Topic: This guy makes an awful lot of sense

[Dunrobin]

[youtube=425,350]b6t1EM4Onao[/youtube]

Judge Jim Gray on The Six Groups Who Benefit From Drug Prohibition

In 1992, Jim Gray, a conservative judge in conservative Orange County, California, held a press conference during which he recommended that we rethink our drug laws. Back then, it took a great deal of courage to suggest that the war on drugs was a failed policy.

Today, more and more Americans are coming to the realization that prohibition's costs—whether measured in lives and liberties lost or dollars wasted—far exceed any possible or claimed benefits.

Reason.tv's Paul Feine interviewed Gray about drug policy and the prospects for reform. The interview was shot by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.

Judge Jim Gray is the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs.

Approximately 8.30 minutes.

[Curly4444]

So we should let everyone go around doing all the drugs they want anywhere? I don't think so. I would never be in favor of ending drug prohibition. All that would do is make it easier for people to get drugs and introduce more people to it. If i had a kid i wouldn't want some asshat running over my kid cause he was high on some drug.

I would be in favor of making the existing laws better, but not ending drug prohibition all together.


The guy asks does the government have the right to control what you put in your body? My answer is, yes it does. When that shit you put in your body effects the lives of other people, the gov. has that right. If you want to go live in a shack in the middle of nowhere(& never come out), and do all the drugs you want, then yeah go for it.

[Dunrobin]

So we should let everyone go around doing all the drugs they want anywhere? I don't think so. I would never be in favor of ending drug prohibition. All that would do is make it easier for people to get drugs and introduce more people to it. If i had a kid i wouldn't want some asshat running over my kid cause he was high on some drug.

I would be in favor of making the existing laws better, but not ending drug prohibition all together.


The guy asks does the government have the right to control what you put in your body? My answer is, yes it does. When that shit you put in your body effects the lives of other people, the gov. has that right. If you want to go live in a shack in the middle of nowhere(& never come out), and do all the drugs you want, then yeah go for it.

What an incredibly arrogant and immoral attitude!  I'm rather surprised at you.

So you believe that people are just slaves, to be dictated to by their betters?  By what right do you claim that the government has authority to dictate what anyone does with their own bodies?  How dare you presume to dictate anything to me?   

Are you so abysmally ignorant of history that you are clueless that prohibition doesn't work?  We've been "fighting" this damnable "drug war" for decades, yet drugs are as readily available today as they were in the 60's and 70's.  The government has spent tends of billions of dollars, destroyed our rights and freedom, militarized our police forces and yet has completely failed to stop or even significantly alter drug use.

We have seen hundreds of our fellow citizens, innocent of any crimes, murdered in cold blood by gung-ho cops on botched drug raids.  (See this page, for example.)  To what end?  To satisfy your perverse desire to dictate to others?

If you dislike freedom that much, there are a number of countries that I could point you to, instead of continuing to fuck up this one.

[metaldams]

When I was a kid, my aun't's boyfriend was murdered in a drug deal.  It was only pot, too, nothing hard.  The way I see it, he'd still be alive if drug's were legal, because he would not be in the ghetto 1 AM otherwise.

Look, I've never done an illegal drug in my life, but as long as nobody's getting behind a wheel under the influence, I don't think it's the government's business what people do.  I think heroin is an awful drug, but if somebody wants to go down that road, it's their business, not the governments.

[Dunrobin]

I'm not advocating the use of drugs, but I resent the arrogance and claim of superiority over my person by others.  No other person has the right to dictate what I may or may not do with my own body; I am no one's slave.

If a person does another person harm, than that person should be required to make full restitution to the victim or family (something, you'll notice, the government cares nothing about.)  The use of drugs or alcohol is not a mitigating factor, nor does it increase the injury; it is immaterial to the questions of whether injury occurred and what restitution is required.

The whole drug war was built on the premise that the government owns our bodies, as Curly4444 advocates.  I find that concept completely repugnant.  That is not the principle that my ancestors fought for in the Revolution, nor was it held by my abolitionist forebears in the 18th century.  To me, that is as un-American as you can get, and I resent what these so-called "drug warriors" have done to this country.  They've taken the "Land of the Free" and tried to turn it into a nation of slaves.  You prohibitionists should be ashamed of yourselves.

(Can you tell that this is something that really ticks me off?) 

[metaldams]

I'm not advocating the use of drugs, but I resent the arrogance and claim of superiority over my person by others.  No other person has the right to dictate what I may or may not do with my own body; I am no one's slave.

If a person does another person harm, than that person should be required to make full restitution to the victim or family (something, you'll notice, the government cares nothing about.)  The use of drugs or alcohol is not a mitigating factor, nor does it increase the injury; it is immaterial to the questions of whether injury occurred and what restitution is required.

The whole drug war was built on the premise that the government owns our bodies, as Curly4444 advocates.  I find that concept completely repugnant.  That is not the principle that my ancestors fought for in the Revolution, nor was it held by my abolitionist forebears in the 18th century.  To me, that is as un-American as you can get, and I resent what these so-called "drug warriors" have done to this country.  They've taken the "Land of the Free" and tried to turn it into a nation of slaves.  You prohibitionists should be ashamed of yourselves.

(Can you tell that this is something that really ticks me off?) 

Hey man, you'll get no argument from me on this one.  What somebody does in the privacy of their own home is their business. 

While we're on social taboos, I extend this argument to legalizing prostitution as well, for the exact same reasons.

[Dunrobin]

Hey man, you'll get no argument from me on this one.  What somebody does in the privacy of their own home is their business. 

While we're on social taboos, I extend this argument to legalizing prostitution as well, for the exact same reasons.

I agree completely.

Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's excellent treatise, Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty?

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

[Curly4444]

So you believe that people are just slaves, to be dictated to by their betters?  By what right do you claim that the government has authority to dictate what anyone does with their own bodies?  How dare you presume to dictate anything to me?

I wasn't dictateing anything to you, sorry if it sounded like that. Was just talking generally, nothing directed towards you. When i said you, i meant some anonymous drug user.

I just don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I think it will create more drug users than it stops from using.

[metaldams]

I agree completely.

Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's excellent treatise, Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty?

Thanks for posting that, I just added it to my favorites!

[Dog Hambone]

Judge Jim Gray hits the nail right on the head. It takes a lot of courage to speak out like he does. The 6 groups he refers to make a lot of filthy lucre off of drugs & I bet they'd like to do something to shut him up (and this includes the government types).

I've seen enough of those drug shows on the History, Discovery channels, etc., to convince me that the current drug policy, dating back through Reagan to Nixon, has done just about nothing but help finance the 6 groups to which Gray refers.

In addition to Gray's groups, there's another I can add. I'm currently reading a book called DISCLOSURE authored by Dr. Steven Greer, which discusses the US government's secrecy programs with regards to UFOs. Some of the people quoted in the book, all former insiders, say that the US government finances their UFO secrecy programs by being in the drug importation business (reminds me of the Iran/Contra thing from the 1980s). The money made from their drug deals is obviously secret and it provides a large portion of the UFO secrecy funding (thereby keeping Congress, etc., out of the loop). If you think I'm being some kind of conspiracy theorist, try reading this book yourself or visit the disclosure project's website. Greer can also be seen in videos on YouTube.    

[metaldams]

I wasn't dictateing anything to you, sorry if it sounded like that. Was just talking generally, nothing directed towards you. I just don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I think it will create more drug users than it stops from using.

People are going to do what they're going to do if they want it bad enough, legal or not.  May as well give people a safe method of procruing drugs instead of street corners.  May as well give the police more dangerous criminals to bust than people who smoke pot in their bedrooms.

Look what prohibition did in the 20's, it made Al Capone a powerful man.

[Curly4444]

Pots one thing, but making it all legal is another. Im not saying i like the current anti-drug policy's, and the fatcats making money off it. I do agree we do nee some major reform measures. Just dont want to make all drug use legal. Make pot legal if you want, but not the dangerous shit like PCP, crack, meth, and heroin.

[Dunrobin]

I wasn't dictateing anything to you, sorry if it sounded like that. Was just talking generally, nothing directed towards you. I just don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I think it will create more drug users than it stops from using.

I sure that you thought that, Curly4444, but can't you see that is exactly what you are advocating?  You say that you don't favor legalizing drugs, but by what right do you consider them illegal in the first place?

The "government" has no right to dictate what people may or may not do with their own bodies.  In a free society the government cannot logically have any rights or power that we - as individuals - do not possess ourselves.  Do I, personally, have a right to come into your home and decide for you what foods you can eat or which drugs you may consume to treat whatever ails you?  Of course not!  How, then, could I possibly delegate any such right to a "government?"  And of course, if I do not have a right to be a busybody in your life, how do you have any such right to do so?  When you claim that the government - which you apparently believe represents you - has such a right, you are claiming that you had that right to begin with.

[Curly4444]

by what right do you consider them illegal in the first place?

By the fact that drugs are detrimental to society. Making them legal could proliferate drug use, which is a scary thought to me. Wouldn't want to see my bus driver, pilot, policeman, firefighter, all high on drugs. Don't want people responsible for my life high on drugs.

[Dunrobin]

I think it will create more drug users than it stops from using.

I missed questioning you on this point.  What evidence do you have to justify such a conclusion?  Reality demonstrates just the opposite.

[Dunrobin]

By the fact that drugs are detrimental to society. Making them legal could proliferate drug use, which is a scary thought to me. Wouldn't want to see my bus driver, pilot, policeman, firefighter, all high on drugs. Don't want people responsible for my life high on drugs.

Horseshit.  Pure, unadulterated horseshit.

The only one responsible for your life is you.  The government has no responsibility to protect you whatsoever, as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Think those cops and firefighter aren't doing drugs now?  You are being naive.

People do drugs every day - people who are responsible businessmen, retailers, doctors, lawyers, judges, et cetera, et freaking cetera.  Your apparent mental stereotype of drug users as burned out losers is childish and incorrect.  Sure, there are burnouts who use drugs, but they are not the vast majority of drug users, just as the vast number of people who drink liquor are not all alcoholics.

You being "scared" over what other people do with their own lives is immaterial.  Your fears do not give you a right to dictate to others and despite your denials that is exactly what you are claiming the right to do.  That is immoral and wrong.

[Curly4444]

Think those cops and firefighter aren't doing drugs now?

Don't you think normalizing drugs and giving Cops and firefighters(or whoever) better access to drugs, make more people in charge with our safety, drug users?

[metaldams]

Just from common sense. If drugs are legal, and they start selling them everywhere, wouldn't that increase usage? Hey want some heroin? Just walk down to your local pharmacy and get some. How the heck can that be good?

Here's the point:

Heroin is awful, but if you want to do it, you're fucking YOURSELF over.  Not the law's business, not the law's right to interject.

Murder is awful, but you're fucking SOMEBODY ELSE over.  You have no right to end somebody else's life, hence the law has a right to interject.

[Dunrobin]

Don't you think normalizing drugs and giving Cops and firefighters(or whoever) better access to drugs, make more people in charge with our safety, drug users?

No.  If you followed the links I've provided and actually read up on the subject, you'll learn that the opposite is the case.

[Curly4444]

Murder is awful, but you're fucking SOMEBODY ELSE over.  You have no right to end somebody else's life, hence the law has a right to interject.

True, but aren't you fucking SOMEBODY ELSE over when you lose control of you car from being high and kill someones else's father or mother?? Shouldn't the law interject and stop that.

[shemps#1]

I wasn't dictating anything to you, sorry if it sounded like that. Was just talking generally, nothing directed towards you. When i said you, i meant some anonymous drug user.

I just don't agree with legalizing all drugs. I think it will create more drug users than it stops from using.

I've been busy and am just jumping in and replying to posts as I read them and see fit.

If this half-baked theory that legalizing narcotics would "create more drug users" was true, why would it matter to you? What you do in your personal life is your own business and the same goes for me and everybody else. If heroin became legal tomorrow would you hook yourself up to a heroin IV drip? Is the law the only thing that prevents you from using narcotics in a recreational manner? My guess would be "no", if narcotics became legal tomorrow you would not use them just as marijuana being illegal does not prevent me from smoking it on occasion (the occasion being "whenever I can get some").

Also, I share Rob's sentiments in regards to your first post when you insinuate that the US Government has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with/put in my body. That's a highly offensive and repugnant statement to make, especially when you consider the bevy of fucktards in Government today. They should be stripped of a majority of their "powers" not given absolute ones.

[metaldams]

True, but aren't you fucking SOMEBODY ELSE over when you lose control of you car from being high and kill someones father or mother?? Shouldn't the law interject and stop that.

Yes, absolutely.  Being under the influence of drugs while operating a vehicle should absolutely be illegal for the reasons you stated.  Drinking alcohol, a legal substance if you're over the age of 21, is also illegal to be under the influence of while driving, as it should be.  In that case, you are endangering somebody else's life.

But if you want to get drunk or get high on whatever in the privacy of your own home and not take the wheel, then it shouldn't be illegal, whether it's something relatively harmless like marajuana or lethal like heroin.  Personal choice, and you're only effecting yourself.

[Dunrobin]

True, but aren't you fucking SOMEBODY ELSE over when you lose control of you car from being high and kill someones father or mother?? Shouldn't the law interject and stop that.

How?  Prohibition doesn't work.  There is nothing NOW to prevent that scenario from happening.  Absolutely nothing.  How do I know?  Because it happens.

People sometimes get drunk and kill someone else in a rage.  (Your scenario happens far more often due to alcohol than it does due to "illegal" drugs.)  Why aren't you demanding alcohol prohibition again?  Because it doesn't work!  We've already tried that and it failed miserably - and caused more violence in Americans' daily lives.

Yet you continue to demand that we continue the same stupid, asinine thing, even though the results have been repeated failure.  You have completely missed the point of the judge's video: that the drug war has NOT benefited ordinary Americans AT ALL, but it has completely destroyed every fundamental principle that this country was founded upon.  You urge the enslavement of others to protect yourself from your imaginary boogie-men.

[Dunrobin]

If this half-baked theory that legalizing narcotics would "create more drug users" was true, why would it matter to you? What you do in your personal life is your own business and the same goes for me and everybody else. If heroin became legal tomorrow would you hook yourself up to a heroin IV drip? Is the law the only thing that prevents you from using narcotics in a recreational manner? My guess would be "no", if narcotics became legal tomorrow you would not use them just as marijuana being illegal does not prevent me from smoking it on occasion (the occasion being "whenever I can get some").

I almost overlooked your post.  Well said!   

[shemps#1]

By the fact that drugs are detrimental to society. Making them legal could proliferate drug use, which is a scary thought to me. Wouldn't want to see my bus driver, pilot, policeman, firefighter, all high on drugs. Don't want people responsible for my life high on drugs.

You're placing the blame on the wrong party. It's not drugs that are the problem, it's assholes that are the problem. Take alcohol for instance, when a decent person is drunk and cannot drive they hand over the keys, have someone call a cab etc. Assholes are the ones who get behind the wheel after 6 Jack & Cokes and think they can drive home OK. Narcotics are not this evil force that controls people; place the blame where it belongs and that's on idiots who do stupid things whether using or drugs or not.

I've never heard a story about a pound of weed or a quart of JD getting into a car wreck.