The unintended consequences of drug war dishonesty.

6th March 2011
In the 80s and 90s there was a concerted effort by those in power to demonise and stigmatise marijuana and its users.

By making pot use uncool the authorities thought they could reduce the use of what was then the most popular recreational drug. With help from the mass media and hollywood they succeeded in turning pot into a drug perceived by the young as being only used by losers and outcasts. Bill and Ted, Waynes world, rap music etc all worked to paint pot and its users as useless, idiotic and lame. Government programs and enforcement, drug dogs, harsh penalties and straight up dishonest propaganda all helped as well.

So what did we get for all this effort?

The rise of pills and chemicals and a massive increase in drinking culture. Or should that be drunken culture. Youths hyped up on stimulants, drinking copiously for hours and then running amok, causing chaos and seriously hurting themselves and others.

Violent drunken assaults are common most weekends and fights have changed from a rare occurrence that did little real damage (due to the incompetence of normal drunks) to being regular, amphetamine fuelled melees involving glassings, weapons and resulting in deaths and severe injuries.

(continued)

(continued)

The alcohol industry (legal drug dealers) with their drive for 24 hour drinking and pushing of harder (more profitable) spirits must shoulder their share of the blame. Along with the cowardly politicians bribed by the alcohol industry they all have unwittingly contributed to the war zone that is the average entertainment precinct on a Friday or Saturday night.

It is obvious that the prohibition strategy is a failure. Squeeze one part of the drug scene (at huge expense) and it just expands somewhere else. It is like squeezing a balloon. People want to change their mood with drugs and as long as it doesnt degenerate into abuse (as is the case with the vast majority of people who use drugs sensibly) then it should be a personal matter and none of the states business.

Driving people from one of the most harmless drugs, marijuana, onto more dangerous and antisocial drugs has got to be one of the dumbest things we could do as a society. But we did it, and now we pay the price.

What do you prefer?
Stoners in a basement giggling or
hyped up drunks out to smash your face in?

http://www.wikkkard.net/articles/mine/DrugWarGoneWrong.html

Good evening to you, RAWMUSTARD & JAY of MELBOURNE...

Thank you both for your explanations advanced on matters arising out of discussions promoted herein. I'm unable to furnish any comments myself on issues you've cited, as I've no personal material in which to compare. Thank you anyway.

Hi there IS MISE...

A very plausible explanation for sure. However to alcohol, one should also add the notoriously precarious, methamphetamine ICE. Combining the two, often produces a very powerful and dubious outcome. And that, really compounds the entire problem ! Thank you, IS MISE.

Just to pick up a point of apparent misunderstanding of the gun laws affecting law-abiding licensed firearms owners (LAFOs).

LAFOs are not permitted to be in possession of their firearm when under the influence of alcohol or drug. The case would not arise that they would be carrying a firearm under the circumstances being worried about by Belly and others.

Of course criminals and other likely offenders cannot get a firearms licence and illegally hold guns. It is also part of their modus operandi and a fact proved by police statistics that their guns are often illegal in design (eg modified) and were never obtained from any legal source, or stolen from LAFOs. It is interesting that the few cases of previously legally held firearms that were used for crimes were stolen from police themselves and from other government sourves such as rangers.

Belly,

You get cited sometimes because you have no knowledge of firearms regulations and repeat abysmally silly muckraking about LAFOs. At minimum, you should have the decency to exclude the thousands of very respectable LAFOs, rather than insinuate criminal or irresponsible action on their part. Those are obvious slurs. But you keep it up, as do a couple of other very long term posters on this site and you would have been corrected many times before.

Fair minded people would realise that LAFOs have demonstrated in rigorous police criminal, character and other background checks that they meet the high standards to be allowed a firearms licence.

Yet critics such as yourself who foolishly besmirch their character, deal in speculative gossip, and very obviously know zilch about firearms regulations, can proffer no evidence whatever to provide they are similarly good citizens of good character with good intent.

Under the circumstances it is a fair and reasonable to ask why you persist in doing that?

http://www.infowars.com/90-of-shooting-rampages-could-be-stopped-by-quick-thinking-civilians-expert/ http://www.infowars.com/nsa-calls-americans-zombies/ http://www.infowars.com/white-house-announces-new-executive-actions-on-background-checks-for-guns/ http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/rkba.php
Jan 04 11:47
MSNBC Mocks NRA, Suggests It's Better To Confront A School Shooter Unarmed http://xrepublic.tv/node/6883 http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-economic-and-social-crisis-in-spain-they-want-to-make-poverty-normal/ http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/how-government-allows-dangerous-additives-like-msg-to-stay-in-our-food/ http://intellihub.com/2014/01/04/oral-cholera-vaccine-loaded-with-gmos-to-be-tested-on-babies-worldwide/ http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/01/04/detroit-police-chief-says-armed-law-abiding-americans-translates-into-crime-reduction/

In my above post the second last para (in answer to Belly) should read,

"Yet critics such as yourself who foolishly besmirch their character, deal in speculative gossip and very obviously know zilch about firearms regulations, can proffer no evidence whatever that they are similarly good citizens of good character with good intent."