What's your take on the War on Drugs?

Joe

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Statistically speaking, the dangers inherent in riding in an automobile dwarf the dangers associated with drug use.

Absolute nonsense.

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?

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.

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?

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'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.

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

That doesn't even make sense.

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?

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

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%.

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:

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:

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?

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.

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?

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.

Then you're not paying attention.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Sure. Did you think that the poll at the top of the page means anything?

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:

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.

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."

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?

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.

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:

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:

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.

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:

What is it you think is in that pipe anyway?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will never know if you don't read it.

How can you reject findings in a study you haven't read?

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.

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 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?

Which analogy are you referring to?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You can't commit extortion without a victim. A lone drug user harms no one but himself. These are not comparable crimes.

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.

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: