Any topic any time. No profanity.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

America's drug use out of control? What do you think?

I guess it was a long time ago that the only "medications" in my folks medicine cabinet were aspirin and cod liver oil.  Along with maybe some cough lozenges and Epsom salts, we seemed to make it through life without a lot of pharma.  Over my life of, so far, 64 years, I have seen the exponential increase in the number of vials in the medicine cabinets.  We are bombarded on every TV channel to try a new drug.  We are instructed to ask our doctors for this new prostrate medicine, erectile dysfunction tablet and a myriad of other malady solutions.  Yes, we are the "drug" culture so is it any wonder we have a problem with "drugs"?



I recall discussing the drug culture issues many years ago and noticing the term was a mixed bag of understanding.  We had "Drugstores" on every corner of America so the term "drug" became  nothing more than a generic term to everyone.  When the hardcore drugs came into our culture like a whirlwind, the term did not have the impact it should have had.  The "war on drugs" was softened because people were already convinced the term was soft.  As time passed and the hardcore drug culture of marijuana, heroin and cocaine took hold of so many lives in America, we slowly realized there was a big problem.  When meth and crack arrived things got even worse.  Addiction to these mind altering substances was rampant and still is today.

Americans want these substances because apparently "real life" is not good enough.  Alcohol was the main mind altering substance over the millennia with a few natural items discovered by indigenous people on the planet.  But now we see what happens when "chemistry" is used and a plethora of mind altering substances, a cornucopia of pleasure chemicals, are available.  As a person whose only addiction has been women in my life, I do not understand why people have to put that crap in their bodies to have a good time.

Humans have sex and food and sometimes conversation to pass the time in a pleasurable way.  Why toss into the body something that could be a time bomb of personal destruction?  Art Linkletter's daughter jumped off a building to her death after ingesting a substance when I was a kid.  That one act caused m to pledge never to ingest that crap.  I have been a good boy.  Of course, anything in moderation usually will not hurt you but can we say that about meth?  Cocaine? Heroin? Crack?  Of course not.  None of those substances are in your best interest.  Except perhaps to ease your cancer pain when you are on your way out of this life.  I don't have a problem with that.  But many Americans seem to want to be in an altered state most of the time.

The use of illicit drugs causes death.  Death by their use, and death to many growing and transporting and selling the poisons.  Looks at the streets of America for that truth.  Just as "Prohibition" created a boon to the crooks and made murder and mayhem  a daily occurrence in the country, these other substances have now replaced Schnapps and Bourbon as the reason for death by gun, knife and bomb.  Mexicans at the common border are being killed by the thousands so American addicts can get "high".  If there was no market for these poisons, if Americans had the courage to say "NO", then these people south of our border and the ones in South America and places like Afghanistan would have to start growing potatoes rather than coca, poppies and marijuana. 

But it seems America has a large number of spineless addicted wimps who have no self control.  Anything goes.  That is probably the cost of their personal freedoms we all expect in a free country.  Sure, we are individuals and we can darn well put into our own bodies what we want, right?  If we want to get high and experience "nirvana" on the planet then who can keep us from that?  But, as I learned from my folks and the other people I had a lot of respect for in my life, with that freedom to shove that poison into my brain, I also have some "responsibilities">

The reason we have responsibilities and should practice those is simple.  It is the "Golden Rule".  Do unto others as you would have them d unto you.  That is not necessarily a religious comment.  It seems like common sense to me.  If you want to do a destructive behaviour to your own brain and body, fine, just don't impact me.  Hell, that argument was used to force motorcycle riders to wear helmets and to force cigarette smokers 25 feet from the outside doors of buildings.  That was done by the same leftwingers that want unabashed rights to smoke marijuana, drop acid and shoot heroin and crack.  So what gives?

In my opinion we have become a "too lenient" society with acts that undermine the culture and the country.  The values that cement a country into longevity on a planet known for short stays of people and institutions, we have to get some things straight about where we want America to be going.  Illicit drug use consumes hundreds of billions of dollars and costs America more than money as well.  It means crimes galore which causes the country to spend more on police and courts and prisons.  We have to realize that there is a bigger reason than just allowing a person to get high than their "right" to do so.  If we want to stay a country we have to fix this mess.

So, there are a few things we can do.  If we want to legalize all these illicit substances, perhaps that would get the crime out of it.  Perhaps not.  Cigarettes are legal but the politicians have taxed them so high that a "black market" now exists just as one did for alcohol in the 20's and 30's.  So maybe that could be curtailed if there was no tax?  Or maybe just a small fee to place a warning label on the MJ pack?  Or like the Netherlands, have some "shops" everyone over 18 can go to and smoke and shoot up? I think we see how that has worked out in Europe though.  It hasn't.

Then we have the other side of the coin and that is law enforcement.  As a people we can decide if a substance is good or bad and legal or illegal.  We can then place penalties  on the use of those things we say are bad.  Over time America has tried to "understand" the reasons of addiction and in that quest, the society has allowed for the removal of individual responsibility and shame from the use of bad drugs..  We decided to "treat" these people and not hold them to their  own failure to deal with addiction.  We have tried to let them off the hook by claiming addiction is "genetic" and not really their fault.

So we see how that has worked in California haven't we.  We have "diversion" programs for those arrested selling, using and growing or cooking illegal substances.  The recidivism rate is huge though.  These people can go rob, steal and murder to get their drug of choice and we try to "understand" them.  I have decided this is a failed policy.  In this "free" country, these people need to be held to the highest standards of compliance and accept their punishment for their part in the "drug culture".  We need to toss these people into the prisons and throw away the key if they are selling to minors.  If they cause a death they should be taken off the planet. (same for child molesters).  We need to ensure they cannot get back on the streets to do their dirty business.  Chicago sees hundreds of murders every year because the gangs there are fighting for control of the illicit drug markets.  Maybe if the bad guys were off the streets the regular hardworking folks there could experience a calm, wonderful life?

When Nancy Reagan did the "Just Say No" to drugs she was laughed at by the liberals and the criminals of America.  But in my view, Americans have the choice to do exactly that.  Say no.  Experience the beauty of the planet without being addicted to a substance that changes that green tree into a dragon trying to eat you.  Start saying no to drugs and take up art, help our community clean up its streets and empty lots.  Gain some personal pride in yourself and your neighborhoods.  Get an education and help your community to become a safer place.  My goodness all you smokers, injectors and snorters, get a grip!  Life is too precious to live in an altered state while you have all this wonderment surrounding you.  Remember, we are the only place in the universe we know has life and that we have the ability to know that.
\

20 comments:

  1. Todd, I don't disagree with your stance on substance abuse, and it is difficult to argue that drug use has made anyone's life better. It appears that all the data says that it is degrading society in general on many fronts. The debate really should be about who is responsible to make the decision about using drugs or not. The government war on drugs has been a complete failure, and once we agree that government should make these type of decisions, where does that stop? Motorcycle helmets, Big Macs, soda pop...never ends. Give the regulators power, and they will regulate. I don't pretend to have the answer, other than to point out that what we are currently doing is not working. It seems like more education about the affects of drugs on peoples lives would be helpful. The campaign against tobacco seems to be working. Educating smart people will help them make better choices. Probably not much you can do to stop dumb people from poisoning themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems we agree more than not. My point is a person's personal responsibility to not become an addict and create the monumental mess of crime and punishment and the loss of so much prodictivity. If you want to be Ecuador and chew cocoa leaves all day, then you get a backwater country with no hope.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Todd "we are the only place in the universe we know has life" is so so true. I have heard of these people http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ who are against Christ. They are lucky we let them still do this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems that the blogmeister here wants to double down on the war on drugs with the law and order theme here, while 99 percent of America has thrown in the towel on the so-called drug war. Who will pay for even more jails and prisons, for that tough love approach, instead of treatment and other modalities? Is the Tea Party or Republican Party up for increasing taxes to pay for it? Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just say no to Measure S and all the BS the pro Measure S folks are blowing. It's not about "medicine" growers, it's about growing and selling drugs for profit.

    A big part of all the "medicine" being grown here is headed south and east, all the way to the east coast. It's mostly commercial grows and illegal transportation across state lines. It's multi-State and Federal felonies for big bucks, a second home in Costa Rica for the winter and rolls of $100.00 bills to spend in Briar Patch for $10.00 a pound organic produce and groovy vegan takeout meals after yoga class.

    The issue isn't about some sickly little old lady that is restricted from growing her own medicine.


    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's one the FUE failed to scoop or report!

    Election reporting records show Brad Peceimer-Glasse and Patricia Smith, leaders of the Yes on Measure S pot growing ballot measure both contributed a lot of money to Supervisor Terry Lamphier's failed re-election attempt.

    The recently arrested for pot growing Brad Peceimer-Glasse doesn't even live in Lamphier's Supervisor District! Lamphier took outside of his voting District money from a recently arrested pot grower!

    Does Patricia Smith live in Lamphier's voting District or was she another out of District voter giving Lamphier money?

    Lamphier also took outside PAC donations from at least seven different union PACS for at least $9,750. lamphier also took $5,000 from Carol Young and CYCO Enterprises, developers of the controversial Rincon Del Rio development project in south County, outside of Lamphier's voting District. Lamphier reported the out of district developers $5,000 campaign donation on 9/30/13. Lampihier took this money very close to his vote to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission project approval by concerned neighbors. Lamphier voted to deny the appeal and approve the development project. Lamphier took $5,000 from the out of his District, south County developer!

    Lamphier and Firth are the pro Measure S candidates running for Grass Valley City Council. Hope all three of them are again rejected by the voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record, I have not taken a position on Measure S but am looking forward to hearing from the voters.

      Delete
  7. Supervisor Lamphier and Rinco Del Rio project approval, lawsuit details and review process correction:

    The large Rincon Del Rio development project was approved by the Board of Supervisors after the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project.

    The vote was 4-1 to approve. Supervisor Lamphier voted to approve the project on 4/9/13. The neighbors then filed a law suit against the approval and a settlement was reached in November 2013.

    Lamphire voted to approve the Rincon development in south County, outside of his Supervisor District on 4/9/13. Lamphier reported his $5,000 campaign contribution from the developer 9/30/13, after his vote to approve the project.

    In June 2103 the neighbors filed a lawsuit against the County for approving the project. While the lawsuit against the County and the development project was still active and going through the court process Supervisor Lamphier took the $5,000 campaign contribution from the project developer!

    Supervisor Lamhier didn't wait for the lawsuit against the County to be settled before he took the $5,000! Supervisor Lamphier voted to approve the development project, then took the $5,000 donation and a then participated in closed door sessions regarding the lawsuit against the County and the project BEFORE the settlement was reached.

    At the very least Supervisor Lamphier should have recused himself from the County closed door sessions and any other discussions about the lawsuit against the County to overturn the County approval of the project.

    Supervisor Lamphier voted to approve the project, took the $5,000 and then participated in the closed door sessions, failing to recuse himself for a conflict of interest! The lawsuit was "Keep Nevada County Rural, et al. v. County of Nevada", Nevada County Superior Court, Case No.: CU13-079647.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Supervisor Lamphier's approval of the Rincon del Rio project, his $5,000 campaign donation from the developer and the lawsuit to overturn the approval sure has an interesting timeline. Lets' review the dates.

    4/9/13; The Nevada County Board of Supervisors approves the highly controversial south County, Rincon Del Rio development project by a 4-1 vote, Supervisor Terry Lamphier voted yes.

    5/14/13; The "Keep Nevada County Rural" group opposing the development project files a lawsuit against Nevada County to overturn the Board of Supervisors approval of the development project. "Keep Nevada County Rural, et al. v. County of Nevada", Nevada County Superior Court, Case No.: CU13-079647.

    9/30/13; Supervisor and BOS candidate Terry Lamphier reported his $5,000 campaign contribution from the Rincon Del Rio Del developer to the FPPC.

    11/12/13; In a closed door session the Nevada County Board of Supervisors approves the three-way lawsuit settlement agreement between the County, Rincon Del Rio and "Keep Nevada County Rural" group that filed the lawsuit.

    So here's the problem Supervisor and current Grass Valley City Council candidate Lamphier faces. Lamphier voted yes to the highly controversial development project. THEN the lawsuit was filed. THEN Lamphier took the $5,000 campaign donation AFTER the lawsuit was filed. THEN the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve the three-way lawsuit settlement agreement in a closed door session with County Council.

    Q: Did Supervisor Lamphier recuse himself from the closed door discussions regarding the lawsuit against the County?

    Q: Did Supervisor Lamphier participate in the closed door discussions regarding the lawsuit against the County?

    Q: Did Supervisor Lamphier raise his possible conflict of interest to the County Attorney or the California State Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)?

    A: Supervisor Terry Lamphier participated in the closed door discussions and voted to approve the settlement agreement in the closed door Board of Supervisors meeting on 11/12/13. The County minutes for this closed door meeting states the vote was "unanimous".

    Looks like Supervisor and current Grass Valley City Council candidate Terry Lamphier has some explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, take a pill and relax....

      Delete
  9. It would seem from the above post that Terry Lamphier has done some questionable things in his fundraising efforts.He should explain what he has done, and when, or remove himself as a candidate for Grass Valley City Council. We do not need people with his ethics sitting on the Council. The voters of Grass Valley have rejected him twice before, it is now obvious why.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The timeline of Supervisor Lamphier's actions of voting to approve the controversial development project and then taking a $5,000 donation from the developer shortly after the concerned neighbors group filed a law suit against the County and the developer is alarming.

    Supervisor Lamphier taking the money and then participating in the closed door sessions about the law suit is highly questionable and a possibly violation of law. It's clearly a conflict of interest at the very least. Supervisor Lamphier at the very least should have recused himself from the closed door discussions of the law suit and he should not have participated and voted on actions take by the Board of Supervisors regard the law suit.

    The developer nor the development project was in Supervisor Lamphier's District, so why did the developer give Lamphier $5,0000?


    Supervisor Lamophier needs to explain this to the voters and likely soon to the California State Fair Political Practices Commission.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lamphier taking the developers $5,000 "campaign donation" and then participating in the Board of Supervisors closed door discussions about the law suit sinks like rotten fish. It's a conflict of interest and maybe a violation of the law to boot. Lamphier should have recused himself from this matter about the law suit involving the County and the developer that gave him his $5,000 "campaign donation". Lamphier should not have participated and should not have voted on actions take by the Board of Supervisors regard this law suit.

    This alone is reason to not vote for Lamphier in his third attempt to get elected to the Grass Valley City Council. Lamphier was recently rejected by the voters in his attempt to be re-elected to the Board of Supervisors. Voters gave Lamphier the boot after one term. Lamphier has ran for Grass Valley City Council twice before, lost both times, rejected by the community.

    Terry Lamphier and Jim Firth are peas in the same pod. Neither one is worthy of holding a seat on the Grass Valley City Council.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Todd, I have a post coming under the topic about our local mentally gadfly (as christened by one of his own). The topic is from a few back. If you read his today's chuckle, you will see textbook Narcissism at play. Stay tuned, this is really getting entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please see the post under the August 26, 2014 topic. More to come. The ambulances are idling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's a letter that ran in The Union today. It's from one of the rocket scientists on the FUE's blog. What a rational, factional letter, NOT!

    Well, well, well … we citizens see that Sheriff Royal’s ”MJ” Thug Squad is at it again; and the season’s just warming up! How much you wanna bet they roll out the MRAP at least once before things are all said and done (and I vote for painting it pink).

    Boy oh boy, do we ever feel safer now that Mr. Peceimer is off the streets and his evil MJ gardens are ripped out of the ground. Civil engineers can be real beasty, so good work, as well, wrestling him down and cuffing him in front of his family. Crack police work and excellent use of our hard-earned tax dollars. Keep up the fine work, fellas.

    San French

    Nevada City

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well everyone has their own opinion. If the law is broken it should be enforced equally.

      Delete
  15. Here's a KNCO story about a typical MJ grower couple:

    http://knco.com/major-crimes-unit-serves-search-warrant-in-north-san-juan/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nevada County responds to the latest, last minute Yes on Measure S BS, from Yubanet, check their entire story:

    "Attached to county's brief in opposition, available in its entirety below, a declaration by the County's Assistant Clerk-Recorder Sandra Sjober, explains the timeline of the election and the difficulty a stay would cause to her department: "If Petitioner's request for injunction and petition for peremptory writ of mandate were granted, the Nevada County Elections Office, in conjunction with Hart and Pro Vote, would be required to create and re-proof the ballot images and audio; pull, replace and reprint the Voter Information Guide/Sample Ballot Booklet; pull, replace and reprint all ballots; reprogram electronic and online ballots; re-order vote by mail envelopes, which takes two weeks for delivery; and resend ballots to all Military and Overseas Voters. It would take at least two and one-half weeks to complete this process (assuming it could be done at all) and would prevent the November 4, 2014, statewide election in Nevada County from proceeding as scheduled and required by state law. The cost for making the above changes would exceed $160,000."

    If so important, why is the response signed by the Assistant Clerk-Recorder and not Diaz?

    ReplyDelete

Real name thank you.