Tiers in The SEC

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Says the woman in the GC thread, that anyone can read, which has hijacked into a topic that anyone can chime in if they damn well please.

Fixed that for you.

What next?

Oh yeah, I was teasing macallan as I sometimes do so I edited my post to reflect that. Put your cape away, k?

[nittanyalum]

I understand abuse is abuse. But I'm talking about even just recreational use here. Macallan seemed to imply that I should get as upset about someone drinking as I would about someone doing cocaine (again, I assume we're talking "recreationally").

ETA: This post was in response to DSTChaos, but I want to note that I also very much agree with EE-BO's last paragraph -- this is what my base concern is.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I understand abuse is abuse. But I'm talking about even just recreational use here. Macallan seemed to imply that I should get as upset about someone drinking as I would about someone doing cocaine (again, I assume we're talking "recreationally").

ETA: This post was in response to DSTChaos, but I want to note that I also very much agree with EE-BO's last paragraph -- this is what my base concern is.

No no, I wasn't saying you should feel that way.....I was just throwing it out there to see how you would respond.

In some past experiences I have been around some raging, fall down drunks (not that you are one haha) talk about how sad and deplorable it is for people to do hard drugs, smoke a little grass, etc. It always makes me shake my head and laugh.

Yeah though, recreational drinking, I think, is a little different than recreational use of drugs like cocaine. Two different animals, for sure.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I understand abuse is abuse. But I'm talking about even just recreational use here. Macallan seemed to imply that I should get as upset about someone drinking as I would about someone doing cocaine (again, I assume we're talking "recreationally").

[I don't know if we disagree here or are even talking about what my initial post was talking about. But here goes just for clarity. ]

I don't believe in a recreational use of illegal substances. They are illegal for a reason (whatever the different reasons are, the law has spoken).

You already get the point about alcohol: If recreational alcohol use includes irresponsibility and regular binge drinking, it has similar effects as getting high on drugs. But if the person is over 21, it isn't a legal issue unless there is a law being broken.

But none of these truly compare to the most deadly legal substance: CIGARETTES. BAN THEEEE TO HELL!!!!

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I don't believe in a recreational use of illegal substances. They are illegal for a reason (whatever the different reasons are, the law has spoken).

Now you're defending racism? Excellent. The law also spoke on Jim Crow and so forth for awhile.

Drugs have become illegal because of racism and prejudice. Opium was associated with the "dangerous" Chinese immigrants. Marijuana with the Mexicans. The first laws against Marijuana in the United States (there were many laws FOR marijuana up to then) was in 1910 in Utah (I believe) in fear of the Mexicans. Cocaine was associated with the black subcultures, more specifically the Jazz scene which caused them to be illegal. Mushrooms, Acid, etc were out of fear for the hippies and the possibility of an oncoming revolution. It's not until much more recently have we began trying to protect people...I think the 1970's was the first time you could make a case perhaps.

Either way, none of this has anything to do with SEC tiers.

Coke is prevalent in my chapter as well as many of the Arkansas houses.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Now you're defending racism? Excellent. The law also spoke on Jim Crow and so forth for awhile.

analogy --------------------------------------------------------> you

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Drugs have become illegal because of racism and prejudice. Opium was associated with the "dangerous" Chinese immigrants. Marijuana with the Mexicans. The first laws against Marijuana in the United States (there were many laws FOR marijuana up to then) was in 1910 in Utah (I believe) in fear of the Mexicans. Cocaine was associated with the black subcultures, more specifically the Jazz scene which caused them to be illegal. Mushrooms, Acid, etc were out of fear for the hippies and the possibility of an oncoming revolution. It's not until much more recently have we began trying to protect people...I think the 1970's was the first time you could make a case perhaps

The complete reasons behind the illegality of drugs are and will always be debatable. What will not always be debatable is the fact that there are illegal substances.

Racism and classism are two of the alleged and evidenced reasons why crack cocaine carries a heavier penality than powder cocaine. Other alleged and evidenced reasons include the mixture of different substances in crack cocaine to make for a cheaper and more potent substance to sell to people of lower SES.

However, claims of racism and classism will not get someone arrested on crack cocaine possession off the hook but rather may get a more comparable sentence to someone arrested on powder cocaine (who is more likely to be able to afford a lawyer). So let's go back to the fact that they're illegal as to not unnecessarily complicate the issue.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Either way, none of this has anything to do with SEC tiers.

But it must!

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Coke is prevalent in my chapter as well as many of the Arkansas houses.

Naughty boys. Sore noses make for lame existences.

But as long as you look and dress the part of an upstanding Southern gentleman in a "top tiered fraternity" from a "top tiered school," everything's okay. Going back to the issues of racism and classism.......

[gtdxeric]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Racism and classism are two of the alleged and evidenced reasons why crack cocaine carries a heavier penality than powder cocaine.

She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie.

[UTLonghorn2012]

Speaking of drugs, has anyone seen "Reefer Madness" from back in the twenties? Hillarious stuff.

But yeah the anti-drug movement in the US got started with the same temperence societies that the anti-alcohol movement did. However, race was a big factor. They did not want "foreign" drugs influencing their children, and they particularly did not want teenage girls to fall under the influence of "foreign" drug lords.

Thanks to having US History class with an ex-hippie, we learned these things in school!

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn2012

Speaking of drugs, has anyone seen "Reefer Madness" from back in the twenties? Hillarious stuff.

But yeah the anti-drug movement in the US got started with the same temperence societies that the anti-alcohol movement did. However, race was a big factor. They did not want "foreign" drugs influencing their children, and they particularly did not want teenage girls to fall under the influence of "foreign" drug lords.

Thanks to having US History class with an ex-hippie, we learned these things in school!

It makes sense, personally I would prefer to make everything legal so that the government could tax it. To collect any kind of government assistance, however, you would be subject to random drug screening when you went to pick up your check. If somebody is able to use drugs and still be a productive member of society then there really isn't a problem with it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

It makes sense, personally I would prefer to make everything legal so that the government could tax it. To collect any kind of government assistance, however, you would be subject to random drug screening when you went to pick up your check. If somebody is able to use drugs and still be a productive member of society then there really isn't a problem with it.

The government can control the drug trade a lot more than it has.

However, the government arguably makes more money from the illegal drug trade than it would if drugs were legal and taxable. Drug profit is something the government would never admit to but I wish the IRS could REALLY audit the US government (and other countries' governments could be audited). The government has its hand in everything.

If drugs are legal and taxable, and you claim that if someone can be productive they should be able to use drugs, why should people on government assistance not be able to ride the white horse, too? This is where the -isms get stronger if you make those kinds of disclaimers. I'd rather drugs just be illegal PERIOD and for myself and other concerned citizens to spend our time highlighting the hypocrisy of people who pretend that certain illegal drugs and drug users are OKAY.

[SWTXBelle]

Read The Devil's Picnic for a fascinating look at cultural (food and drug) taboos and the politics behind them.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

If drugs are legal and taxable, and you claim that if someone can be productive they should be able to use drugs, why should people on government assistance not be able to ride the white horse, too? This is where the -isms get stronger if you make those kinds of disclaimers. I'd rather drugs just be illegal PERIOD and for myself and other concerned citizens to spend our time highlighting the hypocrisy of people who pretend that certain illegal drugs and drug users are OKAY.

As I said before, I feel that if somebody can be a productive member of society and still use drugs then there isn't a problem, at least not one that the government should involve itself in. I have a problem with taxpayers money being used to fund drug use, drugs are a luxury.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

As I said before, I feel that if somebody can be a productive member of society and still use drugs then there isn't a problem, at least not one that the government should involve itself in. I have a problem with taxpayers money being used to fund drug use, drugs are a luxury.

Gotta agree here. If someone wants to stick a needle in their arm.......that's their decision. We shouldn't be paying for the Government to babysit them.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

As I said before, I feel that if somebody can be a productive member of society and still use drugs then there isn't a problem, at least not one that the government should involve itself in. I have a problem with taxpayers money being used to fund drug use, drugs are a luxury.

Gotcha.

Drugs aren't a personal luxury as far as I'm concerned but I know they are to some people.

But they are only a personal "luxury" as long as they don't result in addiction, family problems and other social ills, health problems, and criminality, right? The problem is that we can't predict when recreation becomes addiction. Drugs should remain illegal because when they become legal, the government can not regulate its use and abuse -- just like how cigarette and alcohol addictions are causing health problems and social ills (to a much lesser extent, criminality) but the government is acting helpless.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I'd rather drugs just be illegal PERIOD and for myself and other concerned citizens to spend our time highlighting the hypocrisy of people who pretend that certain illegal drugs and drug users are OKAY.

Do you believe that none of them are OK because of the simple fact that they are illegal? or are there some other reasons.

I understand a lot of what you are saying but I've got to say........I'd probably be more concerned with someone that smokes a pack a day over someone that smokes a couple bowls every so often.