial industry.. they are all in bed together and have symbiotic relationship. Its the same with the so-called "war on terror"... just follow the money.
bloggulator 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
If one does not understand racism, classim, white privilege, terrorism and the war on drugs--what these terms mean and how these concecpts work then everything else you do understand will only confuse you
Efficacy2 2 years ago
The prison industrial complex is growing faster then the medical complex in the last fifteen years
ataye1 2 years ago 3
I am a convicted felon for drug possession. Every street hustler know that they don't want to legalize it for the same reason he speak about in the video. Like they said in the Movie America Gansta, they don't want to stop the drug war. One felony conviction will cripple you for life. After you serve your time pay your debt to society. You still have to pay for the rest of your life. No good job,school or living.
ataye1 2 years ago 24
@ataye1 keep swinging
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@ataye1 Hey, it's not THAT hard to obey the law. If you went to jail for tax-fraud employers would be equally unlikely to hire you as they'd conclude: "this guy thinks the rules don't apply to them. How can I trust him?"
That is NOT a reason to disband all tax laws. Laws are not optional. If you don't like the law, move to some place where the law is different.
Treblaine 1 year ago
@ataye1 yea man and thats some bull mothafuckin shit. fuck the world
Wacked420 1 year ago
@ataye1 This interview was nearly 21/2 years ago and in the news today, March 7, 2011 this question is being raised "What Could Obama & Calderon Do Differently?" When Nixon declared His War on Drugs, in 1971! HELLO! It is about Money!!
sandyFL100 10 months ago
@sandyFL100 I like what u said, it is not only timely but says what I have said for at least a decade. Thanks for you astute observation
Efficacy2 10 months ago
I've been thinking. Is morality a popularity contest? Do you think people would be trying to represent the rights, freedom and equality of homosexuals if there were only a few hundred of them worldwide? I would hope so, but it's unlikely. So, what about drug use? It's considered immoral by millions, and millions use them. At what point is it a matter of community standards? If a large percentage of an adult population use drugs, is it not then common? Should common behaviour be illegal?
gotilk 2 years ago
Good questions. What is lacking as with other so called radical is critical thinking. Gays have all rights granted humans and this goes for drug users as well
Efficacy2 2 years ago
Yes, to most except the last question. That depends on common behaviour.
These are good questions but have to be talked through at length
Efficacy2 2 years ago
pinky is the bomb
poerik 2 years ago
legalize it, tax it. drugs will never go away.
sk8well37 2 years ago 4
drug use is only a symptom of a sick society. it is not the disease itself.
caatabatic 2 years ago
Doctors treat symptoms at the same time as treating the disease.
I have always proposed that more money is spent on anti-drugs effort but for ever dollar/pound spent on enforcement, there needs to be a dollar/pound spent on economic incentives, education for skilled jobs, financial security and investment in utilities and services.
This makes sense economically, wipe out the drugs, the organised gangs lose their income and the cycle of crime can be broken.
Treblaine 2 years ago
5* Awesome rating. Yet again Pinky shows completely takes a subject and owns it. The best single news source on the web - and hence anywhere.
PeterSodhi 2 years ago
If you're going to be "anti" anything, by the way, you should be anti-alcohol. Alcohol messes people up in a way pot, for example, never, never, ever does. I speak from experience! If we legalise drugs then in my opinion we would see violent alcohol crimes decrease . . . nobody is violent on pot or opiates.
But whatever they do to you, you should be allowed to take any drugs you want. This is called "liberty".
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago 2
Well I don't drink anyway. But by your logic unless I'm a health fanatic then I can say anything to oppose narcotics.
I also speak from experience that any mind altering drug (including alcohol) leaves to the increased possibility of violent or otherwise dangerous behaviour.
And your definition of "liberty" is not shared by the majority of people. Far closer to the definition of Anarchy.
Treblaine 2 years ago
As it happens "most people" do not understand anarchy or anarchism.
Also, pot decreases the possibility of violent behaviour. In the '50s the US government complained that it made people too peaceful (this was during the Cold War and that was their excuse).
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
I don't want a docile, calm and submissive population, though that is exactly what a totalitarian government would want as the point was made in Orson Well's 1984. And I think even in more peaceful times the majority of people wouldn't want that.
The very definition of the word definition is "the way most people interpret it". You can't just redefine anarchism as and when it suits you, that is intellectually dishonest.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Just because I don't accept the common definition, it does not mean that I am "intellectually dishonest." Anarchism, as expressed by actual anarchists, is far different from what "most people" think of it as being - and stating that fact is in no way a "redefinition."
I don't want a docile and submissive population either. But it does, however, seem to be what most governments want. And to be honest, it seems to be what you want, too . . .
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Indeed, anyone who thinks that the government should lock people up for doing things that concern only them should perhaps consider relocating to North Korea . . .
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
I don't know about locking people up for taking drugs. Any cop could easy to round up all the drug addicts in their jurisdiction but in both UK and USA it's not illegal to BE a drug user. Even if you are documented taking drugs you can't go to jail.
The crime is having drugs in your possession, where you could use, share or sell them.
If anything I am opposed to drug DEALERS. And the dealers would not exist without the users. I have nothing but sympathy for those wretched addicts.
Treblaine 2 years ago
If we got rid of anti-drug laws then we could get rid of the dealers. When was the last time you saw anyone selling alcohol in a dark alley? Legality makes everything easier to regulate.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
No, that just brings the dealers out of the alley and into the convenience store. You really think my problem is the fact that drugs are "sold in some back alley" or by "some DRUG DEALER" with all the connotations that come with that.
It is NOT about that.
It is ALL about preventing people making the horrible mistake that they will regret for the rest of their lives which is to try any of these drugs just once... that is enough to get them hooked and destroy their lives.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Legal drugs could be regulated appropriatly, or at least MORE appropriatly than now. Cracking down while keeping them illegal makes no sense because you hurt the user (who you supposedly have no problem with) when they are in posession. It would take massive amounts of regulation and reform, but it would be all for the best in my opinion. My problem with drugs IS about the crime, violence etc. This would be erradicated. Responsible, educated (dis)use would ensue. It is never going to happen.
Yony42 2 years ago
The crime/violence with drugs is inherent due to their addictive and/or mind altering properties.
It is like everything that is wrong with alcohol x1000.
Here is some education on responsible drug consumption:
DON'T TAKE DRUGS AT ALL!
That's what medical professionals who use these chemicals all through their career say. There is NO SAFE WAY TO SNORT COCAINE! No one knows what is the safe consumption for cannabis either in terms of brain damage.
Better in jail+sober than high on the streets.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Your alcohol x1000 argument is fallacious in my opinion, although it may apply to a system with illegal drugs based on what we see today. So many drugs are more dangerous because of their criminal uncontrolled nature.
Although I disagree with it, I find your statement 'don't take drugs at all' a fair one, it's the safest option. However, we are talking about solving the problem that people will always do drugs. So it doesn't suffice. We need control, scientific education to motivate correctly.
Yony42 2 years ago
I find the statement:
"people will always do drugs" also fallacious as it implies some kind of majority of the population are regular drug users. THEY ARE NOT!
How can a country legalise consumption of drugs without sending the message that drug consumption is OK?
The law is above all else, society's enforcement of what is right and wrong.
The best way to control drugs is to confiscate and destroy them whenever found, prosecute dealers and both punish & rehabilitate users.
Treblaine 2 years ago
It does not imply such a thing, it implies that there will always be people who use drugs in this society, for whatever reason or circumstance. THAT is the reality, as long as drugs are available in any way. We can also NOT make the drugs disappear. THAT is the problem. The enforcement you advocate does not work and therefore the alternative must be explored!
Also, It's not about sending a message, the real message should be put in education! That way we can solve the problem and still protect!
Yony42 2 years ago
That is like saying it is pointless to keep trimming our fingernails we should just let them grow long. There will also continue to be murders, rapes, thefts and trespassing, the prevalence of a crime can never be used as a justification for it being decriminalised.
No one ever claimed drugs would disappear, but if we had done nothing it could have been worse
It doesn't matter what the government education says. Addicta are literally blind to all logic, only where they will get their next fix.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Well murders, rapes, and trespasses are all crimes that inflict harm on other individuals. It cannot compare. Also, the harm illegal drugs inflict on families would be DRASTICALLY reduced by legalization and more education, for all the reasons I have stated.
It does matter what government education says, because we are talking about PREVENTING people from being addicts and allowing a safe environment for people who already ARE, and people who are always going to be. Irrelevant statement there.
Yony42 2 years ago
OK how about suicides, prostitution, under-age sex, pyramid schemes + safety laws like seat-belts? You saying all the laws for these should be abolished? No one is "harmed" by trespassing. Is the ADDICT not a victim of them self?
What about the very fact that these mind altering drugs directly make people dangerous?
"the ham illegal drugs have on families would be drastically different"
O RLY!!
Ask someone who had a drunk for a father how the fact alcohol was legal made it ALL JUST FINE!
Treblaine 2 years ago
Ok one last one.
The examples you have given have nothing to do with drugs or the way humanity should handle them. They are all their own cases in their own way: They cannot compare because of a variety of reasons.
And as a response to your O RLY, I didnt say it would be JUST FINE, but better. Id the drun kfather had to get alcohol illegally, he would be invovled with crime. WORSE.
Also, many of the mind altering drugs that are illegal dont compare to even alcohol in dangerous behaviour.
Yony42 2 years ago
And to state some reasons: What laws are there on suicide that are at all relevant to the argument? Underaged sex is deemed harmful to the individuals involved from society's moral point of view, be they fair or unfair. Seat belts, are necessary to prevent you from immediate death by car crash. A lack of seatbelt laws would not spawn criminal illegal trade in seatbelts needing to be solved (oops, where'd the comparison go?). What a profoundly stupid argument, I am seriously done with this. Peace
Yony42 2 years ago
The point therefore being that, even if there isn't a safe way to snort cocaine, there may be a safer way to help existing addicts stay out of a voilent criminal life by medicalization. There may not be conclusive evidence on cannabis health effects, but most people start smoking it with no idea what it is, because it's exciting and they are not properly educated about it aside from demonization. If it were legal, kidns couldn't get it as quick, and adults could decide in an educated manner.
Yony42 2 years ago
Medicalization is utter bullshit, it disgraces the medical profession and trivialises the idea of prescription. I've seen those Californian "doctors", they will "prescribe" cannabis not just for the mildest ailments but mere "lack of creativity". THAT IS NOT A MEDICAL CONDITION! They are PUSHERS, they give it for anything because they know they will love it and come back for MORE!
There is ZERO education with medicalization only obfuscation to ease the flow of recreational drugs.
Treblaine 2 years ago
The medicalization of cannabis is one issue only, one on which I disagree with you on fair terms of opinion on the nature of cannabis.
HOWEVER, medicalization for drug like heroin means making it safely available for people who are already addicted, immediatly protecting them from crime and violence, and helping them to subsequently get off the heroin. Your approach will throw them in jail, where their criminal and drug contact will just increase, and that too is a FACT.
Do you not understand?
Yony42 2 years ago
Right so rather than throwing them in jail where a relatively small amount of drugs could get through*, you think it would be better to just hand out any drugs they want?
How the hell are you going to get people to stop using heroin by just giving them more heroin? No amount of lecturing will stop addicts coming back for more, especially if you make it as easy as possible for them to shoot up.
*It wouldn't be hard to eliminate contraband in Specialised facilities to insignificant levels.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Its not about the drugs present in those facilities, but the people they come in contact with. Gang life is a big factor, which you are forced into in prison and cannot get out of. That's the biggest example. And the drugs won't just be handed to them as much as they want, there would be control so that people wouldn't be there in the first place. Drug related crimes wouldn't exist.
Again, it's about preventing people from BECOMING addicts, and keeping addicts out of crime.
Yony42 2 years ago
You sound so naive, any system handing out free drugs will be exploited mercilessly, controlled environment my ass. This is nothing but appeasement from people who have given up trying to find a solution.
Addicts don't need softly softly approach, they need to be thrown in solitary for 2 weeks to detox then spend the next year in a controlled facility... one failed drug test, back in the hole for a month and another year added to their sentence.
Can't commit any crime locked in a padded cell.
Treblaine 2 years ago
drugs are already being handed out everywhere. to any one, show me a druggie who hasn't gotten drug free at least once.
caatabatic 2 years ago
Exactly my point.
Drug dealers give addicts free drugs too keep them hooked.
Yet you think the government can give them free drugs and... they will just magically get un-addicted?
Treblaine 2 years ago
but then you gotta pay for his confinement through taxes!
but i do agree with you on not just rappen them on the hand.
EXvall 2 years ago
Jail is a last resort though sometimes very necessary. There is a whole lot before that from fines, oh yes, lots and lots of fines, not everything is paid with taxes. I say means tested so rich can't just coast on by. Then there is community service, basically unpaid labour cleaning the streets, restoring vandalism, etc.
Short jail sentences can be very useful, a couple months forced detox and it really scare some individuals straight.
Treblaine 2 years ago
@Treblaine
Drugs are more available inside prison then outside.
facelessone86 1 year ago
@facelessone86 hmm, it's almost as if there are a lot of drug addict in prison, drugs are easily smuggled and US Prison security is very lax. That's why there is a certain drug use in prisons.
I also don't buy it that drugs are MORE easily available in prison. If that is the case, why do inmates resort to brewing "prison wine" in toilets and other such desperate efforts to get a high?
Show me the objective measure of "more available" and how that applies more to any prison than a crack-den.
Treblaine 1 year ago
All in all I have to say we've spent a while talking about this, and I don't feel that you are taking in any of my points based on what you say in your replies. I don't think it's worth continuing the debate. I recognize your desire to do the right thing as your motivation, even though I disagree with your proposed means and don't think we can come to terms in a youtube chat. I hope you can recognize the same, have a good life and hopefully we could one day have seen more eye to eye, given time.
Yony42 2 years ago
Also, I will agree that there should be more SCIENTIFIC education about cannabis at this time in places where it is medicalized.
Yony42 2 years ago
Kids not kidns.
So in my view your argument boils down to: Keeping the criminal violence in place, just to keep all people from contact with drugs in an effort to protect them, is better according to you than making sure youths have less access to it (legalization and control) and allowing adults to make their own responsibly educated decisions with the benefit of ending the crime.
I disagree.. Some people will make mistakes, allow them to do so without spiralling into crime due to addiction.
Yony42 2 years ago
Look. Cigarettes are legal yet presumably for adults only. Yet around 30% of high school students in the USA regularly smoke cigarettes and it is even higher in UK (though the smoking age was only recently increased to 18).
"...without spiraling into crime due to addiction"
How does making drugs legal make them non-addictive? The exact same thing will happen: lose job, lose family, lose home, on streets, prostitution + crime to feed it only the big corporations get rich rather than gangbangers
Treblaine 2 years ago
I didn't say making drugs legal would make them non addictive, I said that addicts would not need to mix with crime if drugs were legal.
Also, sure it's not going to stop all use, like in your cigarette argument. However, that is a business with COMMERCIAL investment history that had so much ignorant propaganda that it lingers today as a widely used drug. If it were illegal, however, that would cause the same problems as cannabis does, if not more due to the history. Your point doesn't work.
Yony42 2 years ago
And how will the same not happen to crack cocaine? What in the world makes you think unscrupulous companies (Enron anyone?) wouldn't jump on such an incredibly addictive substance as soon as legalised.
Think about it, they are so addictive, you can charge any price any they will pay. It WILL be no different from street gang's drug dealing today, probably worse.
The minority of drinkers who become alcoholics are destroyed by their addiction. Most narcotics are almost 100% addictive.
Treblaine 2 years ago
No, because legalization and control is not a commercial endevour andwill not be set up as such. As I have already said. Man...
'Most narcotics are almost 100% addictive'
Simply is not true. Please if you're not going to let it rest please just stop replying, I cannot resist replying back when your statements are so full of misunderstandings in my opinion. And yes, it's just my opinion. Bye.
Yony42 2 years ago
Oh come on, you are not going to debate whether these drugs are addictive right after you argued that the government should be handing out drugs just because the users are so desperate for them.
So you expect the government to feed the habits of the drug addicts in presumably controlled and clean environments... what then? Will the government play babysitter with them for the rest of their lives, eventually they will want higher and higher doses to get the buzz they crave... lethal doses.
Treblaine 2 years ago
You literally said most narcotics are 100% addictive. This is absolutly not true, go do the reading, I didn't point out anything other than that.
And I don't know if you watched the video, but I am talking getting addicts to be able to administer controlled amounts of their drugs based on clinical data so that they can get over their addiction in a safe way. The way you turned my point into a huge strawman here is showing me that you're lacking in critical thinking skills, just bugger off.
Yony42 2 years ago
No.
I *literally* said "ALMOST 100% addictive".
1-5% may take try drugs and through various factors not become addicted but the overwhelming majority of people who use powerful narcotics like opioid end up powerfully addicted.
Only a complete idiot would not treat these substances as anything other than extremely addictive and never touch them at all.
Administer controlled amounts? No addict will visit those clinics, they want to get HIGH!
BTW, I made no straw man argument.
Treblaine 2 years ago
did you even watch the video?
caatabatic 2 years ago
And to add to that, the 'keeping them out of cantact' bit doesn't work at all and that is a fact of the situation. So it's a choice between attrition of a limb with a torniquet, when the wound is in the torso, if you don't mind the vague metaphor.
Yony42 2 years ago
Off topic a bit.
This is about drugs and even after all this debating even the most laissez faire American or Brit, ask them how their feel about their son or daughter walking into any convenience store to legally buy potent weeds, pills, or pre-loaded syringes of god knows what... not going to happen mate. Not in a hundred years.
And I think if you would likely feel the same way.
Treblaine 2 years ago
If people don't want their kids using drugs, then they should try being better parents.
By the way, in the 19th century you really could walk into a store and buy what you wanted. And there was no "drug problem" then. The "problem" arose when the govenment stepped in and put everyone into hysterics.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but the US already has a docile and submissive population. The assault on our civil liberties over the past 8 years can attest to that. Even as our right to peacefully assemble and maintain some level of privacy were effectively eviscerated the people did nothing.
Indeed a large and vocal minority of people here cheered the slaughter of our constitution. Sacrificing liberty supposedly in the name of security is a hallmark of republican governance.
finchdaddy1 2 years ago
Yeah, the evidence for that is how Bush's selected successor John McCain won the 2008 election by a landslide... oh wait, not he didn't, Barack Obama was elected President, just about as non-republican as you can get, democrats have the house and senate and the PATRIOT act has been torn to shreds by the supreme court even before it was neutered by the legislature.
BTW, since you are so constitutional, how do you feel about the second amendment?
America is one of the freest countries I know.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Watch the 'Obama Deception'. It may change your mind, or provide you with a good laugh. Choose either, but at least watch it =D
Yony42 2 years ago
common sense= legalize marijuana!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
america has thelargest population in prison, drugs are the financial backbone of the legal system, and without it man there would be fucking hell on earth for the institution.
FutureLaugh 2 years ago
same could be sayed on terror
borhany1979 2 years ago
The "war on terror" is a scam just like the "war on drugs" is. They are both aimed at controlling the population by taking away rights. When was the last time a "terrorist" was found "terrorizing" your neighborhood? We are doing essentially nothing to stop them from crossing our borders so why havent we been attacked again? answer; Its a scam. 911 was a financial attack. They want to bring down our corrupt, and dangerous system. Their ways & means are evil but so is the U.S. power structure
lathzz 2 years ago 5
im sooo happy he just said we should legalize marijuana :)
4flowerchild 2 years ago 5
More of Mr Thornton, to him I would like to say thank you for getting to the issue and talking so frankly and openly about the consequences of our current dire drugs legislation. Such a shame that the same steps aren't being taken over here than are in the USA. Oh and thank you for making the point about the potential revenue to be made from legalization, come on people you know it makes sense.
InkyFairy 2 years ago 3
You are correct. I am just stating what is/has taken place. the results are yet to
be released.
Efficacy2 2 years ago
Ecstasy maintenance?
mapmanic 2 years ago
Yeah, Columbia U. are conducting trails for cocaine, meth and heroin also
Efficacy2 2 years ago
"Maintenance" refers to accommodating an addiction with doses of the actual substance of abuse or a facsimile so that the addiction can then be controlled and diminished, right? You can't do this with MDMA. Nobody is physically addicted to ecstasy. There might be psychologically dependent people who have done damage to their bodies from overindulging but a "maintenance" model for remedying this would be ridiculous, don't you think?
mapmanic 2 years ago
Clifford Thornton Jr. is right on with this. weed is extremely easy to get while getting booze when your under 21 is a lot more difficult
blacksabbathgnr098 2 years ago
You cant use statistics on how many people do drugs when it is illegal, because it could be 100% you don't know...
sgsfdgfsdfsdfsddf 2 years ago
i feel as though there was an underlying statement to "redistribution of income and wealth" that he didnt elaborate on...
HipHopGuardian 2 years ago
Like what in particular? The simple equaston with opposite sides.
Efficacy2 2 years ago
well actually not that but the fact that he didnt go into detail about who really benefits from this...
HipHopGuardian 2 years ago
If drugs are legal then one has to look at who will benifit. The equation changes, both side would loose money.
Efficacy2 2 years ago
not true, government would make a lot of money through taxes.
blacksabbathgnr098 2 years ago
"or in your case a vetinarian" haha, cute.
JLProud 2 years ago 2
what does the last comment mean?
Efficacy2 2 years ago
oh my god someone kill me!!!!!!!!!!
RSfuckingSUCKS 2 years ago
QQ more you stupid cat
KamikazeCaptain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shitserbia is shit serbia is shit
freedf6typhoon 2 years ago
When your government boasts about the jobs they created, they never tell you where they created these jobs, they just throw out a number. The majority of the jobs government creates that are long term are government jobs, the rest are private sector which quickly diminish. The reason we are here now with an ever shrinking GDP and larger deficits and debt. The next time you vote, think about it, do not vote for D or R, these are people who are paid for by interests that don't include your own.
ChupacabraYetiElmo 2 years ago 2
They want you to buy their drugs. Adderall or Ritalin is nothing more than prescribed Methamphetamines. Over 90% of all pharmaceutical drugs contain derivatives of the Marijuana plant. So drugs seem to be perfectly OK if you buy them from drug manufacturers that get people hooked on the drugs to begin with when they are children. What the hell is going on? They want the money and in that respect this gentleman is absolutely correct. The system is morally corrupt. They don't care about us.
chuck1967 2 years ago 2
pinky rocks
ArtModeldvds 2 years ago
the organizations fighting drugs make mad loot "fighting" drugs.. if illegal drugs were free, these organizations would wither and die.. check out the yearly budget for DEA.. avg. rise like 30 mil or sumthing regardless the amount of employees... just like he says its about power control... pot is not healthy, but neither is alcohol or cigarets
Moondoggxxx 2 years ago
Marijuana is WAY healthier than alcohol and cigs. especially if you vaporise it instead of smoke it
dragonshinobi312 2 years ago
Cliff Thornton for Governor!
askslimorg 2 years ago
Outstanding video.
lawless101aa07 2 years ago
This man is the voice of reason on drug regulation. He needs to become mainstream: appear on Oprah, Larry King, the View, etc. When the populace sees that legalization is the only reasonable option, then the laws will follow.
oneearth22222 2 years ago 5
I agree but unfortunately because it is all about power, and because he would be putting many of the people dependent on the money they make pretending to fight a war. The likelihood of this happening is dismal to none.
x1tekja 2 years ago
It's designed to fail.
lookahere 2 years ago
The gentleman makes a lot of sense, but critical thinking is something the Gov. does not want. Pot makes you think, 1 of the reasons its illegal. Go Pinky..
vandeldandel 2 years ago 4
The reagan administration started this supposable war on drugs and what happened was this campaign backfired all througout the US.
People want what they can't have. The more you tell people they cant have something, the more you stir up their curiousity. Leading to more people expirementing with al sorts of crazy drugs.
Legalize marijuana and stop the madness! You lost your war against drugs.
vagisil96 2 years ago 5
Exactly. Look at drug usage numbers in Denmark vs. the US. It is incredible, considering it is legal there. Seriously, you will be floored.
Prohibition doesn't work for anything. World history has proven that 100x over.
jophus82 2 years ago 3
Do you have a specific site for the usage numbers?
HumbleProclaimer 2 years ago
it was actually the nixon admin that started the war on drugs.
dragonshinobi312 2 years ago
Yeah he did mention President Nixon in this video.
x1tekja 2 years ago
yea i know. but vagisil96 (are you kidding me?!?!) said that it the reagan admin.
dragonshinobi312 2 years ago
Ohh. Yeah I did see that as I checked later comments. Sorry.
x1tekja 2 years ago
haha it's cool dude
dragonshinobi312 2 years ago
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS :D ?
kjekay 2 years ago
nice
peoplz360 2 years ago
Applauses to Mr.Clifford
Nebelung13 2 years ago 3
News said "Obama has no intent to decriminalize marijuana". It was said by his opponents, Obama smoked pot during college, so he knows first hand it's not a deadly dangerous plant. So apparent decriminalizing pot is not politically correct. It seems the gov. is basically a number crunching machine and when ANY factor produces a negative value (-$) that factor is removed from the equation. So apparently big numbers are impressive. ( I don't use drugs so don't bother)
yoyohooyo 2 years ago
pkay so whats step two? Is it just keep educating people untill enough people see the truth becasue that would take forever! Peition the govt? YA RIGHT! what do you think people have been doing? WHAT IS TO BE DONE NOW?
gabbaheyhey12 2 years ago
Indeed our conservitive government in canada is trying to shut our safe injection sites. I just heard today our medical establishment is telling the government to start looking at real evidence and stop using this issue for their political gain.
rsuthe00 2 years ago 3
the doctor allowes u time to decrease your heroin use well on the methadone, which transfers your addiction to methadone. this slow transfer means u dont get withdrawls, instead of feeling desperate for drugs many times a day, i now just drink my methadone once a day, i dont get high- it keeps me from sickness, but its this assumption that a doctor being able 2 give u a drug like this is bad just because it is addictive is hurting addicts chances to getting clean
lejink 2 years ago 3
you should try an ibogaine treatment.
ProtectoroftheTruth 2 years ago
i live in vancouver- im a recovering addict. im on the methadone program which is a long lasting synthetic heroin. i oftin hear people on local talk radio opposed to methadone thinking they are funding and supporting addiction. but that ignorance is the problem. to get methadone i need to go to a doctor, give urine tests. when u start- u must take the drug infrount of a pharmacist, so u cant sneek it out n sell it- after 6months ur allowed to take 3days of the drug at a time.
lejink 2 years ago 3
My husband worked with a man, a former heroin addict, who was prescribed methadone and used it for years. He was able to lead a productive life and raise his daughter as a single dad (his wife never recovered from her heroin addiction).
oneearth22222 2 years ago 5
TWO supporters of Prohabition. The Woman's Christian League and the MAFIA. What you say, the MAFIA wanted Prohabition? Yes! When something is illegal and popular that price is driven UP, the MAFIA made BANK supplying alcohol. But legalizing drugs you INSTANTLY put drug cratels and dealers in a BIG financial crunch, they can't make their business worth their time. The GOV makes MONEY off drugs, DEA, fines, Jail time, the GOV is the biggest drug cartel for them all, that why they WONT legalize it.
thelibertyblog 2 years ago 6
uhm..the government spends more money then they get in busts- true there are employees of the government that depend on these busts to have a job- but they arent law makers. they also are not the ones doing studys on these legalization ideas. so to say they depend on drugs for a job so they wont legalize doesnt make sence. also- drug treatment would be increased not decreased, if the money is nolonger spent on police/court time. it can be spent on government funded treatment for all addicts
lejink 2 years ago