OCCOM BILL first wrote:
Joe, the "illicit" drug trade could legally do business without a victim, or injured party. Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. all require a victim to take place. Your comparison argument is therefore fatally flawed. Example: I could purchase every drug known to man and neither the seller nor I would necessarily hurt anyone but myself (maybe not even myself, but that is another issue). On the other hand; no one could commit Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. without hurting someone else. Get it?
I'll go over this very slowly
: the violence that you initially mentioned (cocaine dealer vs. cocaine dealer) had nothing to do with whether or not prohibitions on narcotics were "victimless crimes." As such, the violence associated with the drug trade
(as opposed to individual drug use) is little different from the violence associated with any illicit activity -- with or without "victims." We fully expect that those involved in smuggling, loan-sharking, prostitution, illegal gambling, extortion, arson-for-hire, cable TV theft, and other forms of criminal activities will resort to self-help rather than call on the aid of the authorities. Consequently, the fact that those involved in a criminal trade engage in violence is no excuse for decriminalizing
the activity in which they are engaged, since the violence is the anticipated result of the criminalization
of that activity. That was the point that you raised, and that was the point that I addressed. Your attempt to interject the notion of "victimless crimes" is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of violence. Get it?
Joe, I can't believe you are still rejecting the obvious difference in these crimes. We are talking about the pros and cons of legalizing drugs. If they are legalized; there is no longer a need for a victim. If you legalized extortion, blackmail or murder there would still be a need for a victim for the act to take place. Therefore, legalization could never be considered a remedy for those other situations. Why would you consider that irrelevant to the issue of violence? It was considered one of the biggest factors in the repeal of prohibition of alcohol. After the end of prohibition, sellers of alcohol resorted to legal means to promote their products over those of their competition.
Under the influence of any drug, be it cocaine, alcohol or caffeine; I pose no threat to anyone but myself. If I were committing extortion, blackmail or murder; I could not do so without injuring someone else. Therefore; your examples and your justification are flawed. When I clarified my point, you attempted to circumvent it by arguing your inference of my words was not MY POINT. Trust me Joe; I know what my point is. Just in case there is still confusion:
POINT: Legalizing drugs and regulating them similar to alcohol would reduce (if not eliminate) the violence associated with distribution. END POINT.
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL first wrote: joefromchicago wrote:
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.
(1) No Joe, it is not
see below. (2) Availability of drugs to minors may be a non-issue for you, but I doubt I am alone in considering it the most important factor in considering the effects of drug laws. I tend to believe protecting our children is paramount in the eyes of the majority of citizens, regardless of their opinions on how best to accomplish it.
(1) I looked below, yet I saw nothing; (2) You may be concerned for the kiddies, but I'm concerned for everyone.
OCCOM BILL first wrote:
Nice try at obscuring the issue at hand
. You're killing me Joe! .
Calm down, Bill
: the excess of mirth evidenced by your overuse of smilies indicates that you are on the verge of wetting yourself.
Further obscuring the issue with meaningless insults will do nothing to strengthen your case. (I'll continue to use as many Emoticons as I please; and I assure you; I won't wet myself :wink: ).
Polls of children, that show availability of various substances under current laws, are very relevant in a discussion about drug laws. Your pre-dismissal and unwillingness to consider such surveys are indicative of a preference to remain ignorant of the facts in order to support false conclusions.
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL first wrote:
I love America and I am saddened by the state of its demise. Are you going to tell me that you don't believe the "majority of Americans" want Campaign Reforms?
Stop it man! I could easily list a dozen laws that, even you would have no choice but to admit; don't reflect the will of the people. Recent polls are certainly a better indication of our collective conscience than our old, sometimes forgotten laws.
I see now: when the majority (in this case, the majority of your friends and acquaintances) agrees with you, the majority's opinion is representative and important. On the other hand, when the majority (in this case, the majority of legislators and, by extension, the majority of those citizens represented by those legislators) disagrees
with you, then that
majority's opinion is unrepresentative and trivial.
Well, if that's how you think, then all I can say is that it's truly pointless for you to debate with me further.
Craven and I have both provided you with adequate, almost undeniable, proof that the existence of a law is not necessarily synonymous with the will, or the majority opinion, of the people. Just to refresh your memory;
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.
Your premise presupposes that the "majority" of Americans believe:
1) We don't need campaign restrictions to stop foreign interests from unjustly swaying the decisions of lawmakers.
2) The "business as usual" practice of adding unrelated issues to bills in congress is fine and just.
3) Don't believe a balanced budget amendment should be implemented.
4) Every law on the books reflects "the will of the majority".
(If any of the above statements are false; your premise is fatally flawed.)
Your premise further presupposes that any polling of the constituents would be irrelevant because the law itself is "evidence" that the majority of people support it.
You could be right in your assessment of national opinion Joe, but your so-called "evidence" does nothing to support your conclusion. :wink:
Your frequent conclusions that I am so naive as to consider "a cursory survey of my friends and acquaintances" as accurate, comprehensive evidence that my opinions regarding national averages are correct; are completely unfounded, and constitute meaningless insults. My original statement was: "It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land". This statement is true regardless of national opinion. Further, you have provided no "evidence" of national opinion whatsoever. The above examples thoroughly debunk your assertion to the contrary.
Ps Do you realize it is possible to retreat from a debunked side point without abandoning your primary conclusions?