[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 65°F  
Severe Thunderstorm Watch
Sunday, May 1, 2016

County drug use history extensive

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Mike Heaton
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the third, and final, part in series of stories regarding the drug culture in Clay County.

The history of illegal "drug use" in Clay County is a long one, but officials believe the worst in the war on drugs has yet to come.

Clay County Sheriff's Department Sheriff Mike Heaton, Chief Deputy Rob Gambill and various other law enforcement agents -- who will remain unidentified because they are actively involved in drug investigations -- recently spoke with The Brazil Times about the war on drugs and the battles to come.

In the late 1990s, members of Indiana State Police discovered labs for cooking homemade methamphetamine in Indiana, while local officials admitted the discovery of a meth lab in Brazil in March 1999 opened their eyes.

"Everything changed after that," Heaton said. "As the training got better, officers became more aware of what to look for."

As a methamphetamine supply line started running through Clay County and impacting the safety of the community, the CCSD made a decision to fight back.

"It was really affecting Clay County. There were approximately 6-8 people circulating meth in the area with the help of several Clay County residents," Gambill said. "I'm grateful Sheriff Heaton was open-minded enough to not only see what was happening then, but to also see the future ramifications and support our efforts in the case."

Since the summer of 2004, the CCSD, Brazil City Police Department, ISP and various other local law enforcement agencies and federal authorities, including the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force and the Drug Enforcement Agency, have worked together during three major drug arrest/warrant sweeps and various smaller investigations that led to the arrests and subsequent federal indictments of drug dealers in the county.

The first federal drug investigation that Gambill participated in began in 2004. It was given the case name "Tequila Ice," due to the fact some of the targets in the investigation were smuggling liquid methamphetamine smuggled in tequila bottles. It led to the identification of a drug trafficking group with criminal activity in Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, Texas, Nevada, and the Country of Mexico, with numerous arrests in this case.

However, the two main targets were from Clay County and remain incarcerated in federal prison.

The department's participation in "Operation Ice Age" by the DEA in 2006, led to the dismantling of three separate drug trafficking organizations, the indictment and conviction of 64 "big fish" defendants on federal charges and the seizure of more than 40 pounds of methamphetamine.

Thus began a strange pattern of criminal behavior, where as soon as one drug pipeline -- whether it be home-cooked or from an out-of-county source -- was closed down by law enforcement, another would quickly spring up.

But the war continues as many small-time players have been arrested in the past four years.

"Sure, we brought in the minnows," one unidentified drug detective told The Brazil Times. "We have to arrest the minnows, because, if left alone, they grow up to be big fish. These are the individuals who are most likely to introduce kids to drugs, and they usually don't care. Usually when we catch one, it usually leads to another, but we are protecting children by removing them from the streets."

Heaton and Gambill agreed, saying the department's investigations have created such a hostile environment in Clay County that it has forced some of the big drug suppliers and dealers to move out of the community.

"They know it's not safe here for them," Heaton said. "In Clay County, we're going after both the big fish and the minnows. As long as there are crimes related to drug activity, our investigations won't stop."

Rob Gambill
Although criminal drug activity is prevalent in all communities, local officials believe they are working smarter in the war on drugs.

Establishing good working relationships with larger state and federal law enforcement agencies -- which have more resources at their disposal -- has helped the CCSD to investigate the manufacture, abuse and distribution of illegal drugs, along with various other ancillary crimes associated with drug abuse and sales in Clay County.

The additional help has been invaluable in creating and establishing solid criminal charges against suspects at the local, state and federal levels of the judicial system.

"We've worked so closely (with federal authorities) the past few years, there's no red tape when we call," Gambill said. "They know how we work and there is a level of trust there you just don't get from a cold call."

According to officials, the war on drugs has become more difficult because many people are not hitting the streets to purchase or manufacture drugs, while "pharming" in medicine cabinets is much closer.

The tragedy of prescription drug abuse was brought home to the community with the Fentanyl overdose of a Clay City teenager on New Year's Day.

"Prescription drug abuse is becoming more and more prevalent," Heaton said. "and more dangerous because people don't understand the dangers involved when taking or mixing prescription drugs improperly."

The United States Department of Health and Human Services recently issued disturbing information -- based from the 2001 National household Survey on Drug Abuse -- regarding misuse of prescription drugs, including:

* Of those who end up in hospital emergency rooms from drug overdoses, approximately a half-million people annually, were there because of misusing prescription drugs,

* More than 17 percent of adults over age 60, whether knowingly or not, abuse prescription drugs,

* More than 19 million prescriptions for ADHD drugs were filled in 2000, a 72 percent increase since 1995. An estimated 3-5 percent of school-age children have been diagnosed ADHD. A study of Wisconsin and Minnesota school children determined 34 percent of those age 11-18 reported being approached to sell or trade their medicines,

* During the past decade-and-a-half, the number of teen and young adults, from ages 12-25, who became new abusers of prescription painkillers such as oxycodone or hydrocodone has grown five-fold (from 400,000 in the mid-1980s to 2 million in 2000), and

* Among 12- to 17-year-olds who take prescription drugs without proper medical supervision, girls are more likely than boys to misuse psychotherapeutic drugs.

"People have to be involved in their kids' lives," Heaton said. "Drugs are not only a law enforcement problem, it's a community problem. Does that sound callous? Yes. But drugs and the criminal activity that surrounds them, affect the safety of all levels of society. The social, emotional, financial, educational and medical impact of drugs on our society is huge."

With statistics climbing, many officials believe the war on drugs should be treated like an emergency health crisis.

"Think about the way people responded to the H1N1 virus threat. They quickly moved to action," Heaton said. "People need to treat the growing crisis of drugs -- which impacts all of our daily lives -- with the same serious action."

The officers involved in the interview agreed people from all walks of life have to join forces and work together in a proactive way to fight back against the growing drug culture.

"This is still a good county, a good community with good people," Heaton said. "But that doesn't mean a drug problem doesn't exist."

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Mike Heaton, You are a prohibitionist which makes you therefore co-responsible for the more than 22,000 Mexicans murdered due to YOUR Drug War during the last 3 1/2 years alone. That mega violence is heading this way fast. Re-legalizing/regulating these street drugs is the only way to cut off the enormous flow of cash that is feeding terrorism, gangsterism and "off the scale" government corruption.

The present drug laws are making matters far worse than they would ever be under proper government regulation of these dangerous substances. Your support of drug prohibition provides the money gangs use to buy guns, and the money that the enemies of this great nation use to finance hijackings & bombings. Taking away their drug money by regulating drugs for adult use will strike a blow to crime at every level. This is none other than sound public policy.

Surely you know by now that Eliot Ness never put the bootleggers out of business. Repeal and a regulated market for alcohol did that in short order. There hasn't been a shootout over beer routes since 1933.

It's time for you to wise up, and help curtail the dangerous expansions of federal police powers, the encroachments on individual liberties, the increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the unworkable policy of drug prohibition.

Or would you prefer to still struggle with confusing the consequences of drug misuse from those of drug prohibition, while we all go to hell in a hand cart? All of the above mentioned problems, including the economic recession are here to stay until we regulate drugs, and prohibition is not regulation, it's is a hideous waking nightmare for all of us and our families.

Alcohol prohibition, was a tremendous failure due to the incredible amount of crime and disorder it created. Human nature hasn't changed since the 1930s. Then, the distribution of liquor was turned over to a whole new group of criminal entrepreneurs. Now, due to the drug war, dangerous mind altering substances are sold, unregulated, by another new criminal class. The drug war has turned most of the inner cities into civil war zones, so our intentions in prohibiting these substances may well be good, but the result of our inability to recognize the futility of such an action will just both deepen and prolong the agony caused by this useless and dangerous policy.

The future depends on whether or not enough of us are willing to take a long look at the tragic results of prohibition. If we continue to skirt the primary issue while refusing to address the root problem, then we can expect no other result than a worsening of the current dire situation. Good intentions are no match for the immutable realities of human nature.

So may we have some realism from you now on how to go about reclaiming both the streets, and the economy. Please start making an honest effort to address the root cause of the present economic mess and the high proliferation of "well funded" violent gangs --the failed regime of drug prohibition.

-- Posted by malcolmkyle on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 12:45 AM

It's ok. Officer Heaton is not alone. The vast majority of us Americans believe in prohibition of your drugs as well.

Besides, the only drug that stands any chance at all of being legalized is marijuana. If you think that legalizing it alone will do the things you claim, you are either very naive or very uneducated. My guess is that you are just simply a roach toking stoner that is grasping at straws just to get high legally.

-- Posted by olmedic on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:51 AM

malcolmkyle probably wrote that before he had his daily dose. He's all calm, now.

To associate someone with murder is a bit opprobrium, don't you think"?

(I've been waiting for years to use that word!)

Sheriff Heaton; keep doing what you're doing!

-- Posted by Dagnabbit on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 8:42 AM

If a person is familiar with our government and it's different levels, one would realize that the Clay County Sheriff has little impact on the making of law at the Federal level. That would be the duty of other elected officials, but, the duty of the sheriff is to enforce the law that are in effect.

Methinks someone is barking up the wrong tree.

Well, off to Wal-Mart before the "mega violence" reaches here. Mike and his deputies are great guys doing a great job, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time so I might need more ammo to stand a fighting chance. Meanwhile, keep enforcing the law, Mike and the rest of our law enforcement officers, you are doing a fine job!

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 11:40 AM

(looks up OPPROBRIUM and posts its meaning to save others time .. ; )

OPPROBRIUM - the disgrace or reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful. (I'd say that sums it up nicely, THOUGHTFUL! Well done!)

Totally agree with TULIE32 on the comments made against the arrest of drug dealers/drug lords - MALCOMKYLE, you look as guilty as those arrested so far.

But good job putting a target on your back as a "person of interest" to Sheriff Heaton. (golf clap)


-- Posted by Emmes on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 11:46 AM

I find it interesting how the prohibitionists in this commentary section are responding to Malcolm's thoughtful, and rather unassailable critique of our nation's drug war (read second era of prohibition within a century). The comments are not thoughtful at all. Rather they are unfounded slurs and warrantless accusations such as

- "...you are just simply a roach toking stoner that is grasping at straws just to get high legally".

- "malcolmkyle probably wrote that before he had his daily dose". (I also noticed that the author of this swimmingly ignorant statement isn't even capable of properly utilizing the English language. Generally, the first word of a sentence or paragraph you are writing needs ot be capitalized).

- "MALCOMKYLE, you look as guilty as those arrested so far." (It is interesting that in the mind of a prohibitionist, simply having a differing opinion is synonomous with being a drug trafficker. So much for the whole first amendment thingy eh?)

See, I could descend to the same level as the posters who have responded to Malcolm, and call you a bunch of rednecked hillbillies. I could convince myself that 'you people' are inbred hicks with your eyes a little bit too close together, and that is why you are unable to reason like adults. I however, choose not to descend to the same level as you people.

I will however, point out that the posters here who are responding to Malcolm are guilty of clearly attempting (and not doing a very good job of it) to spew classic drug war propaganda. That is most likely because you are all propagandized and brainwashed yourselves. It is interesting that only one poster responded to Malcolm with anything thoughtful and well put together. The rest of you people simply slur and attempt to denigrate his character with nary the slightest modicum of reason to your puckish remarks.

I'll stick with people like Malcolm. The intelligence he presents leaves you people looking like a bunch of mentally deficient teenagers with your jaws hanging open. Grow up a little bit. Maybe get some education. Then why don't you come back to the discussion when you are ready and able to behave like adults.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 1:44 PM

Oh dear Lord, it looks like malcomkyle/Daimiste suffers from dissociative identity disorder. At least he always has a friend who will defend his right to be arrogant, rude and, in many ways, asinine.

They also appear to be members of the SESQUIPEDALIAN SOCIETY! Let's all goose step our way into their mind set before they use even bigger words! GEESH!

-- Posted by Cy on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 2:37 PM


I was referring personally to malcolmkyle. He does not capitalize his nickname.

-- Posted by Dagnabbit on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 2:43 PM

So we can add Cy's comment to the list of folks who are not even making an attempt to mask their ignorance. Let the readers note that Cy's entire argument attempting to dismiss Malcolm's and my posts is

"...it looks like malcomkyle/Daimiste suffers from dissociative identity disorder."

Malcolm, myself and many, many others respond to prohibitionist 'logic' (an oxymoron if there ever was one as evidenced by the childish effluvia of the posters here), and we do it all the time. Anyone who does this with any consistency quickly finds that prohibitionists don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to thinking clearly and dispassionately. All that the prohibitionist has is name calling.....and the 'saavy' prohibitionist will make use of governmnet propaganda mill's useless data. (Useless because it is never independently peer reviewed in professional journals).

The material of the prohibitionists speaks for itself loud and clear on this page. It is empty of all substance, and is only name calling. Shame, shame.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM

Thoughtful - My mistake. I shouldn't have picked out that minor point. And besides, you were right anyway.

That changes nothing however, when it comes to your 'critique' of Malcolm's post. Let's look at your critique again shall we?

Thoughtful's entire rebuttal of Malcolm's well thougt out post is: "malcolmkyle probably wrote that before he had his daily dose."

Your 'critique' is still swimmingly ignorant in spite of my error. You should still grow up a bit, maybe get some education, and then come back to the discussion when you are ready and able to behave like an adult.

In spite of it all however, I still wish you and yours a good day 'Thoughtful'.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 PM

Daimiste & malcolmkyle-

I think you are both biting off more than you can chew with leagalizing hard-core drugs.

I'm 39 and dont use pot..did try it in high school a couple times but it just hurt my chest. My drug of choice is a few beers on a Sat watching college football, a race or kicked back on my boat. However, I have seen enough docs and articles to know that pot is pretty harmless or less dangerous when compared to alcohol and nicotene and no one is real sure if its even addictive. So I'm not at all against it being legalized even though I have no plans on ever using it. With that said..leagalizing herion? Coke? Meth?...no way. We all know that stuff is highly addictive and the dangers & abuses outweigh all benefits. Look at the laws broken by addicts trying to get their next beer, cig or joint compared to their next shot of herion, crack or meth. Apples to oranges...their is no comparison.

You'll always find yourself in a very small minority when trying to discuss legalizing drugs that are proven to be dangerous to even use in small amounts and proven to destroy thousands and 10's of thousands of lives, families and communities worldwide.

-- Posted by G-boy2008 on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 3:07 PM

I need to provdie a lesson in law. The Sheriff has no authority in legalizing anything. Some of you may not understand how lawmakers work in developing the laws that Law Enforcement (enforce means to make certain that rules are followed) oversees. We need to understand that the drug problems that this county faces are indeed a county problem. How can we attract new business to Brazil with the types of problems that we have? Some people choose not to work due to the ease of doing nothing and getting paid. I have previously mentioned drug testing before receiving assistance. The members of CCSD are doing a great job and they do not have to answer for busting worthless drug users that are polluting our communities.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 3:40 PM

I actually don't think it is even possible for an intelligent human being to believe even half of what these two are trying to spew.

In fact, I think it is probably a couple of teenagers that found some big words in the dictionary. Go ahead boys, have your fun. When you are done, go read a good book. I recommend Tom Sawyer, or anything Jack London. Sounds like you kids could use the relaxation.

-- Posted by olmedic on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 3:43 PM

G-boy - First off I would like to say that I appreciate your thoughtful/civil tone. You may very well be right that we will always be in a minority concerning the legalization of 'harder' drugs. We presently see the wall of the prohibition of cannabis dissolving. And the dissolution of that wall is increasing its pace. Once the prohibition of cannabis is over, people in this society will begin to see that their world isn't crumbling and that in all actuality is will get noticably better. (By most estimates, marijuana accountsfor 40% - 60% of cartel income).

Right now, most of the effort to change our nation's worthless, destructive, and highly dangerous drug policy is directed at ending the prohibition of cannabis. Once that is completed, we can begin working to educate the public about the evils surrounding the prohibition of other substances.

I will make no argument that the drugs you mentioned (cocaine, meth heroin) aren't dagnerous. To argue otherwise would be foolish. What I will comment on is your salient point about the crime caused by addicts working to get their next fix. Most of that crime is a function of the prohibition of those substances. Cocaine for example costs about ten dollars a gram to produce. So even if it was sold at a 100% mark up, cocaine would still only be twenty dollars a gram to purchase. Meth costs pennys a gram to produce, but costs about $100/gram under the market economics created by its prohibition. If a meth addict could go and get meth properly created in a lab instead of someone's bathtub...and could get it for a few dollars a gram...then why would a meth addict need to commit so much crime to get money to use the stuff?

The facts of the matter are these:

1) Prohibition doesnt' stop anyone from using drugs.

2) All drugs WILL continue to be distributed in your neighborhood. No amount of police work will ever stop that. If you think I am mistaken about that, you need look no further than our prison system. There have been prisoners caught dealing drugs in SUPERMAX prisons. A while back, Charles Manson was caught dealing drugs out of solitary confinement for God's sake. So unless we design a police state akin to the one in North Korea, all drugs will forever continue to be distributed in your neighborhoods.)

So we as a society have a choice. We can either choose to have exceedingly violent gangs do the distribution of these drugs. Or we can have legitimate storefront operations doing the distribution. When was the last time you heard about running gun battles in the streets over the distribution of alcohol? It was in the twenties during our nation's first failed experiment with prohibition. End this second era of prohibition and you will also see huge swaths of the crime and violence associated with hard drug use go away.

Ten years ago, almost no-one would have imagined that today, we as a society were so close to ending the great societal evil that is the prohibition of cannabis. You may be right G-Boy in your assumption that Malcolm and I will always be in a minority. I am going to keep holding out though under the assumption that you are wrong, and that the rest of the great, evil cloud of prohibition can be lifted from the collective eyes of our society.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 3:45 PM

Good work 'Olmedic'! Yet another prohibitionist with nothing substantive to offer to the conversation. As I have already mentioned though, prohibitionists don't have much else.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 3:47 PM

While you are preparing to educate us, be sure to ask the families of those who have ruined their lives if they really care if it is legal or not. Also, don't leave out those who have had property damaged by these addicts, ask them if they care whether or not it is legal.

-- Posted by JustinH on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:04 PM

Justin - Grownups in this society have every right to ruin their lives with the full blessing of the law vis-a-vis alcohol. and by the data presented by the governments own anti-drug propaganda mills, alcohol does ad-infinitum more damage to this society than all illicit and licit drugs combined. The sad truth of the matter is that people who are going to ruin their lives with drugs are going to do it regardless of whether it is illegal to do so or not. I myself know people who have overdosed on drugs and are now dead. That comment is nothing but a straw man designed to divert attention away from the real point.

Furthermore, your comment about crime does nothing other than provide clarity to my earlier post. Most of the crime associated with drug use is a function of the prohibition of these substances. When they are produced legally, with known purity and dosage, and can be purchased for ten percent of what they cost now....you will see a majority of the crime associated with drug use vanish like fart vapor in the wind. This isn't rocket science. It isn't even basic trigonomery. This is really simple math. End prohibition, end most crime associated with drug use.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:12 PM

Good video about what is being expressed here. Do not really agree nor disagree but worth a watch.


-- Posted by Indymove on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:17 PM


very good. Keep it up gambill,

-- Posted by heavy on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:29 PM

BTW - What is it with this foolishness over 'big words'? The 'biggest' words I have used are 'puckish' and 'swimmingly'. Are you guys really so impressed with that kind of a vocabulary that you felt the need to demonstrate how 'smart' you are with the impressive words a couple of you are using?

If you are seeking to impress me with your keen vocabulary, then please allow me to relieve you of this burden. I would be significantly more impressed with substantive commentary concerning the issue at hand. As the rules for the board state; Try to stay on point.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:45 PM


You are SOOO caught up in your rant, you missed the point of my post! Contrary to your post of BIG WORDS (of which I accused you two of being in the BIG WORDS CLUB...sesquipedalian is my contribution today)

I'm not an idiot.

I was pointing out that you and malcomkyle are probably the same person! It's amazing that this diatribe has never been launched on this website before, and yet we find "two people" spouting that rhetoric all over these stories. You probably aren't even from this area, yet you are on here stirring the pot of discontent with a wooden stick.

People will find a way to get what they want, whether it is considered by others to be illegal, immoral or unscrupulous.

You say end the prohibition on drugs and all our troubles will magically go away. Of course they will, no one is breaking the law anymore in your magical reality and thus no punishment can be bestowed. Got news for you, that doesn't mean the trouble ends.

BTW: Who do you suggest manage this utopian drug world in which you envision for our future? Can't be law enforcement, judicial or political powers...as you have pointed out, they are crooks!

How about religious groups? Whoops, there's that immoral thing and the possibility God might be talked about.

Big business or pharmaceutical companies...nah, they're out for the almighty dollar and there goes the idea of "a chicken in every pot and cheap drugs for everyone."

Fast food restaurants might work, but I just don't see being able to buy my meth from KFC or McDs as a selling point.

Hmm.. Guess that leaves just you, your "doppelganger" and those who think like you to run things for us, for our children.

After you're done decriminalizing drugs and emptying the jails of wrongfully jailed drug offenders, what will you want to change then?

Apparently anything goes in the utopian future.

So what will it be, decriminalization of sex crimes? How about changing domestic abuse laws? Murder? Theft? Will all these things become simple misunderstandings?

Once you start the slide into a slimy mud pit, it's pretty hard to pull yourself up! Be careful what you wish for!

-- Posted by Cy on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:47 PM

If something becomes legal, it will not be monitored as it was while it was illegal. While you can argue the slant that crimes related will stop, I will argue that a problem still exists, but it is only being ignored.

I'd say it's good bet that you won't change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours either. So I'll stop arguing while I'm still being civil.

-- Posted by JustinH on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 4:53 PM

Cy - I know Malcolm, but am not Malcolm. We are part of a network of people who go around supporting each other and working to educate a thoroughly propagandized public concerning the evils of prohibition. But believe whatever you wish about me. It doesn't change the onus of my arguments.

To answer your question about my 'utopian society': Government would regulate and control these drugs just like they do now with alcohol and tobacco for example. I find it very interesting that you prohibitionists find differing opinions on a matter to be " stirring the pot of discontent with a wooden stick." As I have already mentioned, you prohibitionists are not big fans of the idea of public discourse created by Americans publicly discussing matters. You seem to want simply to cram your ideas down the rest of our throats, and then you get upset when we respond with data to the contrary.

BTW - I never said the trouble would end with the end of prohibition. I said the trouble would be significntly mitigated. I ask again; When was the last time you heard about running gun battles in the streets over the distribution of alcohol? It was during the era of our society's first failed experiement with prohibition.

As for your comment about jails. It is a silly comment. I prefer that jails be filled with people that would hurt other people by hurting them or stealing their things. Our society has five percent of the world's population, and we have twenty five percent of the world's prisoners. Vast swaths of our prison population are there for drug offenses Since the beginning of the war on drugs, about thirty six million Americans have done hard prison time for drug related offenses. Only about ten percent of those are traffickers. That means about thirty two million Americans have done hard prison time for no other reason that they are people who choose to get high.

Are you really placing sex crimes, domestic abuse laws, murder and theft on par with people who get high? Getting high on illegal drugs is a crime because Congress said it is. I would like you to tell me however, what actual crime has been committed? How has anyone else been hurt when I sit at home and use the plant and chemical compounds that I for example use? I will be a mathematics teacher soon. I am married with two children. I own a home, pay my morgage, pay my taxes, contribute to charity when I am able, take my kids to Church (even though I am not a believer myself), etc. My children are well adjusted and very happy. How has a crime been committed when I use the substances I use?

Why in the world would you equate ending our societies practice of jailing people for getting high with ceasing to jail people who abuse children for example? I have heard that argument before and it is extremely bizarre. To even have to address that point to another grownup is proof positive that your stance vis-a-vis prohibition is motivated almost entirely by your strong visceral feelings on the matter.....and not by anything substantive such as data and history.

When our nation's first era of prohibition began, alcoholism, and organized crime immediately skyrocketed. When it ended, alcoholism went back down. Organized crime remained, but a significant portion of the public violence associated with organized crime diminished as well.

The irony of the government seeking to have totalitarian control over something is that it loses all control. Give the control back to government. Legalize and regulate these substances for adult consumption and you will severely mitigate the violence and crime associated with drug use. To deny that is to put horse blinders on and simly ignore history.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM

Justin - I realize you are not going to discuss anymore and I can appreciate that. This comment however, raises an eyebrow:

"If something becomes legal, it will not be monitored as it was while it was illegal."

How is it monitered now? It isn't monitered at all. Our government has spent about a trillion dollars since the war on drugs began, and at best interdicts between ten and twenty percent of the drugs coming across the border. And all that means is that the cartels over produce by ten to twenty percent. So every last gram of drugs that the cartels want to get into our country are getting in.

Since Justin isn't going to post anymore, would another prohibitionist please explain how that is 'monitoring' anything?

-- Posted by Daimiste on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 5:22 PM

All the people wanting the DEVILS drug, should move to South America, and maybe they can get hight enough or even pass away, if that is what they want so terribly bad.

Meth is so more addicting than any other drug i have heard of,that it is scarry. I only pray that this nonsence will come to an end before anymore of our wounderful children get mixed up with it.

We want better for our children, not worse, this i would hope.

-- Posted by heavy on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 5:40 PM

As for the comments about people malcolm or Daimiste not being from around here... Who cares? I am from around here (live in Kville) and I think it's safe to say I agree with the vast majority of what they said. One problem people have is that they tend to equate drug users with very negative people or those who have wasted their lives as addicts. An brief list of celebrities busted for pot includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Ray Charles, Bill Murray, and (gasp) Mitch Daniels. Sounds like a bunch of losers to me. Lock up the whole lot of em (cept Ray) and the world will be a much better place!

-- Posted by SilentRat on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 8:06 PM

G-boy...you do realize that drinking alcoholic beverages while operating any kind of motorized vehicle/vessel is illegal and you can face heavy monetary fines, loss of driving privileges, much higher insurance rates, mandated substance abuse classes, and jail time? Operating a water craft while consuming alcohol is not only against the law it is also dangerous and irresponsible. Are your children in the boat with you when your drinking? Let me guess, after a day of swilling down your drug of choice and legal toxin while endangering the boating publics lives you then load your boat (and children) on your truck and drive (impaired) home thereby endangering the motoring publics lives.

Real nice guy, real thoughtful and courteous, not to mention responsible. When you get in a wreck (note I did not say accident as you are choosing to operate motor vehicles/vessels while impaired by alcohol) I pray you are the only one hurt.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 9:22 PM

We realistically have just two choices;

1) Continue to allow the criminals and cartels to control the manufacture, distribution, and untaxed sales of illicit drugs (even to minors) while reaping astronomical profits from the illicit drug trade and killing thousands of innocent Mexican victims every year or,

2) Legalize and regulate drugs keeping the distribution, sales, purity and known dosages under the control of the US government while putting all that money into our economy instead of sending it south of the border.

Drugs and their users are not going to go away. The choice is yours. Which will it be?

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 9:29 PM

By purchasing a US Government book that the school probably threw away and a thesarus does not make one an expert on prohibition, legalization of currently illegal drugs, and law enforcement. You have no clue as to what you are talking about in terms of what all has occurred. Do you think that it is right for parents to encourage their children (with a high percentage of success) to use? If you think that is alright, you are crazier than you type.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 11:20 PM

Electriceye wrote:

"Do you think that it is right for parents to encourage their children (with a high percentage of success) to use? If you think that is alright, you are crazier than you type."

Electric eye, I defy you to go back through mine, Malcolm's, Madmatt's, or SilentRat's posts and present us with the material that we typed which "encourages children to use". That was a dumb thing to say. It was simply a dumb, dumb....thing to say.

You get the same message that the others who keep on throwing up such magnificent straw men: Go away, learn to think, get a little bit of education (a course in logic would serve you very well), and then come on back when you are ready to talk in a serious manner with the rest of the adults.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 12:11 AM

You still lack the common sense to realize that spewing your idiocy towards this police officer is useless. Why on earth would anyone that claims to have a bit of intelligence think that a police officer has anything at all to do with creating and passing laws.

Police ONLY enforce the laws given to them. I am quite sure there are a lot of laws they do not like, but they still have to enforce them. Are you really asking Officer Heaton to ignore the law, and not arrest people for drugs?

If you truly believe in your stance, take your argument someplace that matters. Otherwise, all you are doing is trying to preach it to people who either cannot do anything about it, or could care less about your opinion.

-- Posted by olmedic on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 12:23 AM

Just as G-boy chose to become a menace to society by purposely operating a motorboat under the influence of alcohol Sheriff Heaton chose to become a drug warrior when he put on his badge. From the tone of the article it's obvious Sheriff Heaton would would fully and enthusiastically embrace Prohibition v2 even if he was working the counter at McDonald's, making him equally as guilty as the myopic law makers who who have inflicted this uncontrollable nightmare upon us. The only thing prohibition prohibits is control over the situation, the only thing it accomplishes is making a bad situation worse while making criminals fantastically wealthy and putting innocents victims in harms way.

Just out of curiosity olmedic, exactly how much less could you care about our opinion? I for one could NOT care less about yours.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 1:30 AM


You can defy all you want, at no time did I quote you saying anything to that effect. The point of the comment was to talk about the severity of the problem that we have in this county. Surely, you are not suggesting that I can't have a big people's conversation because I don't want to legalize drugs. Nothing like a good battle of wits with an unarmed man I always say.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 3:25 AM

G-boy...you do realize that drinking alcoholic beverages while operating any kind of motorized vehicle/vessel is illegal and you can face heavy monetary fines, loss of driving privileges, much higher insurance rates, mandated substance abuse classes, and jail time? Operating a water craft while consuming alcohol is not only against the law it is also dangerous and irresponsible. Are your children in the boat with you when your drinking? Let me guess, after a day of swilling down your drug of choice and legal toxin while endangering the boating publics lives you then load your boat (and children) on your truck and drive (impaired) home thereby endangering the motoring publics lives.

Real nice guy, real thoughtful and courteous, not to mention responsible. When you get in a wreck (note I did not say accident as you are choosing to operate motor vehicles/vessels while impaired by alcohol) I pray you are the only one hurt.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Mon, Jun 21, 2010, at 9:22 PM


You should ask some questions if you want before talking about me in such a negative way. I live on a private lake with a dock. I dont drive my boat intoxicated nor do I drive a motor vehicle intoxicated. I dont have too...but thanks for informing me of the dangers. I'll continue to chose not to though....

-- Posted by G-boy2008 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 8:47 AM

Consuming alcohol while operating any vehicle/vessel while drinking alcohol is illegal on public lands or PRIVATE property, period. Boozers always say they are not intoxicated, that's what the booze does to them. It leaves them incapable of making rational decisions while making them think they're superman. I noticed you didn't answer if you had your children with you while guzzling your legal toxin and intoxicant.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 9:41 AM

Olmedic - No-one is trying to convince the police officer who wrote this article. Isn't this a public forum for discussion? Man, you prohibitionists really loathe spirited public debate on an issue don't you?

Electriceye - Then why did you bring up the point of encouraging children to use? How is that salient, or poignant...at all? You guys have erected so many straw men in this thread of discussion that you are a serious fire hazard.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 10:00 AM

Olmedic - No-one is trying to convince the police officer who wrote this article. Isn't this a public forum for discussion? Man, you prohibitionists really loathe spirited public debate on an issue don't you?

Electriceye - Then why did you bring up the point of encouraging children to use? How is that salient, or poignant...at all? You guys have erected so many straw men in this thread of discussion that you are a serious fire hazard.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 10:10 AM


You watch too many movies

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 10:46 AM

Daimiste; you really should use simpler language here. These monosyllabic hillbillies get confused when you use "big" words. We need to dumb it down for the target audience.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 10:54 AM


Yes I have a teenager. Have a great day Matt....its been fun.

-- Posted by G-boy2008 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 11:19 AM

Prohibition is a sickening horror and the ocean of incompetence, corruption and human wreckage it has left in its wake is almost endless.

Prohibition has decimated generations and criminalized millions for a behavior which is entwined in human existence, and for what other purpose than to uphold the defunct and corrupt thinking of a minority of misguided, self-righteous Neo-Puritans and degenerate demagogues who wish nothing but unadulterated destruction on the rest of us.

Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.

By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus, the allure of this reliably and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.

A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.

There is therefore an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're using something far stronger than the rest of us. So put away your pipe, lock yourself away in a small room with some tinned soup and water, and try to crawl back into reality A.S.A.P.

No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, diminution of rights and liberties, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safer, only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

If you support the Kool-Aid mass suicide cult of prohibition, and erroneously believe that you can win a war without logic and practical solutions, then prepare yourself for even more death, tortured corpses, corruption, terrorism, sickness, imprisonment, economic tribulation, unemployment and the complete loss of the rule of law.

"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Abraham Lincoln

The only thing prohibition successfully does is prohibit regulation & taxation while turning even our schools and prisons into black markets for drugs. Regulation would mean the opposite!

-- Posted by malcolmkyle on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 11:28 AM

For those of you who are still living in some strange parallel universe, one where prohibition actually works, here is part of the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:

"For the first time in our history, full faith and confidence in and respect for the hitherto sacred Constitution of the United States has been weakened and impaired because this terrifying invasion of natural rights has been engrafted upon the fundamental law of our land, and experience has shown that it is being wantonly and derisively violated in every State, city, and hamlet in the country."

"It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature. It has brought into our midst the intemperate woman, the most fearsome and menacing thing for the future of our national life."

"It has brought the sickening slime of corruption, dishonor, and disgrace into every group of employees and officials in city, State, and Federal departments that have been charged with the enforcement of this odious law."



-- Posted by malcolmkyle on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 11:30 AM

Put your books away. Have an original idea or opinion.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 12:23 PM

Please don't mistake "small town" for "small intellect".

I would have no more luck attempting to sway your opinion about God/Church than you have convincing me that legalizing street drugs (of any kind) is a good idea.

My belief doesn't make me a prohibitionist anymore than yours makes you an expert.

Good luck, though, fighting the good fight. ; )

-- Posted by Emmes on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 12:39 PM

Anyone notice the comparison between drug busts going up and the number of illegal immigrants in this town?

-- Posted by Karma2 on Tue, Jun 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM

Karma, what a totally ridiculous assumption and comparison. Secondly,can you prove that they are illegal?

-- Posted by olmedic on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:03 AM

We are debating the damage done by prohibition which is by far much worse than all the damage caused by all of the illegal drugs combined.

The U.S. comprises 5 percent of the world's population yet uses 60 percent of the world's drugs. The prohibition on these drugs has been waged for 70 years and has cost $1.5 trillion.

The drug war encompasses everyone of us. The prohibited Drugs kill far less people than the drug war.

The prison system under prohibition worsens both the drug epidemic and the AIDS epidemic.

A potential tax payer is turned into a tax burden every time prison is used to enforce prohibition.

87 percent of drug users are white yet 74 percent of people sentenced for drug possession are black. Whites do most of the 'crime' but blacks do most of the time.

Teachers with a college degree start at around $32,000 annually and a university professor with a Ph.D. starts at around $47,000 annually, but prison guards with a GED or high school diploma earn $50,000 plus overtime pay annually to guard non-violent pot smokers and drug offenders.

Everything you have been told by the government about drugs is a lie; the two proven gateway drugs are already legal: alcohol and nicotine.

The only thing that has proven to reduce use and demand is legalized regulation combined with treatment and education.

-- Posted by malcolmkyle on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 4:28 AM

I keep seeing the term prohibition thrown around. I agree that Marijuana is less harmful and nonaddictive than cigarettes and alcohol, but you can't make all drugs legal. This is where you are wrong. I do believe that marijuana is beneficial to alot of people for alot of reasons, but we can't just allow everything because of this fact. Prohibition of marijuana is ignorant but lack of prohibition for coke, meth, herion and numerous prescription drugs is insane! Many prescriptions are legal, but they are being misused and abused also. Noone can control the problem as it is now and prohibition will only allow these hideous drugs to be even more readily available. We already can't stop people from drinking and driving. Do you want to be on the road with methadone, oxycontin, fentanyl freaks. Scares me to think that these people are out there driving now, imagine if they could get these things legally. Total chaos!!

-- Posted by CCmudman on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:44 AM

Well put, CCmudman.

-- Posted by Emmes on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:46 AM

You already share the road with methadone, oxycontin, fentanyl freaks. Prohibition does nothing to keep it out of peoples hands, it only empowers the cartels and gangs and makes them outrageously wealthy. Anyone who wants drugs already has total access to them.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM

Electriceye, in response to Malcolm's historical data said: "Put your books away. Have an original idea or opinion."

Isn't it interesting that the prohibitionist will encourage others to ignore lessons from history in order to defend what is clearly insane?

I think your advice to ignore lessons from history is akin to driving a car with horse blinders on. amongst other things, history provides us with lessons about what has worked and what hasn't worked in our society. When we learn from history, we don't have to be driving around in the dark. To be a prohibitionist however, is to encourage others to "put the books away", and try to re-invent the wheel.

It is a stunning example of raw, unfettered, and totally unchained ignorance.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM

Emme said: "My belief doesn't make me a prohibitionist anymore than yours makes you an expert."

Sorry, but this is academic. If you want to use the power of federal authority to prohibit things, then you are a prohibitionist. You have never thought of it that way because Nixon's public relations guy called this second failed era of prohibition within one century a 'war on drugs'. The American sheeple bought it.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:29 AM

That's my point Madmatt, these drugs are readily available and they are tearing up our society. If these drugs were 'legal' then there would be a hell of a lot more people doing them and how is that good for anyone? Keep these terribly harmful drugs out of our society or the children will believe that it's OK since they are legal. What do you think happens now with alcohol and cigarettes. They are starting these at an early age and that is a trend that we don't need with prescription medicine and self manufactured drugs.

Prohibition does crub drug usage because if it's not legal and readily available, then only a few will go to the trouble of aquiring them. If they made everything legal, then more child deaths from drug overdose would occur, more families would be torn apart by these drugs and there would still be thieves and would be chemists that would be making this poison. NoOne would be safe if this was tolerated.

-- Posted by CCmudman on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:36 AM

Daimiste -

Legalization has been tried before - it failed. Alaska attempted legalization and found marijuana use increased more than twice the rate of other national youths.

This was during a time (70s) when the majority of our youth experimented with drugs.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work either .. because (IMO) most "sheeple" don't see alcohol as a 'drug' per se .. even though statistically, more deaths occur from alcohol.

I'm not FOR legalizing hard drugs .. IMO, if marijuana is legalized (again), I believe we will see what Alaska saw - even more users .. and once they stop getting whatever they get from smoking .. they'll move on to a bigger "fix". If (in your eyes) that makes me a prohibitionist .. so be it.

America is known as the land of "extremes" .. obesity, Ritalin & meth are but a token few .. do we REALLY want to add to the list?


-- Posted by Emmes on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 11:59 AM

ElectricEye said: "Daimiste, you watch too many movies."

What does that even mean? Why did you even say that? Could you clarify your ephemeral comment please Electriceye?

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 12:07 PM

Emmes - Thank you for your response. If my tone seems acidic sometimes, it is because I get tired of people throwing around platitudes, setting up straw men, and hurling insults. So I appreciate your insightful addition to this discussion concerning Alaska's experiment marijuana legalization in the seventies.

I spent a little bit of time looking for some sources concerning the data you proffered. The only source I was able to come up with which corroborates your numbers comes from the DEA web site. That is of course a totally useless corroboration since the DEA is hardly an independent source on this matter. I however, haven't had a considerable amount of time this morning to invest into looking for other sources. I also have to get moving and do other things. So could you please provide your sources for the data you provided?

Thanks again Emme for your contributions. I appreciate something more substantive than Electriceye's equivocal comment (as an example): "Daimiste, you watch too many movies.

Peace to you and yours Emme.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 12:18 PM

Perhaps we need to look at what malcolmkyle and Daimiste are saying from a different perspective. We see the damages and deaths caused by cocaine, meth, heroin etc. as illeagal drugs. Perhaps we SHOULD legalize these drugs allowing those that want them to have easy access to them. Thus by having easy access to them they could then abuse them to their hearts content, hastening their demise and as a result improving the gene pool of humanity.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 12:58 PM


The fact that you have succesfully thrown up every word in the Thesarus. You have seemed to have said so many things without arriving at a point. A lot of your arguments seem to have derived from criminal law movies. Instead of trying to ameliorate a problem, you have exaserbated it. The juxtaposition of legalizing the drug traffic vis-sa-vi the continued institutionalization of the malefactors that continue to violate the established laws.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:13 PM

And to think: all this started just because I used a word like "opprobrium". I feel so preeminent. Oops... *blush* there I go again.

-- Posted by Dagnabbit on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:22 PM


1) The following is not a sentence: "The fact that you have successfully thrown up every word in the Thesaurus." If you wanted that to be a sentence, then you should have used a comma where you used a period. Then you would have added more material. After you had added the material, you would have then made the inclusion of a period. Then you would have written a successful sentence. MS Word can also be helpful with that. It has what is called a grammar checker. You can run your material through the software before posting to insure you are not making a public clod of yourself.

2) I don't watch criminal law movies. I hardly watch movies at all. Neither have I watched television since January of 2000. I am flummoxed by your persistent return to this matter of using a decent vocabulary. I have no need to consult a thesaurus. None of the language I am using in this thread should be considered 'big words' by anyone with a good high school education, and who has kept up a practice of engaging in interesting recreational reading over the years.

If you really think the language I am using is so luxuriant, overweening, or dare I say...ebullient, then perhaps it is you who should set down the TV Guide, and start spending that movie money on some good books. I really think you should try it. You sound like you could benefit from it.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:33 PM

Emme - Do you see my point about " throwing around platitudes, setting up straw men, and hurling insults?"

VillageIdiot's contribution to the discussion was dumb beyond expression. And ElectricEye keeps on setting up straw men because he is for some reason offended by people who have a decent vocabulary inspired by good recreational reading.

In all actuality, these people do nothing but hurt their own cause in this regard. While full legalization at this point in time is well in the background of the public's concern, and is probably a long time coming; It is still slowly, ever so slowly finding its way into mainstream thought. And just like in the present debate about the legalization of cannabis, prohibitionists tend to not be well informed, and tend to do the exact same thing people like Electric Eye and Village Idiot are doing. They present their cause extremely poorly. That is at least part of why the movement to legalize cannabis has made so much headway in the last five years.

So while I personally prefer adult conversation on the matter, it also serves my cause to have my adversaries in this arena present such a public display of ignorance. So keep it up I guess electriceye and villageidiot.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:43 PM


I am so sorry about anything that I have said that may have said to offend you. Someone of your high intelligence and abundant vocabulary is so intellectually superior to me that I don't have the words to describe it. I cannot believe that you are not a highly influential person in the State Senate or US Congress. Thank you so much for setting me on the path to righteousness. I am just a lowly peasant in a small town. I am not worthy of being in the same conversation as you. I just feel that legalizing drugs is a bad idea, but you know so much more than I do, I think that I may be wrong. Please forgive me.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:57 PM

Good post electriceye - Thanks for signing off, and try not to let the door hit your rear end on the way out. I'm interested in talking with Emmes anyway since he/she is interesting in actually engaging the discussion at hand in an adult manner.

Your contribution has far less to do with anyone being smart or dumb. It has far more to do with your persistence in behaving like a child, without ever actually bringing anything relevant to the discussion. C'ya.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 2:06 PM


You are a joke!!!!

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 2:14 PM

BTW - 'Opprobrium' was a word I was not familiar with. So thank you for that one Thoughtful! You see? The old platitude is true: You really do learn something everyday. You just gotta love learning. That's all!

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM

IMO, the initial "bristle" for most of those who post comments came from the first sentence from Malcomkyle:

"Mike Heaton, You are a prohibitionist which makes you therefore co-responsible for the more than 22,000 Mexicans murdered due to YOUR Drug War during the last 3 1/2 years alone."

An accusatory tone such as this often creates a defensive posture and "knee jerk" reaction.

Many people in this area know and/or grew up with Mike Heaton (or his father or brothers), so the natural reaction when someone is attacked (so to speak), is to offer support in defense .. much like you (Daimiste) have aligned yourself in defense of Malcomkyle's opinion.

Right or wrong goes out the window and the mud slinging begins. I do not believe comments should turn personal (name calling or beratement), but in the heat of the moment - and I am as guilty as the next for my razor-sharp comments - it happens.

I also believe comments like "you're a prohibitionist" feel not only personal, but as though a threatening finger is wagging in one's face. Are we all prohibitionists? I'm sure we're a lot of things at one time or another - intentionally or not.

That's the way I see the postings here, Daimiste.

-- Posted by Emmes on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 3:45 PM

Okay Emmes - Your criticism is fair enough. Allow me back off of the phrase 'prohibitionist', and I will also do my best to back off my sometimes acidic tone. You seem thoughtful and well spoken, and if you so desire, then I would be interested in dialoging with you on this matter, and hearing your objections. Even if at the end of the day, we remain diametrically opposed on 'the issues', I can still only benefit personally from engaging in conversation with thoughtful people.

-- Posted by Daimiste on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 4:05 PM

Darn it, Emmes, you rained on my parade. Now I feel subjugated.

-- Posted by Dagnabbit on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 4:37 PM

Really Daimiste, what I said was "dumb beyond expression"? What I said was a sarcastic way of pointing out the logical outcome of legalizing certain drugs. However, since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, I'll explain myself more clearly using your favorite 'weapons'; logic, statistics and history, and I'll list them numerically (though in no particular order) to make it easier for you to follow.

1. Calling alcohol and cigarettes 'gateway' drugs is fallacious. If that were the case then, given the number of people who drink and smoke (statistically speaking), there would be many more drug users nationwide. I smoke and, on occasion, have a drink or two, yet in all these years I have never needed to progress to meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. Nor have I progressed to abusing prescription medication. So if these were truly 'gateway' drugs, then by your logic, I should be an illegal drug addict.

2. You are absolutely right, in that, if drugs were legalized many of the violent crimes assorted with them would, more than likely, decrease if not end. Unfortunately, you are ignoring the more insidious nature of these drugs, the abuse of them. Alcohol is legal, and has been for many years, thus no one out there abuses alcohol do they? Prescription medicines are legal, as well, and no one abuses them either. You may eliminate some of the problems by legalizing drugs but you are only exacerbating the remaining ones. And while you may believe that the abuse of them is not an issue, it is logically, statistically and historically provable that you would be wrong. As is the case with most all drugs legal and illegal alike, the human body builds up a tolerance for them thus requiring more and more to achieve the same effect, whether it be pain relief or a 'high' thus leading to abuse and even possibly eventually death (which is what I was referring to in my previous post albeit in a sarcastic manner).

3. Also, by legalizing drugs you are implying to children that it's ok to use drugs. Related to that is how do you plan on keeping minors from gaining access to drugs even easier if they are legal? After all we have no problems keeping minors from obtaining cigarettes or alcohol do we?

I hope this was a sufficiently 'adult' discussion for you?

I must also say that I find myself questioning your apparent altruistic interest in the legalization of drugs. Rarely is altruism anything more than a mask to hide personal gain behind.

I'm sure by now you are saying to yourself more 'prohibitionist nonsense', but again you would be wrong, I agree that drugs perhaps should be legalized but only in that it would then make it easier to get these drug abusers the help they truly need. The ultimate goal of legalizing drugs should be the elimination of them.

Lastly, I would say to you, who likes to point out to others about the advantages of spell check, use it yourself, but then you might think I was attacking you personally, so I won't.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 7:47 PM

Daimiste got owned by the Village_Idiot!!!!

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:59 PM

And before you point out yes even I can make a typo. I typed assorted instead of associated.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:17 PM

I was going by the police station today and seen a cop outside yakkin' on his cell phone. Shouldn't he be out patrolling?

-- Posted by Dagnabbit on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:00 PM

Perhaps he was talking about a case, and decided to do it there rather than drive and talk? He may have also been on a break. Police deserve breaks too right?

-- Posted by olmedic on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 11:20 PM

Village Idiot;

1) Cigarette smoking as a Predictor of Alcohol and Other Drug Use by Children and Adolescents: Evidence of the Gateway Effect

The Journal of School Health; Sep 1993; 63, 7; Research Library

pg. 302

2) Users are already obtaining all the drugs they want, prohibition hasn't put so much as a dent in the supply. A legal and regulated market would at least ensure purity and known standardized dosages. A vastly greater number of people die every year from abusing food than they do from all drugs combined, both licit and illicit. Should we ban McDonald's and ice cream too?

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000

Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity (Obesity) 365,000

Alcohol 85,000

Microbial Agents 75,000

Toxic Agents 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000

Suicide 30,622

Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000

Homicide 20,308

Sexual Behaviors 20,000

All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

Source: United States government...

National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Bureau of Mortality Statistics

3) Children do indeed manage to get their hands on tobacco and alcohol but it is FAR easier for them to obtain illicit drugs. Yes, they would still be able to get someone to buy drugs for them, but it would be much more difficult than it is now. Ask any 12 year old which is easier for them to get, alcohol and tobacco or drugs. I guarantee you will not like the answer.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 3:04 AM

You know madmatt6773, there is a little known fact about statistics and you can ask any professor of that subject, statistics can be manipulated to show anything you want them to. So you can throw all tha numbers you want out there but ultimately it proves very little. And nothing you have said in any way, shape or form disproves what I have said. In fact your last point only further proves my argument. So thanks for your support.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 9:56 AM

Furthermore, alcohol is regulated. We know its purity, it comes in 'regulated doses' yet I can walk into any liquor store, gas station, grocery store etc. and buy as much as I want. It is proven daily that regulation does NOT prevent abuse and that is the most insidious issue relating to these drugs. Nothing in any of your arguments even addresses that issue. You want the drugs legalized because you feel, rightly or wrongly, that it will reduce the violent crimes associated with the drugs. That's great, that's a noble ideal, however, with use the need for these drugs increases thus the doses used must increase. All you would accomplish by the legalization of these drugs would be to make the abuse of them that much easier and more pervasive. It would increase the risks of injuries to others caused by people under the influence of these horrible chemicals. Again none of you are willing to see that aspect of the problem nor address it, I am. That is why I say fine IF we legalize these drugs use the regulation to assist in the elimination of the need for them across the board.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 10:11 AM

Daimiste, I am always open to a verbal sparring match and can agree to disagree on various subjects. So, anytime. ; )

Dagnabbit, you feel "submissive"? *sigh, if only it were that easy in real life. (kidding!) lol

Villiage_Id10t, well done. I enjoyed your argument. Thanks.

-- Posted by Emmes on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 12:09 PM

Village Idiot (how appropriate!) when you buy REGULATED alcohol you know that it not cut with methanol, antifreeze, or embalming fluid, all common practices during prohibition when organized crime was in charge of the supply. By regulating drugs we will know it's not cut with any harmful adulterants and known dosages ensure that overdoses are kept to a minimum. I never said it would cut down on usage, only remove some of it's dangers. Only a freaking moron would think regulating purity and dosage would lead to lower drug usage rates. As for statistics being manipulated to say anything you want the prohibitionist have been doing that from the very start, so I guess any statistics you rely on ( such as increased drug use) can be thrown out the window as well.

Here's an idea for Clay County residents; stop going to family reunions to look for mates. You'd be amazed how much more intelligent your offspring will be when the inbreeding finally ends.

-- Posted by madmatt6773 on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 1:08 PM

The debate is over and the Id10t wins! Sorry Madmatt, but once you start calling names, it is as good as shaking hands and walking away a loser. Great job Id10t. Seems you have some interesting points of view on things and poor ol'Matt just gets left throwing childish insults. Ironically the very first complaint he stated about the rest of us inbred, hillbilly trash doing to him.

-- Posted by karenmeister on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 1:31 PM

Seems someone hit a sore spot with Mr. Matt, and all the talk about carrying on adult conversation and argument kinda got thrown out the window.

-- Posted by olmedic on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 1:35 PM

Uh oh .. I'm a Clay County resident! I'm a bit curious as to why (madmatt6773), if you don't live here .. you should care what the "inbreds" think - let alone allow them to raise your BP.

You know, there are those 14 (or so) states who have legalized 'medical' marijuana .. (just sayin')

-- Posted by Emmes on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 1:54 PM

Emmes, I have a feeling it isn't marijuana he wants. After all, he is asking that ALL drugs be legalized. Perhaps this guy has a habit to the point he cant afford it anymore, and now he wants the prices lowered?

-- Posted by olmedic on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 2:06 PM

Yet again it seems I have to clarify what I have said for some people. (Maybe they need to put the drugs away while they read and read more carefully.) I never said anything regarding the purity of the drugs being either greater or less if they were regulated, only that by making them easier to obtain the abuse of them would be that much easier. I also never said that drug related deaths were greater than any other causes, only that the abuse of drugs can lead to death. Thankfully I'm not a 'freaking moron' because I don't believe that regulation would reduce the usage rates, I BELIEVE (opinion) that they will increase due to ease of access, which will lead to the need for larger and larger doses to get the same high (a scientific, provable, repeatably demonstrable fact. I hope you don't have a problem with science.)

My point has been that in your arguments for the legalizing of drugs as a way to reduce the violence associated with them, that you have ignored the negative effects of that legalization ie: easier access leading to greater chance for abuse.

Now if you want to continue to argue over things I HAVEN'T said have fun, however, you are more than welcome to try and refute the things that I HAVE said.

Oh, and for the record I wasn't born in Clay County, so the inbred comment doesn't apply and just shows how childish you are. Are YOU from Clay County and how is your lovely cousin errr I mean wife?

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 7:52 PM

Just as two lawyers could debate guilt or innocence in a court of law and have some believe THEIR version of what happened, those FOR prohibition could argue one point .. those opposed, quite another. Who's right? Whoever believes they are .. because that's their reality.

It's been mentioned that the DEA and government can't be trusted .. so why would we believe other sources are any more trustworthy?

Charles Manson was not locked away for his involvement with drugs or because he was against prohibition.

-- Posted by Emmes on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 11:31 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: