Drug Legalization Thread - Recent Events and Analysis

I saw this today and I figured it was worth an effortpost.

You Are Not Hallucinating: Magic Mushroom Company Soars In New York IPO

U.K. "magic mushroom company" Compass Pathways went public on Friday, jumping 71% to $29 in its New York debut after pricing an initial 6.7 million shares at $14 to $16 each. The company's NASDAQ listing is expected to raise $127.5 million.

The company has patented a synthetic version of psilopsybin; "the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms for use in treatment-resistant depression," according to Bloomberg.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/you-are-not-hallucinating-magic-mushroom-company-soars-new-york-ipo

It looks like the legalization of drugs is continuing apace. Denver and Oakland have recently passed measures that prevent LEAs from going after mushroom possession, and of course a lot of states have decriminalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational purposes. Non-enforcement of drug laws in places like San Francisco and Seattle whether through lack of resources or political will has resulted in a state of de-facto legalization, which has led to a drastic decline in the quality of life for those cities.

First off, I’m absolutely 100% against the legalization of hard drugs like crystal meth or cocaine. The result of various synthetic opiods being easier to obtain via the medical industry over the past several years has been a total disaster. We’ve had millions of deaths and non-fatal ODs over that time.

I’m sure its been a terrible drag on our economy because people who are addicted to those substances have difficulty working a job much more complicated or better paying than pushing a broom, if they can even get a job at all, which I feel has contributed in a major way to the surge in homelessness. Mental illness is a well-documented result of long term drug use and that of course goes hand-in-hand with homelessness. Its also probably been a big factor in our high incarceration rate as addicts go from legal doctor-provided drugs to street drugs once they can no longer obtain the legal ones, which again contributes to the economic drag since incarcerated people can’t meaningfully contribute to the economy.

In other places on this forum I’ve mentioned I’ve had drug problems in the past, I can tell you that part of that involved drugs that produce hallucinations and/or states of delirium or dissociation. Once you get addicted to those types of substances you get lost within yourself and you keep on using them over a long period of time because the states you find yourself in become more interesting and enjoyable than whatever boredom or loneliness you are experiencing in the real world; you then get isolated, then you keep on going back for more and then just get even further isolated. I’ve only used mushrooms specifically about 4 or 5 times but from that limited experience it seems clear to me they definitely can set you on the same path.

American society is careening towards a state where the majority of our citizens are becoming isolated and atomized. Its not just drugs and porn causing that. Its also coming from addiction to TV and movies via streaming services, binge video gaming, hours spent on social media engaged in virtual (i.e. fake) communication, hours spent commenting on news articles through things like Disqus, and so on. Drug legalization will make that isolation far worse. Once you get lost within yourself it is extremely difficult to get out and rejoin society. You can cancel your Netflix account in just 5 minutes but coming back from drug addiction can take years and cost enormous sums of money in treatment and therapy.

The standard libertarian arguments for legalization basically come down to two arguments: a) it will reduce violence from gangs and drug cartels and b) muh freedumz. Argument a) is laughable because it assumes that well-organized heavily armed cartels or street gangs will simply disappear in a puff of smoke instead of moving on to other activities or novel drugs and b) is plain narcissism because it completely ignores society in favor of the “I,” which will just compound our atomization problem. In earlier times when our society was much less complex the "muh freedumz" argument might have made more sense. In those earlier, smaller, and more tight-knit communities religious belief and a shared existence were pervasive. In that kind of environment local restriction and enforcement in the absence of government regulation is realistic. Those days are long gone. In our large-scale society mechanisms like social shaming or local gatekeeping of people in and out of towns which would have been sufficient are now for the most part infeasible. Quick mass transportation and a general loss of shame through moral degradation via the mass media have pretty much killed those options in all but the smallest and remotest villages.

As for marijuana I’m against legalized recreational use since it will still lead to that isolation I mentioned above; maybe not as severe as other drugs, but there’s still no doubt that it is damaging to society. Its reasonable that there may be some therapeutic uses for it, and if it can be prescribed for pain instead of opiods then I’m all for it, but in my experience medical MJ has mostly (but not entirely) been a sham for recreational use. I think the same thing would apply to mushrooms, DMT, etc. but I imagine the risk of severe mental illness resulting from such use would be high. The regulatory scheme would have to be pretty involved and restrictive for real medical usage to work without becoming a another front for recreational use.

In sum, I think legalizing drugs such as these would be a colossal mistake even worse than that of legalized porn or no-fault divorce. We’ve already seen a great amount of societal degradation from the widespread of commercial psychiatric drugs, so I find it difficult to imagine that psychedelics would be any better. I think it also reveals a problem with our concept of “separation of church and state.” We know from legalized marijuana that it is cash cow of tax revenue for local and state governments. It is deeply immoral for a government to fund itself through highly destructive addictions. Morality ultimately derives from God, and when those constraints are removed from government then the civil authorities, as we have seen, will have no problems taking advantage of immorality for their own ends. Psychedelics would be no different. All of this also reveals a fundamental flaw in laissez-faire capitalism, which is that people will pursue profits and share price increases without regard for the effect it has on society and individuals.

Thoughts?
 

BiggNastee

Woodpecker
I have a hard time with this one.

On one hand I know that if someone wants to do a drug they can go out and find it. I dont think you can stop drug use. Just like sex* addiction. So making it illegal just doesn't make sense to me.

On the other hand I am firmly against substance abuse. I struggle with it so I dont want it to be normalized and made to look "cool".

All I know is that we do the drugs to fill a hole only one thing can
 

godfather dust

Ostrich
Gold Member
I'm ok with decriminalization of small amounts for personal use.

As far as legalization, completely against it. Part of that is for entirely selfish reasons. I am a recovering drug addict (dissociatives when I was younger, heroin and other opiates at the end) and I like the fact that I would have no idea where to go if I wanted to get high right now, while the legal drug alcohol I can walk to a spot in 5 minutes (and thankfully haven't wanted to drink in years, body can't handle it.)
 
I have a hard time with this one.

On one hand I know that if someone wants to do a drug they can go out and find it. I dont think you can stop drug use. Just like sex* addiction. So making it illegal just doesn't make sense to me.

On the other hand I am firmly against substance abuse. I struggle with it so I dont want it to be normalized and made to look "cool".

All I know is that we do the drugs to fill a hole only one thing can
A lot of people have a hard time with that, no doubt.

As for stopping, no--keeping it criminalized won't stop it, but I don't think that's a valid reason for legalizing it. You can look at just about any crime--[Removed by mod], theft, murder, rape, what-have-you--and see that the existence of laws prohibiting those things doesn't necessarily stop those things. What it does do is provide a disincentive to one extent or another.

There is also the retribution factor--if somebody takes some action that is damaging to society then there has to be some kind of penalty. People call it a victimless crime because doing something like smoking crack isn't a direct aggression against another person, but that kind of thinking ignores the fact that society is the victim. Here's a (albeit imperfect) thought experiment on that point. [Removed by mod] has been around for many decades now in one form or another. If the original victim portrayed in that pornography has since died, and somebody now views it, who now is the victim? Certainly not the original child since he is no longer around to be victimized.

Anyways, without lawful retribution I think people would naturally take that as a breakdown in the social order and governmental authority, and it doesn't take much imagining to think about what happens from there. Social cohesion and lawful authority are necessary for a functioning society.

I still struggle with the urges myself. I've seen--and I'm sure you have too--first hand what it does to people. One of the saddest things that I think has happened to our culture is precisely that it has become cool in certain areas of popular culture. If drug use didn't have that reduced stigma then I probably wouldn't be so worried.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm ok with decriminalization of small amounts for personal use.

As far as legalization, completely against it. Part of that is for entirely selfish reasons. I am a recovering drug addict (dissociatives when I was younger, heroin and other opiates at the end) and I like the fact that I would have no idea where to go if I wanted to get high right now, while the legal drug alcohol I can walk to a spot in 5 minutes (and thankfully haven't wanted to drink in years, body can't handle it.)
I think what Portugal did is a good approach--people who are in possession of a certain amount or less are forced into treatment. I wouldn't call that true decriminalization since the addict still suffers a penalty because he loses his freedom, but that loss is geared towards rehabilitation. Supposedly this has had a strong downward effect on drug usage there.

Not being around it has definitely been a part of what has kept me off of drugs. Interestingly I've never had a problem with alcohol. I enjoy it, but I just don't get the desire for it like I do with other drugs and I have no problem going for several days without it. For me, a lot of alcohol is three beers or two shots. Heck, I brew tons of mead every year--I've got a few dozen gallons aging in my spare bedroom right now!
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
As someone who has had (and has openly discussed on the forum) substance abuse issues, here is my take:
...
First off, I’m absolutely 100% against the legalization of hard drugs like crystal meth or cocaine. The result of various synthetic opiods being easier to obtain via the medical industry over the past several years has been a total disaster. We’ve had millions of deaths and non-fatal ODs over that time.
As far as I know, the spike in opioid deaths is actually due to legal prescription opioids becoming harder to obtain, not easier.

Around 2010 or so (possibly earlier), many US states began cracking down on "doctor shopping" (i.e. addicts who go from doctor to doctor looking for prescriptions), and made it harder overall for doctors to prescribe opioid painkillers (even to patients who actually needed it for pain).

Because prescriptions were now harder to obtain, addicts then turned to heroin and other street opioids, which are far more dangerous because you don't really know what you're getting.
I’m sure its been a terrible drag on our economy because people who are addicted to those substances have difficulty working a job much more complicated or better paying than pushing a broom, if they can even get a job at all, which I feel has contributed in a major way to the surge in homelessness. Mental illness is a well-documented result of long term drug use...
By this logic, we should put men in jail for being porn addicts, video game addicts, or just simply for being lazy and choosing to live with their parents past 25 instead of getting a job.

Having a criminal record also makes it way, way harder to get a job, which makes long-term addiction more likely.

Simple possession (not sale) of ANY AMOUNT of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or meth, is a felony in most US states. I know a guy who is a felon. He is not able to get regular jobs (even menial ones).
In other places on this forum I’ve mentioned I’ve had drug problems in the past, I can tell you that part of that involved drugs that produce hallucinations and/or states of delirium or dissociation. Once you get addicted to those types of substances you get lost within yourself and you keep on using them over a long period of time because the states you find yourself in become more interesting and enjoyable than whatever boredom or loneliness you are experiencing in the real world...
I would not say this is accurate in all cases. Psychedelic drug experiences are highly subjective and differ greatly from person to person. For some people it brings demons and makes them go crazy, while others claim it brings them closer to God.

On the other hand, addictive drugs (such as opiates, meth, cocaine, and Xanax), in my opinion, are universally bad when used recreationally.
The standard libertarian arguments for legalization basically come down to two arguments: a) it will reduce violence from gangs and drug cartels and b) muh freedumz. Argument a) is laughable because it assumes that well-organized heavily armed cartels or street gangs will simply disappear in a puff of smoke instead of moving on to other activities or novel drugs and b) is plain narcissism because it completely ignores society in favor of the “I,” which will just compound our atomization problem.
The first libertarian argument is not nonsense. Yes, there will always be gangs and organized crime. They aren't just going to disappear. But legalizing drugs would take away a large portion of their business and source of revenue.

One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the 1933 was because it was making organized crime gangs and criminals like Al Capone rich.

The second argument "muh freedoms," I have to admit, is quite ridiculous. Although I don't think it's fair to jail people for long periods of time for simple drug possession, I certainly think society has the right to regulate and prevent drugs (and porn, and other dangerous and harmful things) from being freely traded.
In earlier times when our society was much less complex the "muh freedumz" argument might have made more sense. In those earlier, smaller, and more tight-knit communities religious belief and a shared existence were pervasive. In that kind of environment local restriction and enforcement in the absence of government regulation is realistic. Those days are long gone. In our large-scale society mechanisms like social shaming or local gatekeeping of people in and out of towns which would have been sufficient are now for the most part infeasible. Quick mass transportation and a general loss of shame through moral degradation via the mass media have pretty much killed those options in all but the smallest and remotest villages.
This is true, but it is more an argument against large-scale global society and modern industrial technology than it is against drug legalization.
As for marijuana I’m against legalized recreational use...
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on alcohol prohibition in the US during the 1920s?

I'm not saying alcohol is the same as pot. There are many good arguments for why pot is more harmful than alcohol. They are two totally different drugs.

But I'm just curious as to your opinion on whether or not alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a legitimate and righteous way to deal with the very real problem of alcoholism and drunkenness.
In sum, I think legalizing drugs such as these would be a colossal mistake even worse than that of legalized porn or no-fault divorce.
I disagree.

Drugs can at least theoretically be used without being harmful. And some drugs (e.g. pot and alcohol) are not always bad. Pornography and divorce are always automatically evil.
We’ve already seen a great amount of societal degradation from the widespread of commercial psychiatric drugs, so I find it difficult to imagine that psychedelics would be any better. I think it also reveals a problem with our concept of “separation of church and state.” We know from legalized marijuana that it is cash cow of tax revenue for local and state governments. It is deeply immoral for a government to fund itself through highly destructive addictions. Morality ultimately derives from God, and when those constraints are removed from government then the civil authorities, as we have seen, will have no problems taking advantage of immorality for their own ends. Psychedelics would be no different. All of this also reveals a fundamental flaw in laissez-faire capitalism, which is that people will pursue profits and share price increases without regard for the effect it has on society and individuals.
Agreed.
...
There is also the retribution factor--if somebody takes some action that is damaging to society then there has to be some kind of penalty. People call it a victimless crime because doing something like smoking crack isn't a direct aggression against another person, but that kind of thinking ignores the fact that society is the victim.
You don't think that someone having their life ruined because of drugs is retribution enough?

Being unable to hold a good job until they get clean is not retribution enough? They also need to be prevented from getting a good job after they get clean (due to lifelong criminal record)?

I am not a libertarian who believes everyone should have the freedom to do all the drugs they want. I do not think convenience stores and pharmacies should be able to sell heroin and cocaine over-the-counter. That would be a disaster.

But I also think it's unjust to put young people in jail for years and ruin their lives with criminal records just for behavior that is self-destructive (as opposed to violent).

It also doesn't stop people from using and selling drugs. If you really want to stop drug use, then you're got to fo full Southeast Asia style and give out mandatory 20-year jail sentences for anyone who smokes a joint and mandatory execution for anyone who sells drugs. But I think most of us would agree that that approach is not something we would want in the West.
 
Last edited:

BlastbeatCasanova

Kingfisher
Prohibition is an absolute joke. Middle schoolers these days can get booze, weed, and party drugs such as MDMA. Make everything legal, end the cartel strongholds, have real-talk drug education in schools, tax the shit out of it, and let nature take its course.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Prohibition is an absolute joke. Middle schoolers these days can get booze, weed, and party drugs such as MDMA. Make everything legal, end the cartel strongholds, have real-talk drug education in schools, tax the shit out of it, and let nature take its course.
You would be OK with heroin and meth being sold at gas stations and convenience stores?

If not, would you only allow certain establishments (such as pharmacies) to sell them? Would you require people to get a prescription? And what would be the penalty for violating these laws (i.e. for making an unauthorized drug sale)? Fines? Jail time?

"Real-talk drug education" sounds a lot like "real-talk sex education" to me. If schools are teaching kids to contracept, masturbate, etc., I don't see how they'd be trustworthy when it comes to drug education.
 
As someone who has had (and has openly discussed on the forum) substance abuse issues, here is my take:

As far as I know, the spike in opioid deaths is actually due to legal prescription opioids becoming harder to obtain, not easier.

Around 2010 or so (possibly earlier), many US states began cracking down on "doctor shopping" (i.e. addicts who go from doctor to doctor looking for prescriptions), and made it harder overall for doctors to prescribe opioid painkillers (even to patients who actually needed it for pain).

Because prescriptions were now harder to obtain, addicts then turned to heroin and other street opioids, which are far more dangerous because you don't really know what you're getting.

By this logic, we should put men in jail for being porn addicts, video game addicts, or just simply for being lazy and choosing to live with their parents past 25 instead of getting a job.

Having a criminal record also makes it way, way harder to get a job, which makes long-term addiction more likely.

Simple possession (not sale) of ANY AMOUNT of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or meth, is a felony in most US states. I know a guy who is a felon. He is not able to get regular jobs (even menial ones).

I would not say this is accurate in all cases. Psychedelic drug experiences are highly subjective and differ greatly from person to person. For some people it brings demons and makes them go crazy, while others claim it brings them closer to God.

On the other hand, addictive drugs (such as opiates, meth, cocaine, and Xanax), in my opinion, are universally bad when used recreationally.

The first libertarian argument is not nonsense. Yes, there will always be gangs and organized crime. They aren't just going to disappear. But legalizing drugs would take away a large portion of their business and source of revenue.

One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the 1933 was because it was making organized crime gangs and criminals like Al Capone rich.

The second argument "muh freedoms," I have to admit, is quite ridiculous. Although I don't think it's fair to jail people for long periods of time for simple drug possession, I certainly think society has the right to regulate and prevent drugs (and porn, and other dangerous and harmful things) from being freely traded.

This is true, but it is more an argument against large-scale global society and modern industrial technology than it is against drug legalization.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on alcohol prohibition in the US during the 1920s?

I'm not saying alcohol is the same as pot. There are many good arguments for why pot is more harmful than alcohol. They are two totally different drugs.

But I'm just curious as to your opinion on whether or not alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a legitimate and righteous way to deal with the very real problem of alcoholism and drunkenness.

I disagree.

Drugs can at least theoretically be used without being harmful. And some drugs (e.g. pot and alcohol) are not always bad. Pornography and divorce are always automatically evil.

Agreed.

You don't think that someone having their life ruined because of drugs is retribution enough?

Being unable to hold a good job until they get clean is not retribution enough? They also need to be prevented from getting a good job after they get clean (due to lifelong criminal record)?

I am not a libertarian who believes everyone should have the freedom to do all the drugs they want. I do not think convenience stores and pharmacies should be able to sell heroin and cocaine over-the-counter. That would be a disaster.

But I also think it's unjust to put young people in jail for years and ruin their lives with criminal records just for behavior that is self-destructive (as opposed to violent).

It also doesn't stop people from using and selling drugs. If you really want to stop drug use, then you're got to fo full Southeast Asia style and give out mandatory 20-year jail sentences for anyone who smokes a joint and mandatory execution for anyone who sells drugs. But I think most of us would agree that that approach is not something we would want in the West.
As far as I know, the spike in opioid deaths is actually due to legal prescription opioids becoming harder to obtain, not easier.
I guess it depends on what the ultimate cause is—people going for street drugs because their prescribed drug supply runs still has an ultimate cause in that addiction being created by the prescribed ones.

By this logic, we should put men in jail for being porn addicts, video game addicts, or just simply for being lazy and choosing to live with their parents past 25 instead of getting a job.
No. Porn, video games, and laziness are damaging to society but not to the extent that drugs are. Those things don’t kill people. I don’t think porn should be legal but jail for possession would be over the top.

Having a criminal record also makes it way, way harder to get a job, which makes long-term addiction more likely.
Yes. In my reply to godfather dust I said that Portugal’s mandatory treatment is a good approach.

For some people it brings demons and makes them go crazy, while others claim it brings them closer to God.
Yes, YMMV. I still don’t think its worth the risk of having psychedelic drugs being easily available.

But legalizing drugs would take away a large portion of their business and source of revenue.
As I said before they’ll simply replace that revenue stream with another one so in the end they probably won’t be seriously financially impacted. I’m sure you’ve heard about Mexican drug cartels getting into the avocado cartel business. They're also big into human smuggling.

This is true, but it is more an argument against large-scale global society and modern industrial technology than it is against drug legalization.
I think those go hand-in-hand.

But I'm just curious as to your opinion on whether or not alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a legitimate and righteous way to deal with the very real problem of alcoholism and drunkenness.
No, I don’t think Prohibition was a good idea when it came to alcohol. Like you said they’re two totally different drugs. I think enforcement needs to fit the target of enforcement, and in the case of alcohol that didn’t fit. I think that when it comes to cocaine, meth, etc. prohibition does fit.

Drugs can at least theoretically be used without being harmful.
In theory maybe, but not in practice for the vast majority of people.

You don't think that someone having their life ruined because of drugs is retribution enough?
For possession of small amounts I don’t think that’s appropriate. Mandatory treatment is the way to go.

They also need to be prevented from getting a good job after they get clean (due to lifelong criminal record)?
The reporting of criminal convictions as it relates to hiring depends on a lot of factors. According to federal law criminal convictions can be reported indefinitely, and arrests with no conviction for 7 years, but many states have more stringent regulations on how far back those can be reported. As a practical matter most background screening agencies don’t report arrests related to dismissed cases at all and don’t report convictions back more than 7 years (with some exceptions); this is because they want to obtain clients on a nationwide basis instead of just regionally, so they go with a seven year time frame because that is a pretty common standard. I don’t claim to be an expert in this, but I do have some practical experience in this since I did work in the background screening industry for several years.

It also doesn't stop people from using and selling drugs.
Not 100% of the time. No law prevents 100% of all illegal behavior 100% of the time, but that’s not a good reason to simply get rid of the law.
 

ABeast

Robin
Whenever the State tries to ban a drug it always ends-up just making the problem worse. People used to do heroin, now they do the infinitely more dangerous phetanyl. People used to snort cocaine, now they smoke crack. People used to smoke weed, now they are all strung out on synthetic canabanoids. The only way to make prohibition work is to have insanely brutal penalties which are not morally defensible. You can solve any problem with the whip, but then you have a worse problem on your hands.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
@Diocletian, can you go into more detail as to why you think prohibition "doesn't fit" alcohol but "does fit" all other drugs? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I'm just wondering why you see alcohol as being unique in not requiring prohibition.
No. Porn, video games, and laziness are damaging to society but not to the extent that drugs are. Those things don’t kill people. I don’t think porn should be legal but jail for possession would be over the top.
So whether or not something causes death is now the ultimate standard regarding the morality of that thing?

Cars and guns kill tons of people each year. Child transgenderism kills far fewer people (and these deaths are the result of suicide later in life, so you can argue that transgenderism did not cause their death). Does that mean cars and guns are more evil than child transgenderism?

-------

The "ultimate cause" of addiction is not the prescription drugs or street drugs. The ultimate cause is that the addict has pre-existing spiritual and emotional problems.

If you were to force a strong, spiritually sound-of-mind person to take opioids, he would not become an addict. He might suffer physical withdrawal for a week or two when quitting, but that would be all.

To use an extreme example, if Jesus Christ were alive today and were forcefully injected with opioids, I guarantee you He would not become an addict, because He is sinless and perfect, and therefore He has no underlying spiritual and emotional issues that would cause Him to become addicted.

There is a reason why, when Vietnam War troops became addicted to opiates while overseas, the vast majority did not remain addicts upon returning home after the war (as opposed to your garden-variety street addicts, most of whom do remain addicts long term). This is because soldiers, on average, are mentally and spiritually stronger than regular street addicts and junkies.

This is coming from someone (me) who was not spiritually strong and, in the past, did develop substance abuse issues. So I am not being judgmental or looking down on anyone. I'm actually speaking from personal experience.

---

Mandatory treatment will never work because secular public drug treatment programs (at least in America) are bullsh*t. The vast majority of people there are only doing it because their family or the court is forcing them to. Furthermore, all the focus is on how bad the drugs are, and there is very little focus on spiritually getting other aspects of your life in order (like cutting out other vices from your life). Lastly, secular treatment will never work because God is not a part of it.

Alcoholics Anonymous does encourage belief in a higher power, but it will still never work if people are being court-mandated to attend. The court-mandated members will not take it seriously, and they will end up ruining it for everyone who actually wants to be there.

---

Regarding criminal records, they stay on your record forever.

When I spoke to a military recruiter several years back, I was rejected because I have two misdemeanors on my record for drug possession, which I received when I was younger and engaging in stupid behavior. But get this, I was told that even if I did not have those misdemeanor convictions, I would still have been rejected simply based on the fact that I had multiple arrests (even if the cases were dismissed).

If you get arrested, military recruiters consider you guilty unless you were acquitted at trial. If you agree to do a few hours of community service, or you agree to go to treatment, in exchange for the case being dismissed, they still consider you guilty.

Maybe this makes sense, as the military has to be very careful in who they allow to join (at least theoretically; these days they are allowing trannies to serve, but that's a separate discussion). But it does kind of make you into a second-class citizen for the rest of your life.

I believe there are also laws taking away your second amendment rights if you've ever had a drug problem. This one is harder to prove, but technically, if you've ever had a substance abuse problem (even if never arrested), you are breaking the law if you ever own a gun.

And regular jobs perform background checks too. I have not yet graduated college, so I've never applied for a professional job. I don't know if my record will be an issue. At certain companies, it very well might. And if I had a felony, forget about it. Like I said, I know a guy who has a felony record, and he will never be able to get a good job (unless he personally knows the boss or something).
 

Johnny Rico

Woodpecker
The reality is drug smuggling is a CIA/Cartel business. The cartels make money hand over foot, the CIA placates the masses on downers and hypes up their useful assholes on uppers, and the DEA makes a bust here and there and Uncle Sam gets his tax revenue.

Weed is nothing. Its far less dangerous than alcohol. Coke isn't even all that bad. Its the meth, heroin and PCP that we need to worry about. All part of the master plan for depopulation.
 

Johnny Rico

Woodpecker
Regarding criminal records, they stay on your record forever.

When I spoke to a military recruiter several years back, I was rejected because I have two misdemeanors on my record for drug possession, which I received when I was younger and engaging in stupid behavior. But get this, I was told that even if I did not have those misdemeanor convictions, I would still have been rejected simply based on the fact that I had multiple arrests (even if the cases were dismissed).

If you get arrested, military recruiters consider you guilty unless you were acquitted at trial. If you agree to do a few hours of community service, or you agree to go to treatment, in exchange for the case being dismissed, they still consider you guilty.

Maybe this makes sense, as the military has to be very careful in who they allow to join (at least theoretically; these days they are allowing trannies to serve, but that's a separate discussion). But it does kind of make you into a second-class citizen for the rest of your life.

I believe there are also laws taking away your second amendment rights if you've ever had a drug problem. This one is harder to prove, but technically, if you've ever had a substance abuse problem (even if never arrested), you are breaking the law if you ever own a gun.

And regular jobs perform background checks too. I have not yet graduated college, so I've never applied for a professional job. I don't know if my record will be an issue. At certain companies, it very well might. And if I had a felony, forget about it. Like I said, I know a guy who has a felony record, and he will never be able to get a good job (unless he personally knows the boss or something).
I know an Air Force Major with misdemeanors on his record from his youth. It can be overcome. Felony? Well then you're screwed unless you make it in construction or something of the sort. But you will have an online record accessible by all for life.

It sounds like you may of applied when supply was high and demand was low. Recruiters submit waivers up to their branch's MEPs liaison and then get a response based on recruitment demands.

You sound young. Don't lose hope. I suggest reading books on how to interview and even drop a couple hundred bucks on a coach. If you own your mistakes and explain what you learned from them you can do well in an interview.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I know an Air Force Major with misdemeanors on his record from his youth. It can be overcome. Felony? Well then you're screwed unless you make it in construction or something of the sort. But you will have an online record accessible by all for life.

It sounds like you may of applied when supply was high and demand was low. Recruiters submit waivers up to their branch's MEPs liaison and then get a response based on recruitment demands.

You sound young. Don't lose hope. I suggest reading books on how to interview and even drop a couple hundred bucks on a coach. If you own your mistakes and explain what you learned from them you can do well in an interview.
Luckily, I don't have a felony record.

I appreciate the encouragement. I'm 28 now, though, so not as young as you might have thought.

The Navy recruiter I spoke to when I was 25 told me that a waiver would have been possible if it was just the two misdemeanors, but the fact that I had multiple other arrests (for which charges were dropped in exchange for a day of community service) meant he could not accept me.

All these arrests were for drug possession for very small quantities. Never any drug sales or violent offenses or anything like that.

At my age, and with all the other things I'm dealing with in my life at this time, I will probably just have to accept that military service is not for me. And that is fine. It simply wasn't God's plan for me. I was telling the story to make a point, which is that even a few non-violent drug-related mistakes while young can have lifelong consequences.

Like I said, if I can't be in the military, that's fine. But if I end up being barred from owning firearms for self-defense, or barred from having any kind of decent job, then that's a different story.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
Weed is nothing. Its far less dangerous than alcohol.
Weed affects you spiritually (for better or worse) in ways alcohol cannot.

The effects of alcohol only last as long as you're drunk (and maybe a hangover the next day or whatever). The effects of weed, if you smoke often, can be lifelong. I'm not saying these effects are always bad, but there are many people who it does affect negatively.

Two of my best friends from high school, one is now literally crazy (last I heard, he believes he is God and distrusts everyone else), and the other one is a fat alcoholic slob who, at 27, works menial jobs and dates sluts. To be fair, the one who went crazy was also messing with other psychedelics such as acid and PCP, but still. Weed can be very bad for certain people.
 

Johnny Rico

Woodpecker
Luckily, I don't have a felony record.

I appreciate the encouragement. I'm 28 now, though, so not as young as you might have thought.

The Navy recruiter I spoke to when I was 25 told me that a waiver would have been possible if it was just the two misdemeanors, but the fact that I had multiple other arrests (for which charges were dropped in exchange for a day of community service) meant he could not accept me.

All these arrests were for drug possession for very small quantities. Never any drug sales or violent offenses or anything like that.

At my age, and with all the other things I'm dealing with in my life at this time, I will probably just have to accept that military service is not for me. And that is fine. It simply wasn't God's plan for me. I was telling the story to make a point, which is that even a few non-violent drug-related mistakes while young can have lifelong consequences.

Like I said, if I can't be in the military, that's fine. But if I end up being barred from owning firearms for self-defense, or barred from having any kind of decent job, then that's a different story.
Sounds like you'd have a chance with the Army or Army National Guard. The Navy and Air Force won't want anything to do with you if a waiver is needed. Coast Guard - forget about it they only take you if you're perfect. Give your local Army recruiter a call they're looking for people and have leg room.
 
@Diocletian, can you go into more detail as to why you think prohibition "doesn't fit" alcohol but "does fit" all other drugs? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I'm just wondering why you see alcohol as being unique in not requiring prohibition.

So whether or not something causes death is now the ultimate standard regarding the morality of that thing?

Cars and guns kill tons of people each year. Child transgenderism kills far fewer people (and these deaths are the result of suicide later in life, so you can argue that transgenderism did not cause their death). Does that mean cars and guns are more evil than child transgenderism?

-------

The "ultimate cause" of addiction is not the prescription drugs or street drugs. The ultimate cause is that the addict has pre-existing spiritual and emotional problems.

If you were to force a strong, spiritually sound-of-mind person to take opioids, he would not become an addict. He might suffer physical withdrawal for a week or two when quitting, but that would be all.

To use an extreme example, if Jesus Christ were alive today and were forcefully injected with opioids, I guarantee you He would not become an addict, because He is sinless and perfect, and therefore He has no underlying spiritual and emotional issues that would cause Him to become addicted.

There is a reason why, when Vietnam War troops became addicted to opiates while overseas, the vast majority did not remain addicts upon returning home after the war (as opposed to your garden-variety street addicts, most of whom do remain addicts long term). This is because soldiers, on average, are mentally and spiritually stronger than regular street addicts and junkies.

This is coming from someone (me) who was not spiritually strong and, in the past, did develop substance abuse issues. So I am not being judgmental or looking down on anyone. I'm actually speaking from personal experience.

---

Mandatory treatment will never work because secular public drug treatment programs (at least in America) are bullsh*t. The vast majority of people there are only doing it because their family or the court is forcing them to. Furthermore, all the focus is on how bad the drugs are, and there is very little focus on spiritually getting other aspects of your life in order (like cutting out other vices from your life). Lastly, secular treatment will never work because God is not a part of it.

Alcoholics Anonymous does encourage belief in a higher power, but it will still never work if people are being court-mandated to attend. The court-mandated members will not take it seriously, and they will end up ruining it for everyone who actually wants to be there.

---

Regarding criminal records, they stay on your record forever.

When I spoke to a military recruiter several years back, I was rejected because I have two misdemeanors on my record for drug possession, which I received when I was younger and engaging in stupid behavior. But get this, I was told that even if I did not have those misdemeanor convictions, I would still have been rejected simply based on the fact that I had multiple arrests (even if the cases were dismissed).

If you get arrested, military recruiters consider you guilty unless you were acquitted at trial. If you agree to do a few hours of community service, or you agree to go to treatment, in exchange for the case being dismissed, they still consider you guilty.

Maybe this makes sense, as the military has to be very careful in who they allow to join (at least theoretically; these days they are allowing trannies to serve, but that's a separate discussion). But it does kind of make you into a second-class citizen for the rest of your life.

I believe there are also laws taking away your second amendment rights if you've ever had a drug problem. This one is harder to prove, but technically, if you've ever had a substance abuse problem (even if never arrested), you are breaking the law if you ever own a gun.

And regular jobs perform background checks too. I have not yet graduated college, so I've never applied for a professional job. I don't know if my record will be an issue. At certain companies, it very well might. And if I had a felony, forget about it. Like I said, I know a guy who has a felony record, and he will never be able to get a good job (unless he personally knows the boss or something).
The vast majority of people can use a moderate amount of alcohol with no addiction problems.

So whether or not something causes death is now the ultimate standard regarding the morality of that thing?
No.

Regarding criminal records, they stay on your record forever.
I'm referring to what companies actually see when they run your background check. With a few exceptions they don't see your entire criminal record, just what can be legally reported by the agency running your check and also whatever is determined by their contract with that company. My experience is solely with non-government requests, so I can't comment on what happens with the military or agencies like the CIA or FBI.

I believe there are also laws taking away your second amendment rights if you've ever had a drug problem. This one is harder to prove, but technically, if you've ever had a substance abuse problem (even if never arrested), you are breaking the law if you ever own a gun.
The ATF firearms transaction form asks questions about drug usage and criminal record, but doesn't specifically say if you've ever had a drug problem, it asks "are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

And regular jobs perform background checks too. I have not yet graduated college, so I've never applied for a professional job. I don't know if my record will be an issue. At certain companies, it very well might. And if I had a felony, forget about it. Like I said, I know a guy who has a felony record, and he will never be able to get a good job (unless he personally knows the boss or something).
Look, if you want to you can PM me and I can tell you about what a company might or might not see. As to what a hiring manager might consider an "issue" is only something that specific person can answer, but if they don't even see it then obviously it wouldn't be one. Keep in mind that any company of any kind (at least in the US) is required by law to disclose the name and contact info of the agency running the check, and that agency is required to provide you a free copy of the results. You can see exactly what your prospective employer sees.
 
I know an Air Force Major with misdemeanors on his record from his youth. It can be overcome. Felony? Well then you're screwed unless you make it in construction or something of the sort. But you will have an online record accessible by all for life.

It sounds like you may of applied when supply was high and demand was low. Recruiters submit waivers up to their branch's MEPs liaison and then get a response based on recruitment demands.

You sound young. Don't lose hope. I suggest reading books on how to interview and even drop a couple hundred bucks on a coach. If you own your mistakes and explain what you learned from them you can do well in an interview.
No, not really. Only some states and counties make criminal court records available freely online, but when they do that usually includes both felonies and misdemeanors. You can't just plug "Johnny Rico" into google and see the record. Even then, for online criminal records you usually need more than just a name to locate a specific record. Its not as easy for people to find this stuff as some think it is.
 
Top