Another Decriminalise Drugs Thread

[Steve]

you do know this forum is voluntary right?

LOL. Are you asking me to leave so no one will point out the idiocy of some of your arguments?

 

[ballen0351]

I've not heard one rational argument in favor of the prohibition.

And Ive heard none for legalization

It's all circular logic. drugs are bad because gangs deal drugs and gangs deal drugs because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad, and they're bad because gangs deal them, and gangs deal them because they're illegal. Blah, blah, blah...

drugs are not bad because of gangs drugs are bad because they are dangerous and addictive. Gangs are just a bonus

And then there's the other striking resemblances to the pro-gun arguments. Isn't theft already illegal? If a drug addict is stealing, that's already against the law. Obviously, more laws is doing no good.

difference between gun control and drug control is you have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun. No such right exists to own Crack

 

[ballen0351]

LOL. Are you asking me to leave so no one will point out the idiocy of some of your arguments?

Im not asking you to leave your crying abut being forced to discuss this topic Im just pointing out your not forced to do anythng

 

[ballen0351]

What a cop out (no pun iintended). Is home invasion and violent robbery illegal? As a cop, can you arrest them? Aren't gangs ALREADY killing people?

sure but for the most part they only kill other people involved in the same trade. There are always exceptions but usually if your murdered there is some connection to it or the suspect. true random acts are kinda rare

I don't know about you, but I think that gangs are already committing violent crimes. As a cop, surely you've seen some in your time. Come on, ballen. This is an idiotic rationale. The idea that we keep drugs illegal so gangs won't do WORSE crimes than deal drugs and kill people over them... give me a break.

didnt say it was the only reason but it needs to be considered. right now drug dealers stay in and operate in certain places at certain times and dont really bother normal people. that why normal people always think drugs are "victimless" since it doesn't effect the average joes every day life. When you remve a steady income stream from undereducated, unemployed, criminals, they will find other ways to earn that income. just one more thing to consider when we talk about making drugs legal

 

[Steve]

Can we just post some links to the several previous threads?

 

[Steve]

difference between gun control and drug control is you have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun. No such right exists to own Crack

Just want to address this quickly. If the bottom line for the entire pro-gun position is that it is a Constitutionally protected right, can you guys just quit pretending that there is any other rational reason to allow unfettered access to weapons? The rest, when pointed out to you, serves only to illustrate your hypocrisy.

 

[Tgace]

Yawn...really....this again?

Tell all the people on my answering machine complaining about the drug User/dealer on their street that they want me to "do something about" to stop calling me then. I'm sure your arguments will make them feel so much better.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

Can we just post some links to the several previous threads?

Why?

 

[ballen0351]

Just want to address this quickly. If the bottom line for the entire pro-gun position is that it is a Constitutionally protected right, can you guys just quit pretending that there is any other rational reason to allow unfettered access to weapons? The rest, when pointed out to you, serves only to illustrate your hypocrisy.

dude Ive always said that but there can be more then 1 reason for an argument but in my opinion it always comes back to the 2nd amendment. Same goes for drugs if you had a constitutional right to smoke crack Id say the same thing. Ive also said I dont think the Feds have a right to ban drugs it should be a state choice since there is no mention of drugs in the constitution it should fall to the states to decide

 

[Tgace]

http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/poad.cfm

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

From the op:

"What I am saying is that drugs should be controlled. They should not, of course, be freely available."

Uhhhh...yeah. That will end the drug trade. If a kid wants to try heroin for the first time it wont be "freely available". OK. How is that supposed to work?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

If all drugs were legal, no one would use heroin because better, cheaper, and safer alternatives would develop. This is what the free market does.

 

[ballen0351]

If all drugs were legal, no one would use heroin because better, cheaper, and safer alternatives would develop. This is what the free market does.

Sure because nobody does anything thats legal thats dangerous to their health

 

[Sukerkin]

A little more informed input from the BBC, putting some viewpoints from both sides:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374228

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23331602

 

[oftheherd1]

There are arguments on both sides of this issue for sure.

But consider that with laws and enforcement, we still have a lot of drug users. Many eventually become addicted. When that happens, they become a burden to their families and/or the health care system. Once addicted, they tend to commit crimes to support their habit.

What part of that is acceptable, and will be cured by decriminalizing drugs?

 

[Steve]

There are arguments on both sides of this issue for sure.

But consider that with laws and enforcement, we still have a lot of drug users. Many eventually become addicted. When that happens, they become a burden to their families and/or the health care system. Once addicted, they tend to commit crimes to support their habit.

What part of that is acceptable, and will be cured by decriminalizing drugs?

I think that if you flip this around, and look at it through the lens of prohibition, it makes more sense. Drugs are illegal, and yet we cannot keep them from being used. What we are doing doesn't work. It just makes criminals rich.

During prohibition, people were being killed or going blind drinking unregulated, homemade liquor. People were being killed in the streets. Bootlegging became organized and money was flowing into the coffers of the dealers. And if you wanted a drink, you could still get it. You just had to go to a speakeasy or deal with a dealer.

Doesn't any of that seem familiar to anyone besides me? The parallels are direct and predictable.

Tgace/Ballen, how serious is the bootlegging problem in your areas? How many people have died or gone blind from drinking incorrectly distiller liquor? When's the last time we had large gangs of armed criminals killing people in the streets over alcohol? Doesn't happen.

Now, does this mean that alcohol is without its own problems? Of course not. People still drink too much sometimes. People still become alcoholics, and some of the most desperate surely still commit crimes in order to get money for booze.

The key here isn't whether all drug related crimes will end. It won't. What lifting the prohibition will do is allow lawful citizens to manufacture and sell safer, regulated versions to people who are using them anyway.

It will also get many of the drug users out of our jails and justice system.

And also, bear in mind that legal doesn't mean everyone will immediately become crack addled, druggies. We can also look to alcohol for a great example of how shifting our social stance and applying social pressure is far more effective than banning. Thirty years ago, driving under the influence was tolerated and largely ignored. It has always been illegal, but the key to reducing the number of DUI deaths dramatically has everything to do with education and social pressure.



Marijuana is the most widely used, illegal drug, and it's use is pervasive. The second worst are already legal, prescription pain killers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

I think that if you flip this around, and look at it through the lens of prohibition, it makes more sense. Drugs are illegal, and yet we cannot keep them from being used. What we are doing doesn't work. It just makes criminals rich.

During prohibition, people were being killed or going blind drinking unregulated, homemade liquor. People were being killed in the streets. Bootlegging became organized and money was flowing into the coffers of the dealers. And if you wanted a drink, you could still get it. You just had to go to a speakeasy or deal with a dealer.

Doesn't any of that seem familiar to anyone besides me? The parallels are direct and predictable.

Tgace/Ballen, how serious is the bootlegging problem in your areas? How many people have died or gone blind from drinking incorrectly distiller liquor? When's the last time we had large gangs of armed criminals killing people in the streets over alcohol? Doesn't happen.

Now, does this mean that alcohol is without its own problems? Of course not. People still drink too much sometimes. People still become alcoholics, and some of the most desperate surely still commit crimes in order to get money for booze.

The key here isn't whether all drug related crimes will end. It won't. What lifting the prohibition will do is allow lawful citizens to manufacture and sell safer, regulated versions to people who are using them anyway.

It will also get many of the drug users out of our jails and justice system.

And also, bear in mind that legal doesn't mean everyone will immediately become crack addled, druggies. We can also look to alcohol for a great example of how shifting our social stance and applying social pressure is far more effective than banning. Thirty years ago, driving under the influence was tolerated and largely ignored. It has always been illegal, but the key to reducing the number of DUI deaths dramatically has everything to do with education and social pressure.



Marijuana is the most widely used, illegal drug, and it's use is pervasive. The second worst are already legal, prescription pain killers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Comparing heroin to booze is apples to bulldozers. Not everyone who drinks socially will become an alcoholic. Anyone who routinely uses smack WILL become physically dependent. When you go into DTs when you don't get your fix and you are short on money...put it together.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/heroin-timeline.html

1898 The Bayer Company introduces heroin as a substitute for morphine.

Early 1900's The philanthropic Saint James Society in the U.S. mounts a campaign to supply free samples of heroin through the mail to morphine addicts who are trying give up their habits.

Efforts by the British and French to control opium production in Southeast Asia are successful. Nevertheless, this Southeast region, referred to as the 'Golden Triangle', eventually becomes a major player in the profitable opium trade during the 1940's.

1902 In various medical journals, physicians discuss the side effects of using heroin as a morphine step-down cure. Several physicians would argue that their patients suffered from heroin withdrawal symptoms equal to morphine addiction.

1903 Heroin addiction rises to alarming rates.

People who ignore history
.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Comparing heroin to booze is apples to bulldozers. Not everyone who drinks socially will become an alcoholic. Anyone who routinely uses smack WILL become physically dependent. When you go into DTs when you don't get your fix and you are short on money...put it together.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Legalizing something isn't the same thing as endorsing something. Heroin will never be a good idea, but what we are doing now isn't keeping people from becoming addicts. Is it?

You're arguing a straw man, here.

Edit to add: the irony that you invent a straw man to argue, and while ignoring the apples to apples lessons we learned from prohibition, you suggest I'm failing to learn from history,

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

So We need to make it legal because people still do it even when its illegal is the real straw man.
More people steal everyday then use drugs. Stealing is illegal yet its done millions of times a day. Guess we should make that legal as well since the "war on theft" is a failure.