I said it before...drug users...

[oaktree]

If this is true:

If Americans consume close to 24 million pounds of marijuana annually, that amounts to 384,000,000 ounces. If marijuana was taxed at a flat rate of $25 per ounce, that would generate close to $10 billion in tax revenue annually. $10 billion

http://hightimes.com/legal/jgettman/5867

We could use that money to help fix America's economy problems, help create jobs, lower crime rate and *gasp* stop funding terrorism.

The arguement that because you buy drugs thus you are in the same situation as murders falls in the same logic as "because you buy bottle water from a street vendor who then uses the money without you knowing he is using it to buy weapons to murder people ."

People who buy drugs are not buying knowing or supporting murder kinda of like paying taxes used to fund the CIA to import cocaine in America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

According to Peter Dale Scott, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad was in part a CIA creation, and "the CIA's closest government allies were for years in the DFS". DFS badges, "handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual 'license to traffic.'"[SUP][7][/SUP] Scott says that "The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset."[SUP][[/SUP]

Bill you blame the people who buy drugs for supporting murders from Mexico try looking at US governments involvement first.

 

[elder999]

Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.

If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs is the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them.

BTW-while I'm not exactly with you on this, I've been peeing in a bottle since 1986, and imagine I will be for the rest of my career. Not exactly a recreational drug user, nor someone who condones it.

Tequila, wine n' beer, though? :lfao:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.

Yep.

If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs is the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them.

I made an absurd example but the point is valid. And in any case, the argument is worthy of having, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion. And invoking it is exactly a side-step. It's saying "I don't want to talk about it, let's talk about this instead."

BTW-while I'm not exactly with you on this, I've been peeing in a bottle since 1986, and imagine I will be for the rest of my career. Not exactly a recreational drug user, nor someone who condones it.

Tequila, wine n' beer, though? :lfao:

I'm not going to get into comparisons of 'which is worse' or the relative merits or arguments for drug legalization. Those who use illicit drugs have a personal responsibility for these murders, full stop.

 

[elder999]

Those who use illicit drugs have a personal responsibility for these murders, full stop.

Yes, they do. On the other hand, they're not going to stand trial for those murders, or make reparations to the families of the victims, or stop using the drugs.

The best bet to keep things like this from happening-and remove the responsibility from the users-is to make the drugs legal, and eliminate the problem. It's not a side-step, Bill: it's the solution to the problem-the removal of the cause.

If the drugs weren't illegal, there'd be no illegal activity associated with them, especially violence like this.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The arguement that because you buy drugs thus you are in the same situation as murders falls in the same logic as "because you buy bottle water from a street vendor who then uses the money without you knowing he is using it to buy weapons to murder people ."

Nope. The people buying and using illicit drugs are quite aware of what's happening in Mexico and the violence that has been associated with narco-terrorism since the 1980's. Nobody ever say "Miami Vice" or "Scarface?" It's so common they make MOVIES about it, TV shows about it. No druggie can claim they did not know.

People who buy drugs are not buying knowing or supporting murder kinda of like paying taxes used to fund the CIA to import cocaine in America

Like hell they don't know.

Bill you blame the people who buy drugs for supporting murders from Mexico try looking at US governments involvement first.

Moral relativism. It's the 'worse crook theory'. Hey, I may be a mugger, but at least I'm not a rapist. I may be a murderer, but the US government murders more people. Well, it's not about them, it's about YOU (the drug user, not you personally). Deflect all you like; the person using the illicit drugs has personal responsibility for the murders of those people on the bridge. CIA involved? Sure, whatever. NOT IMPORTANT to the end-user of the drugs. They buy illegal drugs, they are morally equivalent to the murderers themselves, full stop.

 

[MA-Caver]

Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.

If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs is the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them.

BTW-while I'm not exactly with you on this, I've been peeing in a bottle since 1986, and imagine I will be for the rest of my career. Not exactly a recreational drug user, nor someone who condones it.

Tequila, wine n' beer, though? :lfao:

I honestly don't think legalization is going to be the end all answer to it. Certainly there'll always be a demand for it, yet cut off the supply, eradicate it is going to be very hard if not impossible. Alcohol still kills millions every year around the globe and yes there is still crime related to alcohol. True, not on a large scale as it was during the prohibition but car accidents, bar-fights, drunken rages and so on.
Drugs, especially the "harder stuff" such as Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. can kill a person just being in their room not bothering anyone. Either way the violence below the borders won't stop and it will eventually (and in some cases it has already) cross the borders in ever increasing incidents.

 

[elder999]

Drugs, especially the "harder stuff" such as Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. can kill a person just being in their room not bothering anyone. .

And this is bad, how, exactly? I mean, I did say to let all the heroin users have all the pure they could stand for as long as they can stand it.....which'd be until they died, right?

 

[Steve]

Here's a question for you guys. We continue to have alcohol problems in America. Abuse of alcohol by minors. DUIs. Alcoholism. Domestic violence. You name it. Alcohol is destructive to society.

But would you guys endorse reinstating prohibition? The question isn't whether or not alcohol is destructive. The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?

Yes. If we could prohibit alcohol in both law and reality.

No. We could not prohibit alcohol in reality.

So, a mixed bag.

 

[oaktree]

Bill as much I would enjoy to discuss it more with you I think you are to emotionally involved with this and any discussion would not be productive

I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[Steve]

Yes. If we could prohibit alcohol in both law and reality.

No. We could not prohibit alcohol in reality.

So, a mixed bag.

You're right. I presumed we were talking about reality. So... does mixed bag mean you do not believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better? Or does it mean you believe it would make some things better? If the latter, what things? What, in your opinion, would a prohibition on alcohol improve in our society?

 

[granfire]

Here's a question for you guys. We continue to have alcohol problems in America. Abuse of alcohol by minors. DUIs. Alcoholism. Domestic violence. You name it. Alcohol is destructive to society.

But would you guys endorse reinstating prohibition? The question isn't whether or not alcohol is destructive. The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?

prohibition was counter productive.
abuse by minors is in fact a mini prohibition.
Anything you put the 'ZOMG it's so BAD' label on, it becomes more interesting.

I am not saying all drugs ought to be legalized. many were in fact legal in the past, but put on the index because they are just too freaking dangerous.
Alcohol is just not one of them, or pot.

 

[punisher73]

One of the bigger more violent drug cartels in Mexico was actually trained by our own special forces and taught all our tricks. Then they decided that they could make more money by selling the drugs than enforcing the drug laws and went rogue. These guys have videos floating around of them training military style on how to kill etc.

The other part about the drug cartels is "La Lineas" or "the lines" that they use to get the drugs into the US. The cartels are selling those secrets to muslim terrorists on how to get into the country undetected.

In law enforcement, the cartels used to send "gratis" loads through (gratis=free). They would have a truck in the caravan that was meant to get caught with a fairly large load so they could observe the methods used. Recently, those same cartels have now ordered that no more loads are to be lost and to kill any LEO you have to. This isn't some abstract concept or hyperbole of how dangerous these cartels are. They are already here and bringing the violence with them.

Look at Ciudad Juarez and where it lies in relation to the US/Mexican border and you will understand why it is such contested territory. Now, look at the US side and how many major highways branch out from there to large US metropolitan cities on both the east and west coast.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're right. I presumed we were talking about reality. So... does mixed bag mean you do not believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better? Or does it mean you believe it would make some things better? If the latter, what things? What, in your opinion, would a prohibition on alcohol improve in our society?

By 'mixed bag' I believe some things would be made worse, some better.

It is my understanding that alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic accidents. Since I presume that at least some people would obey the law and refrain from drinking alcohol under a new Prohibition, I would also presume that alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths would be reduced as well. I am also under the understanding that alcohol overuse has a significant impact on health care costs besides just traffic accidents. And I would presume that under a new Prohibition, those who continued to use alcohol and were involved in traffic accidents could be punished and/or removed from the highways at a higher rate than DUI drivers currently are. I would see these as positive effects.

I understand that there is a federal excise tax on alcohol intended for consumption, so that would be eliminated as a source of revenue.

There would be a near-immediate increase in organized crime surrounding importation and distribution of now-illegal alcohol. Enforcement costs would rise, violence would rise, and so on.

If I had to guess, I would suppose that there would be a fairly large percentage of scofflaws regarding a new Prohibition. Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order.

I would see these as negative effects.

So, yes, 'mixed bag'.

Personally, I loved my booze, but I gave it up when I got diabetes. So it would have no effect on me.

 

[Steve]

By 'mixed bag' I believe some things would be made worse, some better.

It is my understanding that alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic accidents. Since I presume that at least some people would obey the law and refrain from drinking alcohol under a new Prohibition, I would also presume that alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths would be reduced as well. I am also under the understanding that alcohol overuse has a significant impact on health care costs besides just traffic accidents. And I would presume that under a new Prohibition, those who continued to use alcohol and were involved in traffic accidents could be punished and/or removed from the highways at a higher rate than DUI drivers currently are. I would see these as positive effects.

I understand that there is a federal excise tax on alcohol intended for consumption, so that would be eliminated as a source of revenue.

There would be a near-immediate increase in organized crime surrounding importation and distribution of now-illegal alcohol. Enforcement costs would rise, violence would rise, and so on.

If I had to guess, I would suppose that there would be a fairly large percentage of scofflaws regarding a new Prohibition. Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order.

I would see these as negative effects.

So, yes, 'mixed bag'.

Personally, I loved my booze, but I gave it up when I got diabetes. So it would have no effect on me.

To address the traffic accident point, driving drunk is already illegal. I don't understand your logic there.

Regarding health care costs, we can see that prohibitions don't keep people from using the drug. We are already dealing with the health care costs associated with illegal drug use.

I think your comment about laws which are ignored is extremely insightful, and we've seen that prohibiting use does not significantly stop use. Over 1/3rd of our country uses or has used Marijuana. We HAVE a serious addiction/abuse problem with heroin, meth and other illegal drugs. As I said before, the issue exists, as it would continue to exist with alcohol were it banned.

And we can also see from history that banning drugs leads to more dangerous versions of drugs on the street. When is the last time someone went blind or died from drinking incorrectly distilled liquor? It's unheard of now, but wasn't uncommon when people made "bathtub gin."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To address the traffic accident point, driving drunk is already illegal. I don't understand your logic there.

Regarding health care costs, we can see that prohibitions don't keep people from using the drug. We are already dealing with the health care costs associated with illegal drug use.

I think your comment about laws which are ignored is extremely insightful, and we've seen that prohibiting use does not significantly stop use. Over 1/3rd of our country uses or has used Marijuana. We HAVE a serious addiction/abuse problem with heroin, meth and other illegal drugs. As I said before, the issue exists, as it would continue to exist with alcohol were it banned.

And we can also see from history that banning drugs leads to more dangerous versions of drugs on the street. When is the last time someone went blind or died from drinking incorrectly distilled liquor? It's unheard of now, but wasn't uncommon when people made "bathtub gin."

Yeah, I had a guess you were leading up to a gotcha. I decided to just let you take me where you wanted me to go. Thanks for getting to the point.

With regard to traffic accidents, I said that I presume as least some people will obey a prohibition on alcohol. If any do, then those are the ones who won't be getting tanked after work at the bar and driving home drunk. Some people will continue to find ways to get their booze, and of course, will continue to play a role in traffic accidents. So that's my logic that you don't get.

Regarding health care costs, I did not say we would not have to deal with health care costs related to alcohol under your hypothetical prohibition. I said that since we can presume that some (call it 'X' percent) of people would obey a prohibition law, we might experience lower health care costs related to alcohol. That's just a simple deduction based on an assumption that the hypothetical prohibition will have at least some percent of citizens who obey it. If no one obeys it, then no, there will be no reduction in costs on a logical basis.

I think you don't have a firm grasp of history or distilling if you think a lot of people died from 'improperly distilled' liquor. Adulterated liquor, perhaps, but even then, I'd guess the percentages were pretty low compared to the number of illicit drinkers.

In any case, you asked my opinion. I gave it. I can't be wrong or right; it's an opinion. I knew it was a set up, but that's OK. I guess you have some feeling of victory, fine with me.

I still have an opinion; mixed bag. I can't say that I understand what your point is. I simply am not arguing that illicit drugs should or should not remain that way, so arguments to me about that are meaningless in this thread. I simply state that if a person is using illicit drugs, they have a personal responsibility for the murders being committed by the drug dealers. That's a simple statement. I agreed with Jeff that during Prohibition, people who bought booze were just as responsible for the violence and murders committed by the organized crime families that imported booze. I'm not drawing any distinctions between illegal booze and illegal drugs as far as that goes.

 

[JohnEdward]

I agree with the difficulty of curbing drug use, or of the addict's ability to just stop using drugs. I'm not saying "Just say no."

What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a personal responsibility for these murders. If a person is an illicit drug user and thinks that by blaming governments, policies, enforcement, or other human issues, they are escaping from their own moral responsibility, I say they are wrong. If one is snorting coke or smoking crack today, one is in league with these murderers. Refuse to accept it if one wishes; but as far as I'm concerned, the illicit drug user is no better than the murderers themselves. They might as well be pulling the trigger every time they spark up.

Sorry I missed that. Agreed. And very true. I feel the same thing. I can't look at someone who does illegal drugs and not see blood on their hands. They are part of the drug cartels, organized crime, and yet they shun any personal responsibility.

 

[Steve]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondc

Just a couple of the slides from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Prohibition isn't keeping anyone from using the drugs who wants to use them.

According to the CDC, 8.7% of people 12 and over have used an illicit drug in the past month (2009)

As of 2009, over 95 million adults in America admitted to having smoked marijuana at least once in their lives. Over 22 million have smoked weed within the last year and over 8 million consider themselves to be "chronic" users at over 100 times per year.

These are laws which are being ignored. And the cost to our society is very, very high.

 

[Steve]

Gotcha? Dude, I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to articulate a point. I have more respect for you than to play rhetorical games, and frankly, it pisses me off that you would think otherwise.

Have I been other than clear? Unlike you, I can admit when I'm arguing from emotion. I believe you're wrong. I believe your opinions are based on emotion and not fact. I believe you are being inconsistent and illogical. And I'm totally okay with it if you would just admit it and be up front about it. But you won't. You insist on dressing your emotional rhetoric up in pseudo logic. Frankly, this looks terrible on you, who are usually a consistent voice of reason and opinion tempered by objective consideration.

That you didn't see where I was headed is just more evidence to me that you aren't thinking clearly on this subject, because I wasn't being subtle. Nor was I trying to be.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I believe you're wrong.

About what? I have stated that illicit drug users have a personal responsibility for the murders being committed by the drug dealers who supply the drugs they demand. You've responded with questions and then statements illustrating your belief that prohibition doesn't work. I don't really care if prohibition works, so if you think I'm 'wrong', I have to ask again, about what?

I believe your opinions are based on emotion and not fact. I believe you are being inconsistent and illogical. And I'm totally okay with it if you would just admit it and be up front about it. But you won't. You insist on dressing your emotional rhetoric up in pseudo logic. Frankly, this looks terrible on you, who are usually a consistent voice of reason and opinion tempered by objective consideration.

I didn't dress up anything in logic, pseudo or otherwise. I stated my opinion about something. I stated why I have that opinion. You then asked my opinion about a completely different subject, and I answered you, even though I sensed your agenda. You then told me my logic and opinion were 'wrong'. Well, my logic may be wrong (about the topic you created), but you haven't demonstrated it, you have just taken a half-hearted jab at it and then announced that I'm wrong.

With regard to my first opinion, about the responsibility that illicit drug users have for the murders committed by drug dealers, I didn't offer any logic at all; I stated an opinion and I think I was relatively clear about that.

That you didn't see where I was headed is just more evidence to me that you aren't thinking clearly on this subject, because I wasn't being subtle. Nor was I trying to be.

I think you're having some trouble understanding the difference between an opinion and a theory.

I don't like peach pie. That's my opinion. I did not offer a theory that peach pie is objective 'bad', just the opinion that I don't like it. You ask me how I feel about cake, I answer, and you proceed to demonstrate how cake is actually good for you, and everybody ought to like it. Then you tell me I'm wrong about peach pie; your devastating logic has just proved I have to like it.

I can't be wrong about my opinion, I don't like peach pie; simple statement. I'm allowed to not like peach pie. It's not emotional, and it's not based on a rational or logical argument. Me. No. Like. Peach. Pie.

I have an opinion. You are offering a theory on a completely different subject and suggesting that your facts, if correct (and I do not concede they are) require me to revise my opinion. They don't. Nor have I ever said that my opinion was based on science, logic, or proof of any kind. It's my opinion. I don't like peach pie, and I think illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by drug dealers who supply what they demand. I have not argued that drug prohibition is good, bad, or that legalizing drugs would be a good thing or a bad thing for society; not in this thread, anyway. So how is it that my logic is bad for something I'm not taking a position on?