1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:25 am
Joe, widening his circle of acquaintance might make no difference to Bill, especially if his new acquaintance were introduced by the old . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:52 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Joe

This is one issue on which we are 180 degrees out of sync.

I will light a candle for you, so that you may someday see the error of your ways.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 11:10 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Joe

This is one issue on which we are 180 degrees out of sync.

I will light a candle for you, so that you may someday see the error of your ways.



Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 07:14 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't believe it is possible for the government to save people from themselves.

Sure it is. It happens all the time.
I'll rephrase: If a person wants to harm themselves, there is little government can do to stop them. I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to save me from me.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Some studies have even shown that doctors who use heroin, can be better adjusted and more productive than their sober counterparts (hard to believe, but convincingly illustrated).

Bill, the day that you insist that your surgeon shoot up with some smack before operating on you is the day that I'll believe this statement.
I never said I believed that. I said it was convincingly illustrated. Follow the link and see for yourself.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Across the board legalization would indeed take the profit out of street dealing and eliminate the associated violence that comes with it.

And legalizing contract killings would take the profit motive out of murders-for-hire.
That doesn't even make sense. Shocked

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I challenge anyone to cite a study proving marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or Prozac, let alone Oxy-Contin.

Even if you're right, so what?
That doesn't strike you as utter hypocrisy? I believe Dupont paid the largest lobby to make marijuana illegal. Do you think there motive was society's benefit or do you think they wanted to sell nylon rope? These days; Pfizer and their peers are picking up the tab. What do you suppose their motives are?

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Statistically speaking, the dangers inherent in riding in an automobile dwarf the dangers associated with drug use.

Absolute nonsense.
Absolute fact; here is my proof: http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm Please provide a source if you still disagree:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If it is the children we are trying to protect; the results are laughable. Currently, I'd wager my kingdom that your average 15 year old has an easier time acquiring illegal drugs than those twice his age.

You value your kingdom cheaply. But even if you are correct, certainly you're not suggesting that, because some laws are difficult to enforce, they should not be enforced at all?
Yes joe, that is precisely what I am suggesting in this specific instance. Regulation similar to alcohol, in my opinion, would be more effective at keeping drugs away from children. If a product can be sold legally to 80% of the population for a nice profit, it would be pretty foolish to risk criminal punishment to sell it to the other 20%.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now, take a look at the same equation referencing the laws and campaigns designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol or tobacco by minors. These laws and campaigns have been proven effective.

The laws designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by minors are prohibition laws, not deterrence laws. Your argument, then, supports similar prohibitions on drugs.
My opinion suggests Prohibition applies only to minors, exactly like alcohol laws do today. Increased awareness campaigns and harsh penalties have significantly reduced alcohol and tobacco use by minors.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I further believe that the taxation of these products would more than cover the cost of treatment for those who were interested.

Will those taxes pay for your health care after your heroin-addicted surgeon botches your operation?
In that instance my surgeon would be guilty of Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs (pun intended). I'm sure there are already laws on the books to cover such an occurrence.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land.

You need to broaden your circle of acquaintances.
I have joe. I'm meeting lots of new people here on A2K and so far it is still an isolated few that believe this so called "war on drugs" is working.

By the way... Did you happen to notice the poll at the top of the page? Laughing
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 07:23 pm
As long as you're an adult...anything anytime you want it...just stay indoors or hire a chauffeur once you're f***ed up. That's not too much too ask
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 08:24 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'll rephrase: If a person wants to harm themselves, there is little government can do to stop them. I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to save me from me.

You should keep this in mind the next time you buy tainted meat or invest in some worthless stock.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I never said I believed that. I said it was convincingly illustrated. Follow the link and see for yourself.

If it is "convincingly illustrated," then someone must have been convinced. Was it you?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That doesn't even make sense. Shocked

Then you're not paying attention.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That doesn't strike you as utter hypocrisy?

No, not at all. Are you saying that anything that is proven to be as harmful as tobacco or alcohol should be legalized?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I believe Dupont paid the largest lobby to make marijuana illegal. Do you think there motive was society's benefit or do you think they wanted to sell nylon rope? These days; Pfizer and their peers are picking up the tab. What do you suppose their motives are?

I would imagine that they are motivated to sell drugs that induce conspiracy fantasies among their users.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Absolute fact; here is my proof: http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm Please provide a source if you still disagree:

This is laughable. The statistics you linked: (1)are incomplete; (2)do not show what percentage of motor vehicle deaths are linked to drugs; (3)report absolute numbers rather than percentages based on the number of people who use motor vehicles versus those who use drugs. Certainly, if as many people took drugs as drove cars, the statistics would look a lot different.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
But even if you are correct, certainly you're not suggesting that, because some laws are difficult to enforce, they should not be enforced at all?
Yes joe, that is precisely what I am suggesting in this specific instance. Regulation similar to alcohol, in my opinion, would be more effective at keeping drugs away from children. If a product can be sold legally to 80% of the population for a nice profit, it would be pretty foolish to risk criminal punishment to sell it to the other 20%.

And yet it happens all the time.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My opinion suggests Prohibition applies only to minors, exactly like alcohol laws do today. Increased awareness campaigns and harsh penalties have significantly reduced alcohol and tobacco use by minors.

Then the same kinds of laws should reduce drug use by adults.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Will those taxes pay for your health care after your heroin-addicted surgeon botches your operation?
In that instance my surgeon would be guilty of Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs (pun intended). I'm sure there are already laws on the books to cover such an occurrence.

I'm sure those laws will be of great comfort to your bereaved family.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
You need to broaden your circle of acquaintances.
I have joe. I'm meeting lots of new people here on A2K and so far it is still an isolated few that believe this so called "war on drugs" is working.

By the way... Did you happen to notice the poll at the top of the page? Laughing

Sure. Did you think that the poll at the top of the page means anything?
0 Replies
 
GeorgeT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 02:24 am
"What's your take on the War on Drugs?"

I didn't profit much from it myself,
but I understand politicians and pharma got quite a take from it.

10%? 50%? I don't know, but they're still taking quite a haul from it.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 02:52 am
Besides Joe, the other major proponents of continued prohibition on drugs are (1)the pharmaceutical companies and (2) organized crime. They both continue to make a handsome profit from the current situation.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 03:35 am
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't believe it is possible for the government to save people from themselves.
Sure it is. It happens all the time.
I'll rephrase: If a person wants to harm themselves, there is little government can do to stop them. I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to save me from me.
You should keep this in mind the next time you buy tainted meat or invest in some worthless stock.
Neither of these situations are indicative of a person trying to harm themselves. Do you have a point to contend at all? If so, please tell me why my statement "If a person wants to harm themselves, there is little government can do to stop them" is false.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Some studies have even shown that doctors who use heroin, can be better adjusted and more productive than their sober counterparts (hard to believe, but convincingly illustrated).

Bill, the day that you insist that your surgeon shoot up with some smack before operating on you is the day that I'll believe this statement.
I never said I believed that. I said it was convincingly illustrated. Follow the link and see for yourself.
If it is "convincingly illustrated," then someone must have been convinced. Was it you?
As I have already indicated; it is not. A theory can be very convincing without a need to be proven correct or accepted. For example; the movie JFK "convincingly illustrated" a conspiracy theory, but it remains up to the viewer to decide what they believe.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Across the board legalization would indeed take the profit out of street dealing and eliminate the associated violence that comes with it.

And legalizing contract killings would take the profit motive out of murders-for-hire.
That doesn't even make sense. Shocked
Then you're not paying attention.
I'm paying very close attention… but that still makes no sense. In your example; "murders-for-hire" remains profitable and violent, regardless of the law.
A better example would be; "Liquor Store Owners don't often shoot their competitors, or innocent bystanders while trying to shoot their competitors."
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I challenge anyone to cite a study proving marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or Prozac, let alone Oxy-Contin.
Even if you're right, so what?
That doesn't strike you as utter hypocrisy? I believe Dupont paid the largest lobby to make marijuana illegal. Do you think there motive was society's benefit or do you think they wanted to sell nylon rope? These days; Pfizer and their peers are picking up the tab. What do you suppose their motives are?
I would imagine that they are motivated to sell drugs that induce conspiracy fantasies among their users.
That's cute, but does nothing to support your point of contention. Do you think marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or the prescription drugs I mentioned? If not, why should marijuana use be considered a crime, while more harmful drugs are perfectly acceptable?
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Statistically speaking, the dangers inherent in riding in an automobile dwarf the dangers associated with drug use.
Absolute nonsense.
Absolute fact; here is my proof: http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm Please provide a source if you still disagree:
This is laughable. The statistics you linked: (1)are incomplete; (2)do not show what percentage of motor vehicle deaths are linked to drugs; (3)report absolute numbers rather than percentages based on the number of people who use motor vehicles versus those who use drugs. Certainly, if as many people took drugs as drove cars, the statistics would look a lot different.
I think I've done enough research for you joe; why don't you show me a source that shows drug use is more dangerous. If my claim is "absolute nonsense", than prove it.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If it is the children we are trying to protect; the results are laughable. Currently, I'd wager my kingdom that your average 15 year old has an easier time acquiring illegal drugs than those twice his age.

You value your kingdom cheaply. But even if you are correct, certainly you're not suggesting that, because some laws are difficult to enforce, they should not be enforced at all?
Yes joe, that is precisely what I am suggesting in this specific instance. Regulation similar to alcohol, in my opinion, would be more effective at keeping drugs away from children. If a product can be sold legally to 80% of the population for a nice profit, it would be pretty foolish to risk criminal punishment to sell it to the other 20%.
And yet it happens all the time.
Do you doubt the fact that when polled; children answer that they have an easier time obtaining marijuana than alcohol? Do I need to dig up a poll of children reflecting which drugs are available to them now? I suspect you have already seen such studies and are choosing to disregard them.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now, take a look at the same equation referencing the laws and campaigns designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol or tobacco by minors. These laws and campaigns have been proven effective.

The laws designed to reduce the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by minors are prohibition laws, not deterrence laws. Your argument, then, supports similar prohibitions on drugs.
My opinion suggests Prohibition applies only to minors, exactly like alcohol laws do today. Increased awareness campaigns and harsh penalties have significantly reduced alcohol and tobacco use by minors.
Then the same kinds of laws should reduce drug use by adults.
What's your point joe? They don't… At least, that's the topic of this discussion.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I further believe that the taxation of these products would more than cover the cost of treatment for those who were interested.

Will those taxes pay for your health care after your heroin-addicted surgeon botches your operation?
In that instance my surgeon would be guilty of Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs (pun intended). I'm sure there are already laws on the books to cover such an occurrence.
I'm sure those laws will be of great comfort to your bereaved family.
Your remark does nothing to support your argument. Discussing additional fail-safes regarding healthcare administration would be irrelevant to this topic. I would tend to believe my healthcare provider would be among those least effected by eased restrictions in general.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land.
You need to broaden your circle of acquaintances.
I have joe. I'm meeting lots of new people here on A2K and so far it is still an isolated few that believe this so called "war on drugs" is working.

By the way... Did you happen to notice the poll at the top of the page? Laughing
Sure. Did you think that the poll at the top of the page means anything?
Yes. It means that so far the responses from my new acquaintances seem to represent similar percentages of varying viewpoints on the topic as my old ones. Which, of course, adds to my point that; the consensus of opinions of the people I know is in direct contrast to the laws of our land. If you think I'm wrong joe, prove it.

Ps May I suggest you either provide conflicting evidence showing why you think my opinions are wrong or make some new points of your own. Your blanket rejection of everything I write is likely taking away from your position, not adding to it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 10:48 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Neither of these situations are indicative of a person trying to harm themselves. Do you have a point to contend at all? If so, please tell me why my statement "If a person wants to harm themselves, there is little government can do to stop them" is false.

Sorry, I was responding to your other statement: "I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to save me from myself." Since you framed your first statement as referring to the state's ability to stop someone -- a claim which is as true as it is jejune -- I thought I'd address your second statement, which refers specifically to the state's responsibility. In contrast to your first claim, that's something worth debating.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
If it is "convincingly illustrated," then someone must have been convinced. Was it you?
As I have already indicated; it is not. A theory can be very convincing without a need to be proven correct or accepted. For example; the movie JFK "convincingly illustrated" a conspiracy theory, but it remains up to the viewer to decide what they believe.

So you're saying that it was convincingly illustrated, but it would only convince someone else? Who might that be? And why would they be convinced by something that failed to convince you?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm paying very close attention… but that still makes no sense. In your example; "murders-for-hire" remains profitable and violent, regardless of the law.
A better example would be; "Liquor Store Owners don't often shoot their competitors, or innocent bystanders while trying to shoot their competitors."

See my explanation of a closely related point here

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's cute, but does nothing to support your point of contention. Do you think marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or the prescription drugs I mentioned? If not, why should marijuana use be considered a crime, while more harmful drugs are perfectly acceptable?

One reason I hesitate to engage in these drug debates is that I find myself compelled to learn more about illegal narcotics than I ever wanted to. I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol. I will not, however, concede that drugs such as heroin or cocaine are on the same level as marijuana. If you want to make that argument, Bill, you should make that clear before proceeding further.

As for Dupont, Pfizer, the RAND Corporation, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and other groups or individuals conspiring to keep narcotics illegal, I offer no opinion. In a free society, even Reverse Vampires can lobby the government for favorable legislation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I think I've done enough research for you joe; why don't you show me a source that shows drug use is more dangerous. If my claim is "absolute nonsense", than prove it.

Bill, if that's the only research that you're going to rely upon, then you have indeed done all the research I need to do.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you doubt the fact that when polled; children answer that they have an easier time obtaining marijuana than alcohol?

I have absolutely no clue. I've never seen such polls. But even if it's true, so what? It just means that both our alcohol and our drug laws are flawed. Are you suggesting that, because it's impossible to keep alcohol out of the hands of children, we should make it legally available to them?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do I need to dig up a poll of children reflecting which drugs are available to them now? I suspect you have already seen such studies and are choosing to disregard them.

Your suspicions are inaccurate. I have never seen such studies, and I certainly have not been looking for them.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Then the same kinds of laws should reduce drug use by adults.
What's your point joe? They don't… At least, that's the topic of this discussion.

What's your point, Bill. First you say that prohibitory drug laws don't work, then you say that prohibitory alcohol and tobacco laws do work, and you conclude that we should pattern our drug prohibitions on our alcohol and tobacco prohibitions. But, by the same logic, we could just as easily say that, since alcohol and drug prohibitions work with kids, the same kind of prohibitions should work with adults. If prohibition stops kids from buying booze, prohibition should stop adults from buying dope. So either your analogy is flawed or your logic is: take your pick.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
I'm sure those laws will be of great comfort to your bereaved family.
Your remark does nothing to support your argument. Discussing additional fail-safes regarding healthcare administration would be irrelevant to this topic. I would tend to believe my healthcare provider would be among those least effected by eased restrictions in general.

Face it, Bill, your physician may be one of those people who was convinced by that study showing physicians on heroin are better adjusted than their non-strung-out colleagues. Here's wishing you good health in the new year!

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes. It means that so far the responses from my new acquaintances seem to represent similar percentages of varying viewpoints on the topic as my old ones. Which, of course, adds to my point that; the consensus of opinions of the people I know is in direct contrast to the laws of our land. If you think I'm wrong joe, prove it.

Why would I feel the need to prove you wrong on this point? If all of your friends were convinced that the moon was made of green cheese, I wouldn't be in the least bit affected. So feel free to believe in any kind of outlandish nonsense and to gather a circle of friends who share in those beliefs: I couldn't care less.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Ps May I suggest you either provide conflicting evidence showing why you think my opinions are wrong or make some new points of your own. Your blanket rejection of everything I write is likely taking away from your position, not adding to it. :wink:

The day that I take debating advice from you, Bill, will be the day that I willingly submit to an operation performed by a smack-addled surgeon.

[I will be taking a holiday break from the computer: I wish all a Merry Christmas Cool ]
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 11:05 am
I would like everyone to consider Santa...eats all the time....flies through the air in a sled full of reindeer....spends all year making stuff and then just gives it away....red cheeked and always laughing........AND SMOKES A PIPE!!!!

What is it you think is in that pipe anyway?

Should we arrest him? Cool
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 11:39 am
Lock him up and throw away the key before he hurts the children! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 11:53 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
What is it you think is in that pipe anyway?


Talk to me again on Friday, Bear.

I made a very special request from Santa this year -- and if I've been good enough and he comes through -- I may know the answer.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 12:53 pm
I don't care what's in his pipe. But has anyone ever seen him strapped in with a seat belt? We should force him to protect himself.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2003 05:56 pm
Trying to keep track of all of our tangents simultaneously is proving to be too difficult for me. I am therefore responding only to your points that I deem relevant to the topic. Where possible I will consolidate quotes for ease of use. If I skip anything you want to discuss further; please let me know.

previous discussion wrote:
Joe said: If it is "convincingly illustrated," then someone must have been convinced. Was it you?
Bill said: As I have already indicated; it is not. A theory can be very convincing without a need to be proven correct or accepted. For example; the movie JFK "convincingly illustrated" a conspiracy theory, but it remains up to the viewer to decide what they believe.
Joe said: So you're saying that it was convincingly illustrated, but it would only convince someone else? Who might that be? And why would they be convinced by something that failed to convince you?

You will never know if you don't read it. How can you reject findings in a study you haven't read? The results I referred to were merely a curious by product of said study. You will continue to find it impossible to understand unless you actually read it. In the mean time, your opinion on a study you haven't read couldn't be less relevant.

previous discussion wrote:
Bill said: I'm paying very close attention… but that still makes no sense. In your example; "murders-for-hire" remains profitable and violent, regardless of the law.
A better example would be; "Liquor Store Owners don't often shoot their competitors, or innocent bystanders while trying to shoot their competitors."
Joe said: See my explanation of a closely related point here

Sorry, that still makes no sense. Your link did provide that the vast majority people on that thread agree with the vast majority people on this one, effectively removing the stinger from your implied insult about my peer group.

previous discussion wrote:
Bill said: That's cute, but does nothing to support your point of contention. Do you think marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or the prescription drugs I mentioned? If not, why should marijuana use be considered a crime, while more harmful drugs are perfectly acceptable?
Joe said: One reason I hesitate to engage in these drug debates is that I find myself compelled to learn more about illegal narcotics than I ever wanted to. I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol. I will not, however, concede that drugs such as heroin or cocaine are on the same level as marijuana. If you want to make that argument, Bill, you should make that clear before proceeding further.

Fair enough: Baby steps my friend. I separated the Marijuana Issue in my argument; simply to exemplify one of the glaring hypocrisies in our current drug laws. Now that you've finally conceded our current Drug Laws do not make sense, we can get closer to the meat of the matter. I will pointedly do so in the next block. I am curious though;You have admitted to having little knowledge of illegal drugs and no desire to learn more. You've also admitted that you've never seen studies detailing which drugs are readily available to children, or comparing said availability with that of alcohol. What, then, is the basis for your argument? Gut instinct?
previous discussion wrote:

Joe said: Then the same kinds of laws should reduce drug use by adults.
Bill said: What's your point joe? They don't… At least, that's the topic of this discussion.
Joe said: What's your point, Bill. First you say that prohibitory drug laws don't work, then you say that prohibitory alcohol and tobacco laws do work, and you conclude that we should pattern our drug prohibitions on our alcohol and tobacco prohibitions. But, by the same logic, we could just as easily say that, since alcohol and drug prohibitions work with kids, the same kind of prohibitions should work with adults. If prohibition stops kids from buying booze, prohibition should stop adults from buying dope. So either your analogy is flawed or your logic is: take your pick.

Which analogy are you referring to?
I don't usually think it is fair to separate individual sentences from points as I believe that practice usually constitutes arguing for the sake of argument. In this paragraph, however you have incorrectly made conclusions that you attribute to me and I feel compelled to separate the fact from fiction. Here goes:
joefromchicago wrote:
First you say that prohibitory drug laws don't work, then you say that prohibitory alcohol and tobacco laws do work, and you conclude that we should pattern our drug prohibitions on our alcohol and tobacco prohibitions.
Absolutely correct.
joefromchicago wrote:
But, by the same logic, we could just as easily say that, since alcohol and drug prohibitions work with kids, the same kind of prohibitions should work with adults.
This is where you go astray. Since our current "prohibition laws are designed to keep cigarettes and alcohol legal for adults, but prohibit their use by children, this prohibition is completely different than a blanket prohibition of illegal drugs from both adults and children.
joefromchicago wrote:
If prohibition stops kids from buying booze, prohibition should stop adults from buying dope. So either your analogy is flawed or your logic is: take your pick.

Which analogy are you referring to? This misconception, I believe is the topic of our current debate: PROHIBITION OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES FOR ALL vs, PROHIBITION OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES FOR CHILDREN. So let us examine the differences, shall we?
Children: I think we agree that it is a matter of paramount importance to protect our children from the inherent dangers associated with drug use. It would appear we further agree that prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs is a viable step in reducing said dangers in regard to children.

Adults: I think we disagree whether blanket prohibition of harmful substances is necessary for adults. We further disagree whether the effect of blanket prohibition is as effective as prohibition pinpointed to protect children.
In an attempt to illustrate the differences of these two types of prohibition; let's use alcohol and cocaine as the opposing substances;

A) Licensed liquor purveyors typically wish to retain their license to do business legally. They use advertising, pricing and other legally acceptable means to promote their business over their competitors. By contrast, unlicensed cocaine purveyors frequently use violence against their competitors, because there is no license at risk, and further there is no legal means of promoting their business. Clearly; one type of prohibition promotes a great deal more violence than the other.

B) Licensed liquor purveyors can legally sell to 80% (adults) of the population. This can be a very profitable means of making money legally. If they choose to increase profits by selling to the other 20% (minors) they become criminals who risk losing their license and their right to do business. This has been proven to be a very effective deterrent against selling booze to minors. By contrast; unlicensed cocaine purveyors have no legal clientele. Therefore there is no incentive to restrict their sales to adults. Result: It is easier for a child to obtain cocaine than alcohol.
I hope this sufficiently clarifies the substantial difference between "prohibition of alcohol and tobacco for minors" and the "blanket prohibition of drugs for everyone". The circumstances, variables and consequences of violation are very different and therefore the results are clearly very different as well.

previous discussion wrote:
Bill said: Yes. It means that so far the responses from my new acquaintances seem to represent similar percentages of varying viewpoints on the topic as my old ones. Which, of course, adds to my point that; the consensus of opinions of the people I know is in direct contrast to the laws of our land. If you think I'm wrong joe, prove it.
Joe said: Why would I feel the need to prove you wrong on this point? If all of your friends were convinced that the moon was made of green cheese, I wouldn't be in the least bit affected. So feel free to believe in any kind of outlandish nonsense and to gather a circle of friends who share in those beliefs: I couldn't care less.

I agree with your point and the ensuing example 100%. Like you, I don't blindly accept majority opinions. However, majority opinions couldn't be more relevant in a discussion of whether a democratic society's laws are contrary to the beliefs of the majority of its constituents. In this case, I believe they are, and thus far you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Ps. I hope you and everyone else here on A2K is having a wonderful holliday. Laughing
0 Replies
 
fineazzlady
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 08:23 pm
i think it is each persons business and this is a useless war due to the fact that the government is part of the enemy because it allows the drugs in the us and profits from it at both ends truth and that is all
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 08:49 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You will never know if you don't read it.

Oh, I see: when you said that it was "convincing," you meant that it would convince me. I presume that you are still undecided.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
How can you reject findings in a study you haven't read?

I did not reject them. I merely opined that they were wildly implausible.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sorry, that still makes no sense. Your link did provide that the vast majority people on that thread agree with the vast majority people on this one, effectively removing the stinger from your implied insult about my peer group.

I never implicitly insulted your peer group. Rather, I simply suggested that the unanimity displayed by your intimates was evidence of a homogeneous circle of acquaintances, and that you might find a broader diversity of opinion if you expanded that circle. I don't know enough about your friends to insult them: all I know is that they share your opinion.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now that you've finally conceded our current Drug Laws do not make sense, we can get closer to the meat of the matter.

A stunning logical leap, Bill. Truly, you are an Evel Knievel among debaters. But, sadly, you failed to clear the jump: I have conceded no such thing.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I am curious though;You have admitted to having little knowledge of illegal drugs and no desire to learn more. You've also admitted that you've never seen studies detailing which drugs are readily available to children, or comparing said availability with that of alcohol. What, then, is the basis for your argument? Gut instinct?

I have no interest in the data regarding the availability of illicit substances to minors for the simple reason that it is a red herring. Minors are also not allowed to purchase pornography, or go to R-rated movies unaccompanied by an adult, or drive. That they do all these things is no reason to give the kiddies free access to pornography, R-rated movies, and automobiles. If drugs are more readily available to minors than either alcohol or tobacco, then that's still hardly a convincing reason to legalize drugs.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Which analogy are you referring to?

Your analogy between drug laws and alcohol and tobacco laws.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is where you go astray. Since our current "prohibition laws are designed to keep cigarettes and alcohol legal for adults, but prohibit their use by children, this prohibition is completely different than a blanket prohibition of illegal drugs from both adults and children.

But you've said that the alcohol and tobacco laws work, in that they prevent minors from obtaining alochol and tobacco. So why can't similar prohibitory laws work to prevent adults from obtaining drugs?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Children: I think we agree that it is a matter of paramount importance to protect our children from the inherent dangers associated with drug use. It would appear we further agree that prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs is a viable step in reducing said dangers in regard to children.

OK.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Adults: I think we disagree whether blanket prohibition of harmful substances is necessary for adults. We further disagree whether the effect of blanket prohibition is as effective as prohibition pinpointed to protect children.

Yes.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In an attempt to illustrate the differences of these two types of prohibition; let's use alcohol and cocaine as the opposing substances;

A) Licensed liquor purveyors typically wish to retain their license to do business legally. They use advertising, pricing and other legally acceptable means to promote their business over their competitors. By contrast, unlicensed cocaine purveyors frequently use violence against their competitors, because there is no license at risk, and further there is no legal means of promoting their business. Clearly; one type of prohibition promotes a great deal more violence than the other.

So what? Violence perpetrated by drug dealers is merely a consequence of society's decision to prohibit drugs, just as violence perpetrated by extortionists is merely a consequence of the decision to outlaw blackmail. We expect that outlawing an activity will result in some criminal behavior. That criminals perpetrate violence is no reason to discard the laws that those criminals are breaking.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
B) Licensed liquor purveyors can legally sell to 80% (adults) of the population. This can be a very profitable means of making money legally. If they choose to increase profits by selling to the other 20% (minors) they become criminals who risk losing their license and their right to do business. This has been proven to be a very effective deterrent against selling booze to minors. By contrast; unlicensed cocaine purveyors have no legal clientele. Therefore there is no incentive to restrict their sales to adults. Result: It is easier for a child to obtain cocaine than alcohol.

Your attempt at a deductive proof is as empty as your empirical evidence. You might just as well argue thus: alcohol is more readily available to adults, and minors use adults as a means to obtain alcohol. Every child knows an adult, whereas only some children know cocaine dealers. Ergo, it is easier for a child to obtain alcohol than cocaine.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I hope this sufficiently clarifies the substantial difference between "prohibition of alcohol and tobacco for minors" and the "blanket prohibition of drugs for everyone". The circumstances, variables and consequences of violation are very different and therefore the results are clearly very different as well.

Nonsense.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I agree with your point and the ensuing example 100%. Like you, I don't blindly accept majority opinions. However, majority opinions couldn't be more relevant in a discussion of whether a democratic society's laws are contrary to the beliefs of the majority of its constituents. In this case, I believe they are, and thus far you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

My evidence is this: in a democratic society, where the majority is presumed to rule, laws reflect the will of the majority. In the case of the U.S., drug laws are still in effect. Thus, drug laws represent the will of the majority. QED.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 09:33 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
In an attempt to illustrate the differences of these two types of prohibition; let's use alcohol and cocaine as the opposing substances;

A) Licensed liquor purveyors typically wish to retain their license to do business legally. They use advertising, pricing and other legally acceptable means to promote their business over their competitors. By contrast, unlicensed cocaine purveyors frequently use violence against their competitors, because there is no license at risk, and further there is no legal means of promoting their business. Clearly; one type of prohibition promotes a great deal more violence than the other.

So what? Violence perpetrated by drug dealers is merely a consequence of society's decision to prohibit drugs, just as violence perpetrated by extortionists is merely a consequence of the decision to outlaw blackmail. We expect that outlawing an activity will result in some criminal behavior. That criminals perpetrate violence is no reason to discard the laws that those criminals are breaking.
You can't commit extortion without a victim. A lone drug user harms no one but himself. These are not comparable crimes.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
B) Licensed liquor purveyors can legally sell to 80% (adults) of the population. This can be a very profitable means of making money legally. If they choose to increase profits by selling to the other 20% (minors) they become criminals who risk losing their license and their right to do business. This has been proven to be a very effective deterrent against selling booze to minors. By contrast; unlicensed cocaine purveyors have no legal clientele. Therefore there is no incentive to restrict their sales to adults. Result: It is easier for a child to obtain cocaine than alcohol.

Your attempt at a deductive proof is as empty as your empirical evidence. You might just as well argue thus: alcohol is more readily available to adults, and minors use adults as a means to obtain alcohol. Every child knows an adult, whereas only some children know cocaine dealers. Ergo, it is easier for a child to obtain alcohol than cocaine.
Shocked Sure, you could argue that… but it isn't true. You are using guesses at availability, when surveys do exist. If you ever decide you do want to read statistics on the subject, you will learn that. Until you do, it is pointless for me to debate it with you further.

joefromchicago wrote:

My evidence is this: in a democratic society, where the majority is presumed to rule, laws reflect the will of the majority. In the case of the U.S., drug laws are still in effect. Thus, drug laws represent the will of the majority. QED.
Rolling Eyes That is kind of a funny statement. Do you honestly believe that every one of ours laws is representative of the will of the majority? The consensus of opinion changes much faster than laws. Example; Until recently, in Waynesboro, VA it was illegal for a woman to drive a car up Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag. Do you suppose that law represents "the will of the majority"? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:05 pm
I'd typed up a long post about that last point but decided I didn;t have time to get involved.

But I'll toss the points out there:

Oral sex is illegal in some places. I do not think this reflects the will of the majority.

Old people are more likely to vote than young people.

Old people are also less likely to favor decriminalization of drugs than young people.

I happen to think that decriminalization is not favored by the majority, but the existence of drug prohibition is poor proof of that. It just means it has not yet reached a turning point.

Some laws require more than a mere majority to be changed. I suspect the drug laws will change once the "greatest generation"dies off.

Such is life, societal change is not reflected as quickly in legal change. I think that's a good thing.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 09:51 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You can't commit extortion without a victim. A lone drug user harms no one but himself. These are not comparable crimes.

Here's what you wrote about violence and victims: "By contrast, unlicensed cocaine purveyors frequently use violence against their competitors, because there is no license at risk, and further there is no legal means of promoting their business" (emphasis added). As such, the example you used referred to victims who are engaged in the illicit drug trade, not the users. I'm trying to keep up with your argument, Bill; you should too.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Shocked Sure, you could argue that… but it isn't true. You are using guesses at availability, when surveys do exist. If you ever decide you do want to read statistics on the subject, you will learn that. Until you do, it is pointless for me to debate it with you further.

You're defending your deductive proof by saying that your empirical evidence is better? Make up your mind, Bill.

Look, I'll make it easy for you: (1)my deductive proof is just as valid as yours; (2)I don't care what empirical evidence you have about the availability of drugs to minors, because that's a non-issue in the debate over legalization of drugs.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
My evidence is this: in a democratic society, where the majority is presumed to rule, laws reflect the will of the majority. In the case of the U.S., drug laws are still in effect. Thus, drug laws represent the will of the majority. QED.
Rolling Eyes That is kind of a funny statement. Do you honestly believe that every one of ours laws is representative of the will of the majority? The consensus of opinion changes much faster than laws. Example; Until recently, in Waynesboro, VA it was illegal for a woman to drive a car up Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag. Do you suppose that law represents "the will of the majority"? :wink:

Apparently you believe that a cursory survey of your friends and acquaintances gives a better indication of the national mood than does the operation of the democratic process. But why do you trust the former more than the latter? Are you suggesting that you and your friends are somehow better or smarter than the majority of Americans? Do you really think that you have a better grasp of the national will than the constitutionally and legally sanctioned representatives that the people have chosen? Are you saying that you and your friends are a more accurate barometer of the national will than the democratic institutions that have governed our country for over 200 years? Can you really be suggesting that representative democracy doesn't work? If that's the case, Bill, then I have just one more question for you: why do you hate America so much?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 05:47:07