Home› A Moving Train

Harrison Tax Act.

Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
edited February 2008 in A Moving Train
Worth discussing. Basically the beginning of criminalizing using substances... the beginning of the end for personal freedom.... and they did it with taxes. The beginning of drug prohibition. Want to know why the US has such a huge prison population... this is pretty much part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    Oh yes I remember that from the history channel. I don't use drugs and I am totally against the legalization of the drugs that are currently illegal, but I agree it's b.s. that so many people are locked up like criminals because they want to put a chemical into their own bodies.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    sponger wrote:
    Oh yes I remember that from the history channel. I don't use drugs and I am totally against the legalization of the drugs that are currently illegal, but I agree it's b.s. that so many people are locked up like criminals because they want to put a chemical into their own bodies.

    understood, perhaps decriminalization of usage and treatment of addicts would be more effective.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • godpt3godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    understood, perhaps decriminalization of usage and treatment of addicts would be more effective.

    But locking up addicts is the only 100% effective treatment. Just ask Scott Weiland :(
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    "The Act's applicability in prosecuting doctors who prescribe narcotics to addicts was successfully challenged in Linder v. United States, as Justice McReynolds ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate medical practice."

    Hehe...times change, eh?
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    farfromglorified wrote:
    "The Act's applicability in prosecuting doctors who prescribe narcotics to addicts was successfully challenged in Linder v. United States, as Justice McReynolds ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate medical practice."

    Hehe...times change, eh?

    ha ha, I guess so. No reason to let the law interfere with public sentiment.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    understood, perhaps decriminalization of usage and treatment of addicts would be more effective.

    Actually decriminalization would be an enabler of usage, which would then lead to a greater need for treatment.

    There are plenty of ways to enforce laws without incarceration. Fines, mandatory treatment...etc.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • redsdiseaseredsdisease Posts: 147
    The beginning of the end for personal freedoms? Are you serious? Try the Whiskey Rebellion at very least.
    Jimmy Carter has disco fever.
Sign In or Register to comment.