Prohibition

Seriously... I dont get why they dont sell meth at every gas station

Oh, your quotes dont universally apply? So dont make it seem like thats what they were talking about.

weed = meth. you're correct.
hate to break it to you SKoT but DARE didn't work either.

i wouldn't recommend posting it immediately, if your professor does any sort of fraudulent check it may come up on this site and it would be funny/a hassle to deal with.

On December 21 2010 00:33 Zep wrote: i wouldn't recommend posting it immediately, if your professor does any sort of fraudulent check it may come up on this site and it would be funny/a hassle to deal with.

lol good point =)

@ Skot

It does universally apply. Removing prohibition does not mean lack of regulation. We're not talking about having people in the elementary school cafeteria doling out heroin injections.

All these quotes are saying is that when you completely prohibit something it causes crime, steals freedoms from people who alter their state with substances and live successful contributing lives, and undermine the government as the law cannot be enforced and the scare tactics that they use (like DARE) are filled with lies, which when discovered, make the people distrust the government.

Well lets be clear, they dont take away a freedom, its a punishment for having it.

Weed definitely should be legal, but its not like theres not net positives from banning things from society

On December 21 2010 00:49 SKoT wrote: Well lets be clear, they dont take away a freedom, its a punishment for having it. Weed definitely should be legal, but its not like theres not net positives from banning things from society

banning and regulating are two completely different things and both can be universally applied to almost any scenario in society

The arguement that prohibition leads to crime and therefore is bad is a faulty one, regulation also leads to crime.

Its up to the society which substances/actions should be regulated and/or prohibited. If the prohibition is a net positive then it should be banned. I dont think anyone can seriously argue the legalization of crystal meth for controlled use of ppl over a certain age would be a net positive for society.

Also I looked up both your quotes, no dice.

The Abe Lincoln quote is attributed to him but not until well after his death in the 20th century.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/lincoln.htm

Most important is the following bit.

"Dr. Mark Kleiman, a professor at Harvard University, contributed the following:

I tried to verify the purported Lincoln anti-prohibition quote. Yes, we have no bananas.

The standard reference is The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (8 vols.) Roy P. Basler, Ed., Rutgers University Press, 1953. It gives reports (though not verbatim texts) of several of Lincoln's speeches in the legislature, including remarks on December 14 1840 on "Payment of Interest on the Public Debt" and on December 19 "Concerning Expenditures for Public Printing," but nothing on December 18, and nothing at all about alcohol or temperance (according to the index) during Lincoln's entire period of service in the legislature except the great and unduly neglected speech to the Washington Temperance Society of Springfield on February 22 1942. The index also gives no reference to the Maine Liquor Law of 1846, the first prohibition act, or to the word "prohibition."

A more recent source is Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, (2 vols.) Library of America, 1989. Again, nothing on that date, and nothing on "alcohol" "temperence" "prohibition" or "Maine Liquor Law" in the entire period, except for the Washington Temperance address (which I hope someone with a scanner will post here).

While it's impossible to be sure that Lincoln didn't say something, I will give fifty to one that there is no authentic record of any such speech anytime in Lincoln's career. That's based on the results of my search, but also on three other observations:

1. The term "prohibition" does not appear to have been in the contemporary political vocabulary with respect to alcohol control laws.

2. Lincoln stood well enough with the temperance movement to be invited to give the Washington's Birthday address to the Washington Temperance Society of Springfield in 1842. It's hard to believe that this would have been true if prohibition had been a live issue and Lincoln on the pro-liquor side of it.

3. Temperance, along with abolition, nativism, the protective tariff, and women's rights, was among the movements that constituted the original Republican party. Lincoln was bold in attacking the nativist (American or "Know-nothing" wing, but if he had picked a quarrel with the temperance faction there would surely be some record of it. In his campaign against Douglass in 1858, he was forced to deny Douglass's charge that in his youth he had kept a "grocery" (package-goods store and tavern), but his supposed anti-prohibition views never became an issue.

After a little more research (to his credit) Dr. Kleiman came back with the following:

I have to take back what I said about there being no evidence of Lincoln's supporting a prohibition law in Illinois.

The Basler collection has a letter from Lincoln to Henry Whitney on June 7, 1855, lamenting the electoral defeat of Lincoln's friend Logan -- "worse beaten than any man ever was since elections were invented" -- and adding "It is conceded on all hands that the prohibitory law is also beaten." The "also" suggests that Lincoln was a supporter of the law."

Also extremely important from that website is the following

"From the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations: A.L. speech 22 Feb 1842, Washingtonian Temperance Society

"Whether or not the world would be vastly benefited by a total banishment from it of all intoxicating drinks seems not now an open question. Three-fourths of mankind confess the affirmative with their tongues, and I believe all the rest acknowledge it in their hearts.""

So if that quote is authentic (which is more likely since the recorded date is during A.L.'s life time) Lincoln was actually supportive of the prohibition of alcohol.




Albert Einsteins quote was also not talking about prohibition of all substances being bad. That quote by him was said in 1921 and was speaking specifically about prohibition of Alcohol in America at the time and that leading to the rise of mob activity throughout the country.



neither of these quotes should be interpreted as Lincoln (alleged), or Einstein supporting the legalization of any substance other then alcohol. Certainly using these quotes as proof that Lincoln or Einstein would support the legalization and regulation of all substances is completely dishonest.

geeze, and I bet he put those quotes in his paper, cop that

On December 21 2010 01:43 palak wrote: The arguement that prohibition leads to crime and therefore is bad is a faulty one, regulation also leads to crime. Its up to the society which substances/actions should be regulated and/or prohibited. If the prohibition is a net positive then it should be banned. I dont think anyone can seriously argue the legalization of crystal meth for controlled use of ppl over a certain age would be a net positive for society.

umm 80 year old with all his friends dead and nothing to live for. Do you really think someone like this being prescribed heroin is going to lead to more problems for society than any anti-depressant would?

On December 21 2010 02:50 Zep wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2010 01:43 palak wrote: The arguement that prohibition leads to crime and therefore is bad is a faulty one, regulation also leads to crime. Its up to the society which substances/actions should be regulated and/or prohibited. If the prohibition is a net positive then it should be banned. I dont think anyone can seriously argue the legalization of crystal meth for controlled use of ppl over a certain age would be a net positive for society. umm 80 year old with all his friends dead and nothing to live for. Do you really think someone like this being prescribed heroin is going to lead to more problems for society than any anti-depressant would?

Fail to understand your post. Heroin (in fact ALL) controlled substances can be legally prescribed to someone by a doctor.

O except marijuana which even under medical circumstances is illegal in like 35 states. No clue wtf the logic is on that

EDIT: This above post is completely wrong by me, my bad...corrected in the next post by k2o4

Thanks Palak, I appreciate that. I've seen that lincoln quote all over the place, in books and on the web, so I didn't think to look up the origin. I wonder where the fuck it did come from if it's not legit.

The similarity between the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana is extremely close and I'd be surprised if Einstein wouldn't feel that his quote applies to both.

@ babs they weren't used in the paper which is why I posted them here.

Palak, heroin cannot be prescribed as medicine because it's a schedule 1 drug, which therefore means it has "no medical value". The full list is here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

On December 21 2010 03:23 k2o4 wrote: Thanks Palak, I appreciate that. I've seen that lincoln quote all over the place, in books and on the web, so I didn't think to look up the origin. I wonder where the fuck it did come from if it's not legit. The similarity between the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana is extremely close and I'd be surprised if Einstein wouldn't feel that his quote applies to both. @ babs they weren't used in the paper which is why I posted them here. Palak, heroin cannot be prescribed as medicine because it's a schedule 1 drug, which therefore means it has "no medical value". The full list is here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

Origin of the Lincoln quote is in anti prohibition literature pamphlets of the 1920's. I agree Einstein would have almost certainly support pot legalization as anyone w/ a brain does. Even though I don't in a lot of ways cuz stoned ppl using piss me the fuck off. There is no logical scientific or moral reason for opposing legalization, just if i have to hear more random stoner stories then I already do at times i'll get really pissed off.


EDIT: nevermind I'm wrong just looked up schedule 1...so prescriptions can't be written but doctors may posses it.

EDIT EDIT: So heroin can't be subscribed but how about we give that hypothetical 80 yr old man with nothing to live for a prescription to opium, cocaine, or Fentanyl which according to the wiki page on schedule 1 drugs is 26.67 times more potent then heroin yet is still a schedule 2 drug and therefore legal for prescription.

On December 21 2010 03:33 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2010 03:23 k2o4 wrote: Thanks Palak, I appreciate that. I've seen that lincoln quote all over the place, in books and on the web, so I didn't think to look up the origin. I wonder where the fuck it did come from if it's not legit. The similarity between the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana is extremely close and I'd be surprised if Einstein wouldn't feel that his quote applies to both. @ babs they weren't used in the paper which is why I posted them here. Palak, heroin cannot be prescribed as medicine because it's a schedule 1 drug, which therefore means it has "no medical value". The full list is here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html Origin of the Lincoln quote is in anti prohibition literature pamphlets of the 1920's. I agree Einstein would have almost certainly support pot legalization as anyone w/ a brain does. Even though I don't in a lot of ways cuz stoned ppl using piss me the fuck off. There is no logical scientific or moral reason for opposing legalization, just if i have to hear more random stoner stories then I already do at times i'll get really pissed off. EDIT: nevermind I'm wrong just looked up schedule 1...so prescriptions can't be written but doctors may posses it. EDIT EDIT: So heroin can't be subscribed but how about we give that hypothetical 80 yr old man with nothing to live for a prescription to opium, cocaine, or Fentanyl which according to the wiki page on schedule 1 drugs is 26.67 times more potent then heroin yet is still a schedule 2 drug and therefore legal for prescription.

Dude, you want proof?
You're wrong
Washington post article on legal crack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005952