• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Weydon
  April 23
  Edit | Reply
  http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
  
  His message and practices are actually pretty clear, as are all of the candidates. A popular criticism of Obama is that he's "all talk" and yet you can't name anything specific about his policies. But if you turn the tables on the criticizer, and ask for the specifics on their favored candidate, they freeze up and stutter out their stances on health care and the war--something well known on all of the candidates. Most news programs only have so much airtime, and depend on ratings. Most people find actual politics boring. So all you get is the very popular issues, nice soundbites, and controversies over what someone wore when.
• 
  petethemeat
  April 24
  Edit | Reply
  I disagree in regards to his political transparency. His opinions are pretty clear which is nice, yet his policies in many issues are not. From the information you gave me I was able to discern a rather typically illiberal economic policy, which seems not to recognise China and globalisation as beneficial (which is wrong).As well as a wishy-washy list of other policy issues that try to appeal to everyone. What was only totally apparent is that he wishes the end of the Iraq War.
• 
  Weydon
  April 24
  Edit | Reply
  Actually I do see your point. But sadly wishy-washy is the liberal's best chance at making progress. For instance, he says nice things about gays and gay marriage, but makes little to no movements for it to be legalized. He's not making it his main issue, because there are other things out there he would deem imperative to get done and which he couldn't get done under a platform that completely advocating gays. Tragic, really, but it's the way grand scale politics work.
  
  Another good example would be his openness to taking drugs when he was younger--but then saying his mistakes are an experience he can use to guide youngsters away from it. Yes, this can be true, but really I can't imagine anyone who actually had a stint of marijuana use would grow into someone that found it a horrifying path of destruction. But if he were running with a "Legalize it!" ticket? He wouldn't be able to get anything done, because he wouldn't be elected. He does, however, advocate less harsh punishments on drug dealers and possession, which in my country is outrageous--selling 15 tablets of Ecstasy was the same class of felony as raping a woman at knifepoint.
  
  Sadly, the "small stuff" that could never win him an election of this scale, get's downplayed to little action or merely encouraging words. But I still see it as a step in the right direction. He does, however, have clearer motivations on larger scale issues such as ending the war, a reasonable solution to our health care problems, and a complete willingness and eagerness for diplomacy across the globe about anything from wartime conflicts to human rights--something the PRESIDENT should be focusing on, rather than many state laws.
• 
  petethemeat
  April 25
  Edit | Reply
  Your point is well made and I agree with you in most issues. I may have been guilty of being overly idealistic myself actually, as while I still believe his policies are unclear, few candidates even world wide offer much clarity in regards to hard policy, rather than general opinion.
  
  I was pleased to hear about his opinions regarding gay marriage and drugs, both of which need to be rectified as soon as possible. I understand that you and I do not agree on the same course of action for drug policy, yet at least we are on the same page. To punish someo0ne as severely for the dealing of ecstasy tablets as rape is not only horribly injust, it is demeaning and insulting to those who have been raped.
  
  I know of people who have bought or sold drugs in those quantities, not bad people and just wanted a fun night. To tell a rape victim that they are just as evil as the perpetrator of rape is abhorrent, and simply wrong.
  
  For years now drug policy has seemed very clear to me, the law is there to help people it seems. 99% of drug users and dealers do not want any involvement at all with the law, and the 1% that do desire treatment not jail time. The government is intruding on a private activity not deemed 'wholesome' by the majority, and the minority who do use want to be left alone.
• 
  Weydon
  April 25
  Edit | Reply
  I know, it really is terrible. I do see your points on the whole thing really, but I don't think I will ever be for the complete legalization of harder drugs. Perhaps my experiences have blinded me to clearer logic on the whole thing, or perhaps they have allowed me to understand subtle truths that would be hard to explain in words. Either way, decriminalizing all drugs is something I doubt I'll ever be backing.
  
  Curious, how does this stance fall into the realm of prescription medicines? I know sometimes if I need only 5 pills of very basic antibiotics it's annoying that I need a prescription, but I can see the dangers of people self-medicating themselves with other drugs. Maybe you want to putz around with anything from Vicadin to Viagra, but there are a lot of side effects with different prescription drugs and they could prove lethal to people who have certain problems they didn't know about. I assume this falls under the idea that you SHOULD see a doctor to see if it's healthy for you, but you can do whatever you like?
• 
  petethemeat
  April 25
  Edit | Reply
  Unfortunately many drugs do carry contraindications making their use far more risky, possibly lethal but legal regulation and education ensures that people know what they are getting and whether they are at risk.
  
  I am not totally sure what you are asking me Weydon...
• 
  Weydon
  April 26
  Edit | Reply
  Well if we legalize all drugs and you can buy and use however much of anything you like. The idea is that it's your own body so go nuts, it's yours to do what you like. You want to get high nonstop, get high nonstop, you're not hurting anybody.
  
  But this is not the attitude of people medicating themselves. They are not trying to get a fix, they are trying to cure an ailment or alleviate pain. They can still go to a doctor and ask his recomendation, and they can still get educated on how much of what they should take and what the risks are. But all over the counter drugs are "abused" not for highs, but for help. Drug companies know this and tend to give themselves a margin of safety in the warning labels. You "can't" take more than 8 Tylenol in 24 hours. I certainly have on multiple occasions. People take Nyquil for sleep sometimes. These things aren't SO dangerous, we can abuse over the counter drugs a little with few hazardous side effects. But the more dangerous drugs or antibiotics, our "Well, it says I SHOULDN'T, but I'm sure I'll be fine..." thought processes can become a great a danger. I think it's important that certain medications only be prescribed and hard to come by otherwise.
• 
  petethemeat
  April 26
  Edit | Reply
  Thing is Weydon, people can currently go 'nuts' with illegal drugs anyway. In England it would be easier for a 14 year old to score cannabis than to buy alcohol.
  
  Also as I am sure you are aware, few people see drugs as an all encompassing aspect of their lives that they constantly want to be under. Some drugs are more addictive than others- Heroin, Cocaine, alcogho, and tobacco etc yet non-addictive magic musrooms for instance are placed in the same legal category as the hardest.
  
  It is actually far more critical that antibiotics be controlled than ecstasy for example, as ecstasy is recreational and relatively low risk, while rampant uneeded antibiotic use seriously weakens the pool of antibiotics working by ensuring that bacteria all become resistant, endangering others.
• 
  Weydon
  April 27
  Edit | Reply
  "It is actually far more critical that antibiotics be controlled than ecstasy for example, as ecstasy is recreational and relatively low risk, while rampant uneeded antibiotic use seriously weakens the pool of antibiotics working by ensuring that bacteria all become resistant, endangering others."
  
  So what is your stance? All drugs, including medical, are legal without regulation for adults--except for ones that weaken the effect of the drug on a disease?
• 
  petethemeat
  April 28
  Edit | Reply
  Actually I believe that drugs are far more regulated under the system I put forth than they currently are, but anyway.
  
  This is pretty much a summary of what I advocate;
  
  Legal production of all recreational drugs, other than crack or methamphetamine which may be produced by the user but evidence shows that these super potent drugs are used more as an alternative rather than a first choice.
  
  Many recreational drugs being available at specialised drug stores, including Cannabis, MDMA, Cocaine (powder), Amphetamine and common psychedelics such as Mushrooms and LSD. ID required for purchase.
  
  Heroin prescriptions for those addicted and desire them, free and prescribed on site. If evidence is shown of other drugs needing maintenance in such manner then I will extend this idea.
  
  Drugs such as antibiotics unavailable legally without prescription, similar to how things are now.
  
  Drugs being seen as a public health issue rather than the legal quirk that is prohibition
• 
  Weydon
  April 28
  Edit | Reply
  Ok, most of that makes some sense to me. One of the remaining questions aside from my vehement stance against the heroin system is funding. There are many homeless and starving people, but we have free heroin depots? What if someone is poor and starving, and figures doping himself up on free drugs is better than being miserable, and takes as much heroin as they'll give him everyday--but continues to starve. We just watch this person die? Soup kitchens are overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded, but heroin kitchens will be moderately populated with plenty of funds to keep everything going fluidly?
• 
  petethemeat
  April 29
  Edit | Reply
  To address the first point made, I have sent you many different, reliable sources indicating that Heroin prescription is less of a financial burden than the current system
  
  The second point about the homeless is somewhat more difficult to address, yet I will attempt to use economics as a way of explaining my reasoning.
  
  Homeless person recieves a miserly income from the state. This he spends on two things, frivolous things such as drugs or things needed to survive. You must have heard poeple saying, 'don't give money to him he will spend it on drugs' well now he does not have to. The money he recieves from begging/welfare can now be spent on food rather than all going to support a drug habit.
  
  It is also far less likely that he will end up homeless in the first place, as drugs under the current system often facilitate economic decline. Possession of drugs can make you lose a job, or consume all your resources if addicted. A person receiving free drugs in order to keep them 'regular' no longer suffers from legal persecution, inflated prices and dodgy stock. He is also no longer funding the black market and the violence associated with it.
  
  It is futile to 'hate' Heroin, all it is is an inert substance that produces a number of pain relieving and euphoric effects. It is legitimately used as medicine all over the world. It is through the mismanagement of it that it becomes dangerous, and history shows that it was not nearly as dangerous and widespread as it became during prohibition.
• 
  petethemeat
  April 29
  Edit | Reply
  It is typical when people see two problems that they despair if the smaller of the problems is looked at first, yet if an improvement is made without negatively affecting the other problem then progress has occurred.
  
  People should not automatically drop what they are doing to combat the biggest percieved problem. In my view allieviating poverty is much more urgent and necessary than homosexual rights, yet I would not grudge progress made in that issue, because it does not come at the expense of the issue of poverty.
• 
  Weydon
  April 29
  Edit | Reply
  Those are actually fair points, but I'm still uneasy. Perhaps and stubbornness and fear of change, but a large part of me cannot help but feel it is an idealistic dream built on very sturdy theories that would never work. Not to sound condescending mind you--these are very smart notions I never would have even thought of. But so was Socialism on paper.
  
  I am not against the medical use of heroin.
• 
  petethemeat
  April 29
  Edit | Reply
  What I advocate is not the step in the dark it would seem to be. What was a step in the dark was blanket and total prohibition that is seen to have failed with alcohol, but somehow the logic did not extend to drugs even though it is the same premise.
  
  The world saw thousands of years without prohibition, then it was introduced, and drug use rose the fastest time in history (even taking into account population growth)
• 
  Weydon
  April 30
  Edit | Reply
  Agreed, though I favor alcohol over most other drugs. You seem to know a lot on the subject, how similar is your system to more liberal nations today? I know a handful of countries have largely decriminalized soft drugs, but was under the impression most still see harder drugs as a danger.
• 
  petethemeat
  May 1
  Edit | Reply
  Yes a handful of countries have decriminalised a number of drugs, examples being Spain and the Netherlands.
  
  My country is relatively ok but like many others requires a paradigmatic shift in regards to drug policy. We are squabbling other minute changes of policy such as the classification of cannabis (currently the norm is to not arrest those who possess it) and its fairly recent dowgrading sometimes being seen as the cause of all ills.
  
  What many do not realise is that, these changes make negligible difference. People who are prepared to break the law to obtain drugs are prepared to do so where penalties are high (the USA) or where they are low (UK to an extent). Cannabis use has actually decreased here since the laws were partially relaxed yet still many people see this as a huge mistake.
  
  While politicians are always likely to drag their heels in regards to drugs, and many people equate legalisation to be mandatory heroin for 5 year olds, I believe the world is learning. 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in my country. 30 years ago if you tolerated homosexuals but argued that they should not be able to adopt children you would be known as a radical progressive, now that is a very conservative position in my ocuntry.
  
  I see a similar pattern with drugs, and I believe the rate of change with the world will accelerate, helped by such mediums as the internet.
• 
  Weydon
  May 2
  Edit | Reply
  I agree the world is generally learning and progressing, but not all change is progress. Your arguments make a lot of sense, but I cannot condone the legalization of hard drugs like heroin. I will "drag my heels" on that matter, but if it does come to pass I won't fault all problems to that matter. I will admit that it is working and not causing harm if that is the case. But I am not ready to okay such a test.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Kazrith
  April 23
  Edit | Reply
  someone not liking the prospect of a female presisent?
• 
  petethemeat
  April 24
  Edit | Reply
  Every single one of those pictures was weak, the US health system does need reform, I suggest emulating the keyhole economic intitutions of Singapore and others as the system in which to operate the US health system, which is currently massively expensive and offers poor levels of coverage.
• 
  Energizer Bunny
  April 24
  Edit | Reply
  Actually Kaz I think a female president would be good for the country, as long as it was not her. I know all politicians are corrupt to a certain point but I really believe she is off the scale. I don't think she wants to help the country in as much as she wants the status in making history for herself. I don't know why but I really believe she is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• Hardhittn63
  April 23
  Edit | Reply
  Ya but I think he is not in touch with americans policy wise, they could be bent with experience.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free