portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

drug war | environment | health

Drug Legalization

how is the (absurdity) of "illicit" drugs being illegal but nuclear testing not, looked over by most people?... why does the government waste billions to take down marijuana farmers, when they do nearly nothing to take down the corporations who pollute our water, air, and land? this makes absolutely no sense to me.
H is for heroin
H is for heroin
one thing to start off, alot of drug producers cause vast harm to the envirement, but its because they are already 100% illegal, and there is no way for them to safely dispose of the byproducts they create.

alright (that being said), why do most(?) people not see the connection between the foolishness of alchohal prohibtion and the current prohibition on "drugs"? Why does our society blindly support the use of "doctor approved" anti- anxiety/depressant/obesity/hyperactivity drugs as a way to cure nearly all problems (soma anyone?) when marijuana is not allowed? I personnally am of the belief that it is because people genuinely believe, even against current medical and psycological information, that "illegal drugs" are harmful with no positive effects. This attitude could be for many reasons, but i think that for the most part it is propogated by people who have no real expieriance in or with drugs, or drug users, and only know what little they were told by anti-drug propoganda (directly or spread through other people, like their parents). No one alive today could remember a time when some drug wasnt actively being hunted down by the government, the most long-standing and notorious would have to be opiates (heroin, morphine, and opium) and or alchohal. Now that may be seen as a trivial point, (the fact that no one alive today could have been alive during a time when drugs werent scapegoated and demonized), but in all reality, that could be very helpful in a pro-drug legalization arguement. (As it is one of the main reasons that people harbor such absurd mis-conceptions about drugs, the fact that even the oldest in our society today, had parents whose only information on drugs was propoganda based...)

All people alive today in america have been exposed to anti-drug propoganda, the majority of anti-drug propoganda relates to the inherant harmfulness, or immorality of drugs, (both things that can be disputed). So all people without first-hand expieriance with "drugs" or "drug users" only have the information at hand to determine their own opinion on the matter, and since goverment propoganda is usually the first thing they would find on the subject through any major media outlet, their opinions could and most likely are, shaped directly by it (just try and look up drug information online.. google or otherwise, whose the top (sponsored) link?, ALWAYS, goverment propoganda sites). That of course is not to mention the fact that all drug "education" programs in the schools focus directly on telling children that (illicit) drugs are harmful without any benefits, and that people that do drugs are bad, while at the same time saying drugs perscribed to you by doctors are A OK, or if you're above 18 its just fine to smoke tobacco or (21+) drink alchohal.
I think its absurd that they would call the information givin education, as generally there is a lack of actual information on the nature of drugs in drug education (the real effects and dangers of drugs) which leads for the most part to a fear of drugs and drug users, not an understanding. As the effects are usually greatly exagerated, scare-tactics instead of education, the exception taught as the rule>> (addiction/overdoses/crime/immorality). ..And the only method for understanding drug use being "just say no." Also, the fact that drugs are illegal (and demonized) leads to the "rebels" or whatnot generally being the people that use them, they usually use drugs recklessly, as they are cut off from any pertinent information on proper use, or just dont care maybe (but thats a different issue). Many of the dangers of drug use could be solved with proper education, but first we'de need to legalize drugs, so that people could actually be properly educated without the educators being persecuted. But ask yourself why you think drugs are bad. . . i would say most likely its because youve been told they are, again; not to say that drugs cant be harmful (as they very well could be if used improperly) but so can cars, guns... anything for that matter, when not understood, (and thereby, most probably not used safely).

I have been putting (drugs and drug users) in perenthasis because all things on earth are chemicals(or made up of chemicals); trees, turkey, humans, crack. All chemicals, so why is crack cocaine the odd man out there? because it causes effects that can "cause harm," but couldn't eating turkey also cause harm? why of course it could, too much turkey makes you fat, and too much fat vastly increases your chance of an untimely death. (not to mention the plethora of harmful chemicals possibly contained in that meat) So why is gluttony not illegal but the imbibing of crack is? because gluttony keeps you stupid and slothish, whereas crack cocaine makes you feel euphoric in almost any circumstances, that of course could lead to trouble when some people use drugs, as what could have been mere impulses before become actual actions under the use of drugs. Not all drugs cause aggressive tendancies, but for those drugs that do cause aggressive tendancies it still relies heavily on the individual what possible harmful actions might be taken. Thereby, stateing that no one can use a substance is still absurd, (any instance in which a substance causes nothing but insanity and violence of course is excluded, but i dont think there would be much draw to take a drug that just caused you to go insane, no more than there is for poisens, and drain cleaner at least) so if people know their body, and the effects the drug could potentialy have , then they should be able to avoid bad situations. so now ill move on. Of course, everything said previously does not go into the purely physical effects of drug use. Undoubtably, over use of any substance can "cause harm" to the body, but the harm posed by many drugs is arbitrary compared to the harm posed by things like; genetically engineered foods, hormones and antibiotics in our meat, and the industrial chemicals in out air/water/earth, thereby, if the goverment is so deadset on stopping people from harming themselves with chemicals, they shouldnt just be focusing on some plant that cause minor hallucinactions and euphoria...

(moving on) the term "drug user" doesnt involve anything but the fact that a person at some point in their life, used a drug. calling someone a drug user is absurd in my view, its equivalent to calling someone a meat user, or a paper user, they are such common products that any number of different kinds of people will use them, and it is not at all a concise group, or anything resembling a proper description of any human being. There are "drugs" in everything, caffeine is a drug (? remember) so are all the pesticides they use on your food, so is everything, everything is a chemical. But of course, most often when someone says "drug user" they are talking about a "drug addict" someone who has taken up refuge within the boundaries of a specific drug. Why again is drug addiction so harmful (yes of course to the body is does little good) but what really is the wrong with letting someone be an addict? We let people in our fine nation be TV and internet addicts, and food addicts... so why again cant they do heroin to their hearts content?.. its just the same, just as harmful.
In all reality it is just the morality police(religeous and otherwise), (no matter how physically harmful (some) illicit drugs are, people wouldnt do them if they were too harmful, as people dont take poisen for fun), what in the end is the true wrong behind drug use? Why can people play football, drive a car, own a gun? these things are obviosouly harmful to both the participants and the onlookers, but for some reason we havent banned them yet. Its because people are only given drug propoganda, its the only information they have. From the missconcieved notion that drug use causes ^gasp^ questioning the goverment and authority (delinquency in general) to being homosexual, it might even make you lazy or cause you to become or make someone pregnant! (o no!... go to www.freevibe.com to find out more! / i cant believe this site is funded by our goverment, and passed off as education..) So yes, i think that it is a portion of our society that thinks for some reason, they can enforce their own moral standards upon those of othes. What i mean is this, i am MORALLY oposed to automobile use (although i do use public transit, just like many anti-drug folks use caffeine or achohal) but i cant enforce my opinion on the whole of the nation. That of course is a horibble example, because automobile use is actually harmful to society in whole but still.

That brings me to my final point; the 11th amendmant protects drug use...

the 11th amendment to the constitution of the United States of America goes as follows:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

meaning: goverment does not "grant" you rights, you have those rights inherantly, all government can do is take away specifc rights to ensure the liberty of all people (as the government has done with rape, murder, slavery, things we generally see as bad and/pr harmful) But: that simply because the constitution doesnt specifically state that you have a certain right, doesnt mean that you dont have it, on the contrary, you have the inherant RIGHT to do as you please while not harming other people. And the act of takeing drugs falls DIRECTLY within those parameters. Not all drug users are violent criminals, thieves, or rapeists, just like not all people who use cameras use them to photograph brutal crimes... drug use in and of itself does not specifically cause these things, thereby drug use in and of itself CANNOT constitutionally be made illegal.

that is basically my argument for drug legalization

tom knowles

... 28.Sep.2003 05:48


did you know that: Farming only 6% of continental US acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence upon fossil fuels. Hemp is the only biomass source available that is capable of making the US energy-independent. Ultimately, the world has no other rational environmental choice but to give up fossil fuels.

 link to

also, keep trolling freevibe 28.Sep.2003 05:53


www.freevibe.com <<< fucking awful site, troll the "message boards"..

if youve seen those "whats your anti-drug?" commercials... or the ones that say marijuana purchasing supports terrorists.... this is the site linked to them, awful fucking government propoganda...

general link::


try to get anything that might make kids question the credibility of the site...

.... 28.Sep.2003 06:16


INSTRUCTIONS: Please review, print out, and complete the information below. Sign your name at the bottom of the form and fax it to (202) 833-3568 or mail it to:

I Count Advisors
1615 L St., NW, Stuite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Attn: Coordinator

If you have any questions, please call (202) 828-9764

When Fleishman-Hillard receives and processes the attached information sheet and this consent form, your child will be able to participate in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign "I Count Advisors." If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call (202) 828-9764 or send an e-mail to Advisor\@fleishman.com.

Hmm 28.Sep.2003 19:52


Not to impugn the benefits of hemp, but I hardly think hemp biomass is the answer to our energy needs. For right now, it's plainly nuclear. In the next 3-6 years, it'll be solar, tidal, wind and other passive-renewables. But we could not possible devote six percent of U.S. land to hemp.

Six percent of the continental United States' total land area is something like 500,000 sq miles. That's twice the size of texas.

What crops should we replace with hemp? Such a massive re-distribution of land resources would cause food prices to jump, in addition to the rise in energy costs. If we can't afford to replace existing food-crop land in favor of hemp, what non-agricultural land should we level for hemp? What kind of deforestation will that cause? And where should we get the water for that land?

As for why certain drugs are illegal, I don't think it has anything to do with a desire to protect adults' individual safety. Some politicians may justify current laws to themselves through that reasoning, but I doubt many do. Most politicans genuinely feel that it's a public-safety issue -- that drug users are violent, thieving animals. For others, they believe "the children" must be protected. (Neglecting that both are caused as a direct result of prohibition). But beneath all of that are the more sinister motivations: Historically, to protect other industries. But of late, to disenfranchise and harass minority populations: blacks, latinos, "white trash", and other groups.

All drug-warriors are hypocrites. Read the following column from Dennis Prager, "When Women Marry, Democrats Lose":


His premise was that married women, and especially those with children, tend to vote Republican, and thus marriage was against the interests of the Democratic Party. I responded to Mr. Prager's column, asking if he could see similar logic in the following statement:

"It is against the interests of the Republican Party to ensure that drug-laws are created and enforced fairly, blind to race, with fair sentences imposed."

Mr. Prager did not respond. But the statement is obviously true. Blacks vote Democrat by a ratio of 9:1. Is the disparity between arrests of blacks and arrests of whites really all that surprising then? Or the Republican Party's refusals to admit that a problem exists, or that the disparity results from something other than higher usage among blacks? (Especially considering many studies have shown evidence that usage rates are similar across all race-lines?)

12 states deprive the right to vote to felons, even those who have served their time. There are four million disenfranchised voters in this country, and while I don't have the hard figures, it's a good bet that at least half were disenfranchised as a result of drug use, and that of that group, 75-90% would have voted Democratic.

what of nuclear waste, James? 30.Sep.2003 13:45


Nuclear waste is a reality with a hundred-thousand year half-life. There is no known substance which is radioactivity-proof, and containers even ten years old are eaten through. Nuclear energy is a huge mistake - it is not the answer to anything. Biofuel is far more sustainable and just as doable as nuclear energy.

The war on drugs is a war on CERTAIN people who use drugs. Rich folks use more drugs than working-class folks. And white folks use more drugs than people of color. Yet it is people of color and working-class people that always end up arrested and imprisioned. It's not that strange until you realize that we live in a plutocracy. Crack is sold primarily by people of color and cocaine is peddled much more by white people than crack is. Yet for the same weight being sold, a dealer of crack gets a much harder sentence than a dealer of cocaine. This is pure racism.

Racist/classist cops will ignore white well-off drug-use and write it off as "boys will be boys" yet will arrest working-class people or people of color. The psychology of thsoe who enforce our laws are just as capricious as the laws themselves.

Saying Yes 30.Sep.2003 14:06


Saying Yes: In defense of drug use By Jacob Sullum is a good book for anyone concerned with this issue.

thanks yas gringo 01.Oct.2003 21:31


exactly, drug laws dont help to prevent drug use, they're just exploited by thoes enforcing them...

and whats this about "they would have voted democrat" ?... as if demecrats can fix the problems that society faces?... whatever, republicans and democrats are the same party basically, they just like to make you think that theyre competeing so you dont realize you have no say in government (they even trick themselves into thinking they're going for different causes and all that) the only real differences are absurd...

tom knowles

Gringo's Generalizations 16.Mar.2004 06:42

JP Morgan

You said this: Rich folks use more drugs than working-class folks. And white folks use more drugs than people of color. Yet it is people of color and working-class people that always end up arrested and imprisioned.

Are you implying that the only people in the working class are people of a minority population?

I can understand your arguement that minority groups are punished b/c of their lack of power within the system. Can you really make a statement such as "white folks use more drugs than people of color"? Where is your proof of this statistic? Where is your documentation? Or is this just a mere observation that you have made during your time here on this planet? If so, what planet are you from? That is all.