to the ones who thinks that ALL of the illegal drugs need to be legal , you must be high or on some type of illegal drugs your self..... Making them legal will never work . theft, rape, and alot more serious violent crimes will sky rocket.
The solution to the U.S. war on drugs
- Thread starter walking arsenal
- Start date
- Status
GunnySkox
Member
crazed_ss said:
Ridding our society of gun-wielding maniacs, murderers, robbers, and puppy-stomping gun-nuts is more important than your need to punch holes in paper and break clay and feel manly, regardless of how responsible you think you are. If that means outlawing guns, then so be it.
Do you see how silly that sounds? The parallels are exactly the same. Basing policy on the hypothetical evils of an object/substance is madness.
You can drive 100 MPH on your own land all you want, you can drive "to your ability" all the way to the end of your property; once you leave it, and get onto public lands (e.g., roads), it becomes their business how you drive. What I stick in my body on my property (or another consenting party's property) is my business, and none of the government's (or yours), unless in the process or thereafter do something to infringe on someone else's rights. That's why the government can put you in jail for "public drunkenness" or "driving under the influence" but not for, say, "drinking at home" or "drunk in a bar".
~GnSx
Sindawe
Member
And your evidence backing up this assertion is?
beerslurpy
member
crazed_ss said:
I disagree. Let me enumerate the more obvious reasons:
1) The ghetto was crappy before drugs. Its not like they were playing golf and reciting poetry before crack came along and turned them into reavers. The problem is the reasons that people seek to huff paint fumes or smoke crack, not whether we card people at the paint store.
2) Your speech is just a variation on the tired "if we let people have guns" or "if we let black people use our water fountains" scare tactics that are essentially an appeal to our fears and doubts. Been done before and it still rings hollow.
3) I grew up in a bad neighborhood. I've lived in east bay and I've lived in Baltimore. That being said, I dont think the average illiterate crackhead is any less dangerous or annoying than a perfectly legal wino.
4) Speaking of which, arent you arguing that legalization would increase supply? How could weed, crack, heroin and coke possibly become more available than it already is? The only thing that would really become more common under legalization is the use of rehab.
Dont you get it? The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.
crazed_ss said:
If I thought there was credible evidence that making drugs illegal is helping more than hurting, IN THE BIG PICTURE, I'd agree. But I think that the evidence points the other way. Note that, during Prohibition, alcohol consumption actually increased, and more people participated in that consumption than did before booze was banned. I really question whether people who get hooked on crack and crystal are really all there to begin with.
Oh yeah, I know a good number of people who have had serious "drug problems". Laws banning drugs didn't stop them, any more than the people you've known.
Gun control doesn't stop violence, as some silly Californians want to believe. I don't think that making drugs illegal seems to stop drug abuse. What it does is take people who are screwed up anyway, and lure them into the criminal underworld. THIS is the source of violent crime, theft, rape, etc., more than the drugs themselves (as evil as I think some of them are).
Disclaimer: here I'm talking about "hard drugs", the obviously destructive stuff. People who are into some shamanic thing, hey, go ahead. Not my deal, but you don't have to extol the virtues of peyote. I'm talking about crap drugs like crack that has done so much damage in ss's native Oakland, or crystal that has done so much damage where I've grown up and lived, around here.
Well, it works in Germany. They have no speed limit, but they strictly enforce the rules of the road, like passing on the left, etc. And they have more stringent tests to get a license, too. Somehow I doubt that, when it rains, they have 300-400 wrecks per day in a given city, like we do every storm in San Diego.
In the US, we enforce speed limits, but incompetence on the road goes unpunished until someone gets hurt.
Things ain't so simple, really. I don't think I have all the answers, though.
(And no, I wasn't referring to you in the locked thread. I work for a university, and my reaction to the PC comes out in my humor, sometimes. No offense meant, though I never mind a vigorous debate.
)ElTacoGrande
Member
Senor Slurpy de Cervessa said:
Yeah, how could drugs possibly be made MORE available than they are? I can buy coke 24 hours a day 365 days a year. That's more available than alcohol.
They would have to put them in the water supply to make them any more widespread than they are.
On the other side of the argument, do you honestly think the War on Drugs has achieved anything at all?
My assertion came from a lot of home work. my info comes from some books that i have read .Drugs in society causes, concept and control . Michael D. Lyman , Gary W. Potter . Drugs In America ! sociology, Economics, and Politics Ansley Hamid, this good stuff it has a lot of good info . it just might change a person view and how they look at drugs and effects.
DRZinn
Member
Who advocated that?
Second strawman from the same guy - most of us here arguing for legalization do not use illegal drugs. I never have.
crashm1
Member
crazed_ss said:Hey wassup man
There's a big difference between alcohol and hard drugs like crack, meth and heroine. It's much more easy to get addicted to them. I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses. No one because an alcoholic after a few drinks. It takes some drinking effort to become an alcoholic
Well actually as a recovering addict and drunk I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The first time I drank I got falling down drunk, I was 5. The last time I got loaded the night before going into treatment I got falling down loaded. Every time in between I used, it was to get as far away from myself as possible. Notice a pattern. I cannot remember ever using "socially". I can remember many times trying to. It's very rare that I meet someone who is an alcoholic or dope fiend that doesn't tell the same story. The difference is alcohol is legal so the habit is cheaper. I also have coworkers and aquaintances that can use in moderation and always have. My ex wife is a perfect example. She wouldn't drink if she was sad or angry, she was capable of having one glass of wine or a couple tokes of weed. I never could, it always turned into the whole bottle or two or smoking til it was gone. I say legalize it and tax it. It might even help the deficit.
crazed_ss
Member
DocZinn said:
Wouldnt you think it'd be illegal to discriminate against drug users in hiring if drugs were legalized?
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Substance abuse is a symptom of an underlying illness. Some people can be heavy drinkers all their life and never become an alcoholic. Others become alcoholics right from the start. Same with drugs abuse, overeating, gambling, etc...
beerslurpy
member
crazed_ss said:
Most employers dont screen for drugs except govt positions. There already is no discrimination against drug users in 99 percent of jobs.
Discriminate against people based on the quality of their work. This is the only fair criteria anyway.
If homosexual sodomy was illegal, would it be legal to discriminate against gays in hiring?
ElTacoGrande
Member
crazed_ss said:
Absolutely positively no way.
Employers can discrimate freely in their hiring decisions, with a few narrow exceptions. One, they can't discriminate in certain protected categories. These are the obvious ones: race, age, religion, marital status (they are NOT allowed to ask if you're married or have children during the interview!).
Second, job requirements do have to have some connection to the job. So a warehouse worker position could have requirements like "must be able to lift 50lbs to a height of 5'" which would exclude many disabled people, for example. Could an office worker position have that requirement? If part of the job involves going to the stock room, sure. An employer can draft this any way he wants to so long as he could justify it.
Getting back to drugs: Any position at all could have a drug screening requirement. That's reasonable for really any type of work. Employers already routinely screen for alcohol and nicotine, both of which are legal. They can definitely say "no" to someone who has alcohol in his blood during a screening. It's absolutely reasonable to deny employment to someone who is drunk or stoned or high, for ANY position.
So, employers would have the same freedom to do drug screening they have today, and make their hiring decisions based on that. This isn't a gray area, or something an employer would have to fight in court. This is clear fact.
crazed_ss
Member
beerslurpy said:
I see what you're saying here and actually makes a lot of sense. I'd just be afraid that even these new "responsible" users could easily become addicts. Like I said.. a lot of current drug addicts started off saying that they could handle their high and they couldnt get addicted. Look at them now.
But maybe legalizing drugs would be good if it got rid of all the violence associated with the illegal trade. In that case legalization might be the lesser or two evils.
DRZinn
Member
Why would it be? Pilots can't fly drunk, why do you think they'd be allowed to fly stoned?
Beerslurpy says:
The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.
How is that? Using drugs-- including alcohol-- is not on the same logical footing as owning and operating firearms. Someone may decide to use drugs only once the drug becomes legal, but why would it follow that the individual would not become a drug abuser- like those who abused the drugs when they were still illegal? A drug is a drug, and an addictive substance is an addictive substance.
The perjorative behavior in question with drug abuse is the drug use itself. As soon as one consumes a substance that everyone knows is relatively dangerous and relatively given to clouding one own's judgment, then the questionable behavior has already occurred. You have become irresponsible by ingesting a substance that renders you vulnerable to faulty judgment-- this includes drinking alcohol to intoxication.
The perjorative behavior with gun use occurs only with the rare and objective crime. The other 99.9% of gun use is totally responsible and follows what gun use was intended to be.
Using firearms does not cloud one's judgment-- using drugs does.
I'm not in favor of the war on drugs. It obviously isn't working, and I don't see the value in spending billions of dollars each year in trying to prevent a universal urge that is probably as great as sexual activity. Crimes should have coerced victims, only.
However.......
Guns do not kill people, right? Isn't that what everyone says here? So do not equate a simple mechanical device that has no interaction with its user (other than as a relatively mundane hobby or means of proper self-defense) with a complex chemical that begins to render its user irrational as soon as he interacts with it.
The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.
How is that? Using drugs-- including alcohol-- is not on the same logical footing as owning and operating firearms. Someone may decide to use drugs only once the drug becomes legal, but why would it follow that the individual would not become a drug abuser- like those who abused the drugs when they were still illegal? A drug is a drug, and an addictive substance is an addictive substance.
The perjorative behavior in question with drug abuse is the drug use itself. As soon as one consumes a substance that everyone knows is relatively dangerous and relatively given to clouding one own's judgment, then the questionable behavior has already occurred. You have become irresponsible by ingesting a substance that renders you vulnerable to faulty judgment-- this includes drinking alcohol to intoxication.
The perjorative behavior with gun use occurs only with the rare and objective crime. The other 99.9% of gun use is totally responsible and follows what gun use was intended to be.
Using firearms does not cloud one's judgment-- using drugs does.
I'm not in favor of the war on drugs. It obviously isn't working, and I don't see the value in spending billions of dollars each year in trying to prevent a universal urge that is probably as great as sexual activity. Crimes should have coerced victims, only.
However.......
Guns do not kill people, right? Isn't that what everyone says here? So do not equate a simple mechanical device that has no interaction with its user (other than as a relatively mundane hobby or means of proper self-defense) with a complex chemical that begins to render its user irrational as soon as he interacts with it.
ElTacoGrande
Member
crazed_ss said:
But people who want to try drugs try them now. I have been offered so many kinds of drugs so many times in my life, if I ever had even the slightest urge to try them I would have by now.
That's partly why so many of us are for it. How much violence is there in the alcohol trade, or the nicotine trade? None really. How much money do drug cartels get from the alcohol trade? None. How much of our civil liberties are compromised by fighting against alcohol? Some: we have to show ID to get into bars, but that's nothing at all compared to what has been done in the name of the War on Drugs.
And anyway, by any objective measure you care to come up with, the War on Drugs has failed. We've been trying it for the past 30 years and it hasn't achieved a thing. How much more do we keep throwing into this money-pit?
What Stevelyn said.
Minus "regulate" and "tax".
The "drug war" is a cherade.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Minus "regulate" and "tax".
The "drug war" is a cherade.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
O.F.Fascist
Member
crazed_ss said:
Our society is going to crap because of lack of freedom, and the big government nanny state.
Government intrusion in the freemarket and government welfare has done more harm to this country than drugs could ever have.
If people choose to get high and do stupid things to kill themselves then so be it. Our society is better off when our government wasnt protecting us from ourselves.
In Texas it is legal to drive 100mph if conditions allow.
O.F.Fascist
Member
hot head said:
Just like when they ended prohibition of Alcohol it caused all sorts of crime and problems...oh wait...it didnt.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I am adamant that the steady erosion of our civil rights that are enumerated in the first Ten Amendments have stemmed from the various laws passed as a result of the War on Drugs. I refer specifically to the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. I really don't seehow anybody can disagree with me on this.
So: Which is more important? An intact Bill of Rights, or the anti-drug efforts as they are now done?
Which would you rather have?
I have watched our anti-drug efforts for forty years. Forty. Our present system is still "interdicting" the same old ten percent now that it did some forty years back. The price per gram of cocaine has remained roughly constant, although inflation has more than quadrupled the cost of an automobile in that same period.
So I fall back on one definition of insanity: Repeating the same experiment in the hopes of a different result.
Art
So: Which is more important? An intact Bill of Rights, or the anti-drug efforts as they are now done?
Which would you rather have?
I have watched our anti-drug efforts for forty years. Forty. Our present system is still "interdicting" the same old ten percent now that it did some forty years back. The price per gram of cocaine has remained roughly constant, although inflation has more than quadrupled the cost of an automobile in that same period.
So I fall back on one definition of insanity: Repeating the same experiment in the hopes of a different result.
Art
Ezekiel
Member
"Not even close."
Even if the actual percentage of minority users is greater -- which is still hotly debatable -- there are so many more "Whites" in the United States that their number of users must far exceed any other race/nationality, etc.
I cannot readily agree with this one, either. I've witnessed far, far too many people get all "gun heavy" with the sanctioned ability to carry one. A badge, or permit, does not make you intelligent or immune.
Until the moment it adversely effects me, I'll agree. I feel that way about all "general" rights, including CCW, for example.
Sindawe
Member
hot head: About the authors of your first citation Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts And Control, 4th Ed.
Neither is coming from an objective, disinterested position on the question of drugs and the War On Some Drugs. But since we are looking to Lawmen for opinions on drugs and the drug war, I invite you to read the work of this man. http://www.libertybill.net/np.html
Neither is coming from an objective, disinterested position on the question of drugs and the War On Some Drugs. But since we are looking to Lawmen for opinions on drugs and the drug war, I invite you to read the work of this man. http://www.libertybill.net/np.html
I'll take in intact Bill of Rights over keeping my neighbors/friends/relatives from frying their brains on chemicals any day of the week. Doing the latter is *MY* task, not that of my government.
Pafrmu
Member
Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.
1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack)
2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)
3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)
4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.
5. Driving would become more dangerous.
6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.
1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack)
2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)
3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)
4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.
5. Driving would become more dangerous.
6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.
- Status