Drugs - Make them all Legal?

keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
edited March 2011 in Strut Central
Via the Obama thread - and care of Laserwolf

"I might argue that Obama never campaigned on decriminalization/legalization but, almost every honest person on the left and right knows it needs to be done"


:NO:
«1345

  Comments


  • jjfad027jjfad027 1,594 Posts
    Sure. Throw in gambling and prostitution as well.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

  • covecove 1,563 Posts
    What happened to all you libertarians?

  • Options
    From an article Wolf posted a link to in the mother thread:

    "Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

    Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. . "

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

    You're a lawyer.....seriously??

    Sitting in my room and drinking myself to death = 100% Legal

    Driving while drunk where I can hurt and/or kill other innocent people = 100% illegal

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

    The money we spend on the "War On Drugs" will pay for rehab AND buy you a new skateboard.

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

    The money we spend on the "War On Drugs" will pay for rehab AND buy you a new skateboard.
    that money will get diverted to homeland security bro

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,518 Posts
    KVH would you please reword the poll so it is more neutral?

    Perhaps:
    Should drugs be decriminalized?
    Yes
    No
    Only marijuana.

    Thank you,
    Dan

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

    The money we spend on the "War On Drugs" will pay for rehab AND buy you a new skateboard.
    that money will get diverted to homeland security bro

    OK....we'll throw some rollerblades your way......cool?

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

    The money we spend on the "War On Drugs" will pay for rehab AND buy you a new skateboard.
    that money will get diverted to homeland security bro

    OK....we'll throw some rollerblades your way......cool?
    add in a surfboard and we're good

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    Brian said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
    as long as they're taxed enough that i don't have to pay for a mufuckaz rehab

    The money we spend on the "War On Drugs" will pay for rehab AND buy you a new skateboard.
    that money will get diverted to homeland security bro

    OK....we'll throw some rollerblades your way......cool?
    add in a surfboard and we're good


  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,029 Posts
    cove said:
    What happened to all you libertarians?

    Check the poll results.

    "Yes" with the plurality right now.

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,029 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

    You're a lawyer.....seriously??

    Sitting in my room and drinking myself to death = 100% Legal

    Driving while drunk where I can hurt and/or kill other innocent people = 100% illegal

    Isn't suicide still illegal actually?

    And the proper response is not "You're a lawyer.....seriously??"

    It should be: "stop instituting a nanny-state!"

    BTW, Keith, you in favor of bringing back Prohibition? Serious question.

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

    You're a lawyer.....seriously??

    Sitting in my room and drinking myself to death = 100% Legal

    Driving while drunk where I can hurt and/or kill other innocent people = 100% illegal

    You don't think before you type. People who drink and use drugs don't live on islands by themselves. Your argument is akin to saying that you don't mind insane people owning bombs, so long as they only bomb their own houses. How can you make incredibly harmful and addictive drugs like meth and heroin legal without knowingly causing damage to people other than the users. Let's start with their families and go from there...

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,029 Posts
    Iif we're going to take it there, how many lives have been destroyed by drug laws that have imprisoned people for possession? So what's worse? Having an addict as a family member or having a family member locked up in jail with a mandatory 5 year sentence for 5 grams of crack? Neither is ideal but I wouldn't say "it's a wash" as to what's more harmful.

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    mannybolone said:
    Rockadelic said:
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

    You're a lawyer.....seriously??

    Sitting in my room and drinking myself to death = 100% Legal

    Driving while drunk where I can hurt and/or kill other innocent people = 100% illegal

    Isn't suicide still illegal actually?

    And the proper response is not "You're a lawyer.....seriously??"

    It should be: "stop instituting a nanny-state!"

    BTW, Keith, you in favor of bringing back Prohibition? Serious question.

    There hasn't been an elected democrat in favor of legalizing ALL drugs ever, yet because I oppose making drugs like heroin legal, you think I'm in favor of banning alcohol? There is (and should be) a balancing test between "freedom" and safety. It's one thing to say that people have a right to ruin their lives, but quite another to allow them to infringe on other people's rights. I'd like to be able to drive in my car with a baby in the car seat, without worrying that someone is legally fucked up on meth in the car behind me. And to get out of Rockadelic's limited frame of mind, I also don't want that person working in a daycare center, a hospital, pharmacy, school, or anywhere else where their fucked up mindstate might cause harm to me or others.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    keithvanhorn said:
    Rockadelic said:
    I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.

    because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...

    You're a lawyer.....seriously??

    Sitting in my room and drinking myself to death = 100% Legal

    Driving while drunk where I can hurt and/or kill other innocent people = 100% illegal

    You don't think before you type. People who drink and use drugs don't live on islands by themselves. Your argument is akin to saying that you don't mind insane people owning bombs, so long as they only bomb their own houses. How can you make incredibly harmful and addictive drugs like meth and heroin legal without knowingly causing damage to people other than the users. Let's start with their families and go from there...

    My posts are well thought out, but thanks for the heads up.

    In response to your "I don't know why we have drunk driving laws" I plainly stated that drinking is not illegal, drinking AND driving is, but you obviously know that so your comment was just strange..

    There are MANY things that are legal, that harm an individual who partakes in them, yet laws are put in place when their use crosses a line and can have direct adverse effects on others.

    In my opinion drugs should be handled the same way as two of the biggest "killers" in our society, cigarettes and alcohol.

    If you want to make all of those things illegal I can at least understand your stance.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:
    . And to get out of Rockadelic's limited frame of mind, I also don't want that person working in a daycare center, a hospital, pharmacy, school, or anywhere else where their fucked up mindstate might cause harm to me or others.

    I'm sure you don't want those people drunk either......yet alcohol is very legal.

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    mannybolone said:
    Iif we're going to take it there, how many lives have been destroyed by drug laws that have imprisoned people for possession? So what's worse? Having an addict as a family member or having a family member locked up in jail with a mandatory 5 year sentence for 5 grams of crack? Neither is ideal but I wouldn't say "it's a wash" as to what's more harmful.

    You gotta be kidding me. Under your logic, why have laws at all since they have a harmful impact on the innocent families of those that go to jail?

    We have drug laws to protect people. If you break those laws, the only thing debatable is what your punishment should be.

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,029 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:


    There hasn't been an elected democrat in favor of legalizing ALL drugs ever, yet because I oppose making drugs like heroin legal, you think I'm in favor of banning alcohol?

    I asked you a question. I didn't assume anything about what your answer would be.

    I was sincere in saying it was a "serious question." You can answer it or choose not to answer it but it's a straight-forward query.

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,029 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:
    mannybolone said:
    Iif we're going to take it there, how many lives have been destroyed by drug laws that have imprisoned people for possession? So what's worse? Having an addict as a family member or having a family member locked up in jail with a mandatory 5 year sentence for 5 grams of crack? Neither is ideal but I wouldn't say "it's a wash" as to what's more harmful.

    You gotta be kidding me. Under your logic, why have laws at all since they have a harmful impact on the innocent families of those that go to jail?

    We have drug laws to protect people. If you break those laws, the only thing debatable is what your punishment should be.

    Ok, so by your answer, I would infer that you think the drug laws that we've passed, dating back to the early '80s, have been, in fact, fair and just?

    You seem to assume that any drug law passed must have been done so for a good reason and had a positive outcome.

    BTW, I didn't saw "any law". I said drug laws.

    For such a sensitive soul about people making assumptions about what you think, you sure are quick to turn around and do the same to others.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Jeez.....most people in prison on "drug related" crimes are not there simply because they took drugs.

    Most are there for stealing and/or killing to get money FOR illegal drugs.

    Or for selling the very drugs that our government allowed across our borders to begin with.

    Who exactly do you think the "War on Drugs" and it's related laws are protecting??

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,518 Posts
    keithvanhorn said:
    Let's start with their families and go from there...

    This gets a big raspberry from me.

    My family has been seriously damaged by drugs and they are illegal.
    Them being illegal has done zero to help my addicted family member.
    It hasn't made him clean.
    It hasn't made him sober.
    It has not gotten him into treatment.
    ZERO.

    How about thinking before you type.

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    LaserWolf said:
    keithvanhorn said:
    Let's start with their families and go from there...

    This gets a big raspberry from me.

    My family has been seriously damaged by drugs and they are illegal.
    Them being illegal has done zero to help my addicted family member.
    It hasn't made him clean.
    It hasn't made him sober.
    It has not gotten him into treatment.
    ZERO.

    How about thinking before you type.

    You are missing the point. The fact that drugs are illegal means that there is a legal deterrent. If we make all drugs legal, there will be more people walking around high and addicted, period.

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Jeez.....most people in prison on "drug related" crimes are not there simply because they took drugs.

    Most are there for stealing and/or killing to get money FOR illegal drugs.

    Or for selling the very drugs that our government allowed across our borders to begin with.

    Who exactly do you think the "War on Drugs" and it's related laws are protecting??

    Drugs are addictive and destructive, if they were legal but still cost money, people would continue to rob and steal to get them. There would also continue to be a black market. We get legal drugs from Mexico and Canada already because they are cheaper. If you made drugs legal and free, then I could see your point. We'd also be broke and have a country filled with addicts.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    One thing is indisputable......

    Drug laws put a lot of money in the pockets of lawyers.

  • dj_cityboydj_cityboy 1,414 Posts
    i dont agree with making all drugs legal, but decriminalizing marijuana would be a great place to start, especially for medical purposes.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,518 Posts
    Despite the clearly biased questions in the poll;
    pass the meth
    has many more votes than
    Protect the children
    It's natural
    and
    I don't care
    Combined!

    If you had done unbiased wording think how many more people would have voted and how few votes you would have gotten.

    I concede that elected politicians talk along the same lines as you. Bully for you, bully for them.

    People who seriously study public policy and public health take a very different view.
Sign In or Register to comment.