LEGALIZING DRUGS

Quote:

, the things that you think would happen were drugs made legal would, in general, happen anyway.

Of course, we are talking scales.

Quote:

If you support keeping drugs illegal...
You support robberies and assaults on innocent people

That argument is so silly it's laughable. Going by that reasoning, if you support the legalisation of drugs, you support the increase in suicide, the increase in road death and road trauma, the increase in mental illness, the increase in psychotic episodes and the fear and injuries caused to others that go with it etc etc etc

Quote:

You support clogging our prisons and jails with nonviolent people.

Wrong. The penalties for drug use are a completely separate issue to whether or not drugs should be illegal or not.

Sweden, which has the lowest (or very near the lowest) drug problem in the western world, tries to avoid jailing its drug offenders, rather, it sends them to rehabilitation, and backs this up with a very well funded program.

Quote:

You support environmental destruction.

Excuse me? This coming from someone who likely uses woods, plastics, power, oil, meats etc etc etc. That's an incredibly hypocritical statement.

And how do you know it will stop if drugs are legalised? Columbia may find it easier to import to the US. Their workers are paid much less, and so would be able to undersell any US manufactured cocaine. Production could even go up.

Quote:

You support drug dealers and street gangs.
Drug dealers and street gangs fight over drug territories.

Uh yeah, like Street gangs wouldn't exist without drugs. Rather niaive don't you think?

Quote:

You lure thousands of young people into quitting school.

Excuse me? The arrogance of personally attaching this to me is astounding. The ignorance is equally so.

Have you even taken a moment to think about whether these kids are doing well at school, what their home culture is like, what their neighbourhood is like, what their socio-economic situation is like, what their own economic situation is like, what friends they hang around with, their current criminal history, their attitudes to society etc etc etc?

What you are also suggesting is that with legal drugs, only the adults would peddle it, because they know better how to sell it. Like the kids wouldn't have an easier, and greater supply to be dealing in school.

Quote:

You do nothing to keep drugs away from kids or out of schools.
In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children!

As I've said nothing on this subject, how do you presume to know what I believe? And how does legalising change this? An attack with no foundation.

Quote:

You subsidize criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes.

Sorry, but this statement is hilarious. You are suggesting that criminals of any calibre, want to pay taxes? Or are you suggesting criminals are only smart enough to deal drugs? (well, some would be, but the ones you object to, those making a fortune, certainly could turn their minds to other crimes)

Quote:

You advocate punishing millions of harmless drug users

Really? Go back to my Sweden example. As I said, punishment is a different issue to the issue of whether or not drugs should be illegal.

Quote:

If you still believe drugs should be illegal, answer this question... Why do you believe it is good policy to punish me--and 20 million adult Americans like me--because I choose to use marijuana in the privacy of my own home? Who benefits from this policy and how do they benefit?

Marijuana? I had the understanding that this was about drug use in general. If you want to discuss specific drugs, this should belong in a specific thread. As it is, you are drawing parallels between all drugs in your argument for legalisation. As I've said previously, each drugs legalisation (or other) should be based on it's own merit. My concerns against marijuana are two fold, it's economic costs in lost productivity (which has to be supported by others), and it's mental health costs. Apart from those two issues, I don't have any other major problem with it.

0 Replies

You keep on bringing up Sweden. I am not familiar with the situation in Sweden, but am very familiar with that in the USA. The things I said, and posted, are highly accurate relative to the USA. Also, you are relatively utopian in your views, while I address the situation here and now in the USA.

For instance, the USA has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and has about 2 million in prison. Over half of those are in prison for drug related offenses. The cost of this, in monetary and human terms, is staggering. We must go in a different different direction, and will. Some day we will look back and wonder why the USA was so stupid relative to treating drugs as illegal.

0 Replies

You guys may want to check this out. :wink:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You guys may want to check this out. :wink:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

very interesting, not much different than the war on terrorism.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You guys may want to check this out. :wink:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

very interesting, not much different than the war on terrorism.

The war on terrorism isn't trying to protect me from me.

0 Replies

So you say, Bill, so you say.

But when you're posting as your other personality I have to wonder...

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

So you say, Bill, so you say.

But when you're posting as your other personality I have to wonder...

I have no other personality. Laughing

+

=

...:wink:

0 Replies

Oh, you don't know about her Bill. But that's okay. Someday you'll meet.

0 Replies

Quote:

You keep on bringing up Sweden. I am not familiar with the situation in Sweden, but am very familiar with that in the USA. The things I said, and posted, are highly accurate relative to the USA. Also, you are relatively utopian in your views, while I address the situation here and now in the USA.

For instance, the USA has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and has about 2 million in prison. Over half of those are in prison for drug related offenses. The cost of this, in monetary and human terms, is staggering. We must go in a different different direction, and will. Some day we will look back and wonder why the USA was so stupid relative to treating drugs as illegal.

If you are trying to say the 'if you support...then you support' is highly accurate, then I would disagree strongly, as per my previous post. Or are you refering to incarcaration rates only? You need to be a great deal more specific about what you are referring to when attempting to make points, otherwise I will need to keep asking for clarification.

Sweden is used as an example of a different kind of punishment system...because, whether or not a particular drug should be illegal is a different issue to the issue of punishment. I see that you have not grasped this, by your continual bringing up of the topic as if it supports the legalisation of drugs.

There is nothing utopian about my views, as they deny nothing about the reality of life. Perhaps it is your inability to accept my view of things that makes you think so, but they are grounded in real world principles (eg everyone is responsible for their own actions)

If you do something, knowing it's ilegal, then you do so in the full knowledge of the consequences if you are caught. There is little point complaining after the fact if you are caught. If you want to do something that's illegal, lobby your local member until it gets changed to being legal...form lobby groups, and lobby your congress, etc etc etc. Of course, you may only be one voice, but enough one voices will get things changed, if there's a will within the general population to change it (and considering the polls people are trotting out, it seems there should be a great deal of support)

0 Replies

v, you say that everyone is responsible for their actions. So what? What does that cliche mean? Does it mean that a 16-year-old caught with some cocaine should be imprisoned for five years at great cost to the taxpayers, not to mention the ruination of his or her future as a decent productive citizen?

0 Replies

It is not a cliche, it is simple truth - people are responsible for their own actions. That you appear not to like it doesn't change it.

The only alternative option I can see, is that you are suggesting that someone else controls peoples feelings, thoughts, and decisions.

In relation to children - as I've said earlier, children aren't always able to fully comprehend consequences, therefore special ways of dealing with them need to be made for them in terms of punishment under the law.

That is why most justice systems treat juveniles differently.

Once a person is able to understand consequences, the results of their actions are no fault but their own.

0 Replies

v, I understand what you are saying. However, it is a simple solution to a very complicated problem. Unfortunately, complex problems usually require complex solutions.

In this case, applying criminal sanctions doesn't make good sense, and doesn't serve the interests of the general population. It leads to tremendous taxpayer expense, increased criminality, disdain for the rule of law, and untold damage to individuals who are basically engaged in a victimless crime.

Somehow, society figured this out with regard to alcohol when its possession, etc., was illegal in the USA. Prohibition was ended to the relief of almost all, and there is no thought now of recriminalizing alcohol. This is notwithstanding that alcohol causes more damage, misery, etc., than all the other drugs combined.

I don't understand why you can't see this, unless you refuse to accept the truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

In this case, applying criminal sanctions doesn't make good sense, and doesn't serve the interests of the general population. It leads to tremendous taxpayer expense, increased criminality, disdain for the rule of law, and untold damage to individuals who are basically engaged in a victimless crime.
...
I don't understand why you can't see this, unless you refuse to accept the truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

v, I understand what you are saying. However, it is a simple solution to a very complicated problem.

By the way...this quote of yours (which is in reply to my post saying that 'we are responsible for our own actions') has no relevance that I can see, because 'We are responsible for our own actions' is not a solution to anything. Rather, it is a simple statement of fact applicable to anything we do in life, whether legal or illegal.

Perhaps you were refering to previous posts of mine as a whole?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

-it serves the well being of general population to keep dangerous drugs illegal, because they are dangerous

This is simply not true of all drugs. Not by a long shot. Further, the most dangerous of all is legal (alcohol). Everyone's heard the story of the guy 2 towns away that drank himself to death on his 18th or 21st birthday. No one has ever smoked weed to death. Long term effects of weed use aren't great; but they're a damned sight better than the long term affects of alcohol. Neither is harmful in moderation; so I don't require my government to protect me from either.

vikorr wrote:

-it would cost more to not enforce than to enforce

I would love to see you fortify this statement with some facts. I think you'll find proving it impossible.

vikorr wrote:

-taking drugs is not a victimless crime, illegal drugs are illegal because they are dangerous not always just to the well being of the subject, but to others also. Victims can include innocent members of society, the addicts family, the addicts friends, road trauma victims, and victims of violence.

This is simply not true. A drug user is not necessarily an addict. Innocent members of society are not effected one iota if I'm using drugs in my home. Road trauma victims would remain covered by existing D.U.I Laws. Violence? Surely you jest. One need look no further in history than our other misguided prohibition to see that prohibition increases violence. Criminalization not only fails to put a stop to the laws of supply and demand; it eliminates all opportunities to moderate via restriction. It creates windfall profits (that are essentially unreportable) which like all other valuables can be stolen; only the crime of theft cannot be reported, thereby leaving citizens no choice but to do their own policing... and Joe Citizen is considerably worse at interpreting common law than the courts... and the penalties can be horrific. This violence is created by prohibition. Steal a bottle of booze, and the clerk simply calls the police, rather than pulling his .45.

vikorr wrote:

-the disrespect for the rule of law, not just in relation to drugs, but in relation to many other area's of the law, is a reflection of our society, not a reflection of the laws themselves.

Nonsense. Disrespect for the rule of law stems mostly from unnecessary laws that normally law abiding citizens consider over invasive. If you took away all of the laws designed to protect me from me; you'd find mostly only true criminals would disrespect the law... and law enforcement would probably be more effective since they wouldn't be focused on protecting me from me.

Violence, in all of its forms, should be the number one focus. This is what people need protection from... not themselves.

vikorr wrote:

I understand where you are coming from. I just don't happen to agree with it. Among the many issues surrounding illegal drugs...when it all comes down to it, dangerous drugs are illegal because they are just that, dangerous (and the 'many issues' arise from this central fact). Despite your arguments, this doesn't change. What then is so hard to understand about why they are illegal?

This is simply untrue and you've utterly failed to demonstrate otherwise. Alcohol is more dangerous than most every other substance that is illegal. But, it doesn't become dangerous until it is abused. There is a multitude of ways to criminalize abuse, without criminalizing the substance itself. People are responsible for their actions and I'm all for holding them accountable. Alcohol is no excuse in a court of law and neither should drug use be. But that doesn't mean you have to restrict the freedom of otherwise law abiding citizens in a laughably failing attempt at prohibition. No person reading this in the United States today couldn't buy illegal drugs today if they wanted to. Meanwhile, this idiotic prohibition creates a highly profitable black market for organized crime to thrive in. Liquor stores do no such thing.

vikorr wrote:

The only thing dangerous about marijuana is the criminals that pedal it. This danger was created by prohibition.

vikorr wrote:

Wrong. Harsher penalties don't work, so less harsh penalties can't be expected to work either. As long as drugs remain illegal, the inevitable drug trade remains unregulated. This is the folly created by prohibition.

0 Replies

v, you contend that drugs are dangerous and, thus, should remain illegal. I think you would agree that Australian-rules football and auto racing are dangerous, but should not be made illegal. If people are foolish enough to engage in these sports, they should not be imprisoned for their participation. There are many other things in our lives that are dangerous, but criminalizing these things would only add to the dire consequences of participation.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Innocent members of society are not effected one iota if I'm using drugs in my home.

Is that a rule that applies only to drug use, or is it applicable to all activities that are performed in the privacy of one's own home? For instance, if I counterfeit money in my home, with no intention of passing off those counterfeits to other people, should that still be a crime?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Alcohol is more dangerous than most every other substance that is illegal. But, it doesn't become dangerous until it is abused. There is a multitude of ways to criminalize abuse, without criminalizing the substance itself.

Are you serious? Machine guns aren't dangerous unless they're abused, but the state still effectively prohibits the private ownership of machine guns. DDT isn't dangerous unless it is abused, but that hasn't stopped the state from bannnig its use in pretty much all circumstances. If the usage of some substance leads to results that are, on the whole, deemed undesirable by society, then why not ban the substance?

0 Replies

Joe, the vast majority of people, I think, feel that gay sexual relations are undesirable. However, the Supreme Ct. held a few years ago that this is a private matter protected by the constitution. This deemed a Texas sodomy statute as unconstitutional.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Joe, the vast majority of people, I think, feel that gay sexual relations are undesirable. However, the Supreme Ct. held a few years ago that this is a private matter protected by the constitution. This deemed a Texas sodomy statute as unconstitutional.

And your point is...?

0 Replies

People who engage in sodomy while driving are a danger to society.

0 Replies

LEGALIZING DRUGS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know