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...
This logic is flawed. There are people who can handle their shit. Even coke/heroin or whatever. It all depends on the individual. That said, I know that more times than not it doesn't work out that way. I'm not sure how to quantify the safety in giving ppl the option to do what they will, but not having the choice as adults kind of goes against the whole concept of freedom.
You sound like you are drinking the tea party kool aid. Does requiring that we wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets also abridge freedom? What about car insurance? Forcing us to send our kids to school? Are you against the new health care law? How about banking restrictions? Gun laws?
If you choose to live in a society, as opposed to on your own island or in space, then you agree to a set of rules and laws. It can't work any other way. There is a balancing test between your personal freedom and what's good for society as a whole.
What you are suggesting is such a ridiculously slippery slope it could never work? How do we know whether someone can handle their crack habit or if they have fallen off the deep end?
"disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class"
People who, not surprisingly, are the most likely among us to end up in jail on a possession charge. Wouldn't treatment cost the same or less and be more beneficial? Has doing jail time ever proven to be a successful deterrent to drug use? Just wondering... I've never seen any analysis that indicates jailing for drug offenses is effective at doing anything besides costing lots of money and turning simple drug addicts into criminals - as doing jail time tends to reduce your future prospects more than addiction does. Maybe someone can prove otherwise.
Locking people up is the penalty and the deterrent, it's not the reason why drugs are illegal. It's amazing to see liberals talk about legalizing all drugs (not just weed) in light of the disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class. The idea that we should just let the druggies kill themselves is the ultimate right wing nonsense and code language for let all the poor die.
I agree. But that's just Reynaldos internet persona talking. I think there was a touch of sarcasm in the whole "use junkie corpses as seatfillers" concept.
keithvanhorn said:
The US is not Portugal. We are not a religiously and ethnically homogeneous society. The people in our lower economic class are disproportionately made up of minorities who are stuck in a cycle.
This is something that goes way beyond the concept of decriminalisation/legalisation of drugs. But one could argue that people would me more inclined to seek treatment if they knew their drug use wouldn't have legal ramifications. Also, possibly, trust police more since their focus won't be stopping the distribution of substances anymore. But maybe your right - maybe the religous and ethnical diversity of the US means decriminalisation would never work. Not sure I see why though.
keithvanhorn said:
Also, the idea that people are comparing prohibition with making hardcore drugs illegal is ridiculous because it ignores the addictiveness and harshness of those drugs. You can have a few drinks and be okay or even have more than a few and not be incapacitated. Can you take just a hit of crack and drive your kids home? Are people really going to deny that crack/herion/meth are not more addictive than alcohol?
I think this question is really interesting, but it's almost complete speculation since no country has legalised hard drugs. The question is how powerful the legal deterrent is - visavi the cultural deterrent. Alcohol didn't go away during prohibition - for better or worse, it's a part of ("western") culture. Would legalisation of heroin really mean that heroin would be culturally accepted?
One thing I would wish for in any case, is a more honest approach to drug information. When you start lying, kids don't believe in anything you say anymore.
KvH is too busy airing his righteous indignation over a fictitious scenario, that he himself created in the first place, to be bothered with something like being connected with reality.
My biggest concern is the crime committed to fund habits that addicted folls can't afford to fund themselves. Legal or not, they are still going to be addictive. You could make them free, but no-one is going to make anything for free In These Troubled Economic Times.
My current vices are beer at home and biscuits at work [raises angry fist to sky]. Of course, looking to blame anyone other than myself. Current candidates:
- Drowns out the misery of work/not having work (delete as applicable).
- The devil made me do it.
- I am trying to emulate Charlie Sheen, but on much less money and sex.
- I'd be too perfect otherwise.
There have been trials in which heroin addicts were administered a daily dose by a trained healthcare professional, alongside other treatments like rehab, healthcare and therapy.
The theory being that if you can give a heroin addict a steady regular supply, alongside other treatments, they can begin to function more in normal society and begin rehabilitate.
Up until the mid 1960s Heroin addict who lived in England were treated by what was known as the English Method. Basically what this entailed was the addict was provided by there GP with a weekly prescription for pharmaceutical Heroin, which would meet his/her daily needs. In return they were expected to get on with their lives in a law abiding and productive manner, if they failed to do this the prescription would be withdrawn.
Also regarding cost, if you added up the cost of the war on drugs and everything that entails, it would dwarf the cost of such a program. Not to mention the financial benefits of removing a percentage of the heavy drug users from the criminal system.
They were doing this free Heroin thing in Widnes when I left. I used to go out with a drug counsellor there. TBH doe, you'd rather the addicts spent their days clearing up dumped mattresses and the like rather than mogadonged in bed out of the loop (criminal or social), no? Most of the Heroin users I know were on it to stick their heads in the sand and blot the day out. They were doing bird or had abused childhoods, uncontrollable feral kids and that. Those problems could do with fixing, where possible, to remove the need for Horse.
Most of the Heroin users I know were on it to stick their heads in the sand and blot the day out.
When I was about 17 to 19 I used to hang out with 3 friends, and all of us were on the rock'n'roll. 2 of the 4 of us became junkies out of boredom. 1 out of the three became an alcoholic, part-time crack head, and the last one got addicted to black plastic. I think that the bored & dissaffected will always find some form of escapism, whether it's legal or illegal. Legalising or criminalising drugs only addresses the symptoms and not the causes.
Certain people are going to drugs, one way or the other. Making them illegal only empowers gangs, cartels, and corruption. The fallacy that drugs are going to grab your children, if they are legal, is laughable. They might grab your children whether they are illegal or not. Drugs attract people for a variety of reasons, but you have to put in serious work to become a drug addict. Daily work. A lot of serious drug addiction starts with legal medication that is overprescribed. Look at the pain clinics of Florida, for example. Other times, for reasons of brain chemistry or mental health, people self-medicate. Then again, some people just want to be drug addicts, really bad. Many find it glamorous to live as an outlaw, or maybe their favorite writer, musician, family member was an addict. The illegality for many is in itself an attraction, but it is hardly a deterrent. Furtive glances and a mischevious smile are common when breaking out a stash. All of this is anecdotal, but I???ve been around drug users, drunks, and drug addicts since I can remember.
Also, it should be stated that drugs legal or illegal have serious risks associated with them. But it looks like you are safer with illegal drugs???
It's amazing to see liberals talk about legalizing all drugs (not just weed) in light of the disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class. The idea that we should just let the druggies kill themselves is the ultimate right wing nonsense and code language for let all the poor die.
In case you haven't noticed it's ILLEGAL drugs that have had an impact on "the lower class".
Where ILLEGAL drug dealers are looked at as successful role models and a cycle of jail/addiction/death is perpetuated in the name of making ILLEGAL cash on the streets.
Lets take the $$$ we spend on the "War on Drugs", including what we spend on jail cells, private prisons, etc. and use it for Education and Rehabilitation.
Government control of drugs will help insure quality which will reduce deaths due to "dirty" street drugs.
And as far as your extrapolations of ....."But, but, but what if we make drugs legal, what next, cooking babies and eating them" type nonsense, laws do evolve, change and sometimes go away.......and it's time to stop this foolishness that has failed in every way imaginable since we began the "War on Drugs" and all of it's associated insanity.
Are you yourself afraid that once drugs are legal that you will begin using them and become an addict?? Or are you just trying to protect those not quite as bright as you think you are?
Lets take the $$$ we spend on the "War on Drugs", including what we spend on jail cells, private prisons, etc. and use it for Education and Rehabilitation.
First, let's stop using the 80s (Reagan) phrase "war on drugs" because nobody here is applying a uniform definition. It is impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. We aren't just talking about prisons or rehab and various types of educational prevention methods which are capable of being quantified - but also the government spending that goes to the wreckage caused by drug abuse (various forms of welfare, related criminal acts of abusers, etc.). Also, it is pure speculation to say that if the government sold legalized drugs, we would actually make more money than we spent. Can you imagine the fda regulation process and all the various controls that would be in place?
The current system isn't perfect, but the moment you start talking about legalizing drugs (particularly the hard stuff), it presents all of these questions that can't be answered and logic says that more harm will be done than good.
Also, to those who talk about the abuse of prescription drugs - isn't that a clear example of how access leads to abuse? Most addicts start out being prescribed these drugs for a proper purpose, only to succumb to addiction. The answer to this problem is more government oversight and regulation, not less. Sorry tea partiers.
Lets take the $$$ we spend on the "War on Drugs", including what we spend on jail cells, private prisons, etc. and use it for Education and Rehabilitation.
First, let's stop using the 80s (Reagan) phrase "war on drugs" because nobody here is applying a uniform definition. It is impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. We aren't just talking about prisons or rehab and various types of educational prevention methods which are capable of being quantified - but also the government spending that goes to the wreckage caused by drug abuse (various forms of welfare, related criminal acts of abusers, etc.). Also, it is pure speculation to say that if the government sold legalized drugs, we would actually make more money than we spent. Can you imagine the fda regulation process and all the various controls that would be in place?
The current system isn't perfect, but the moment you start talking about legalizing drugs (particularly the hard stuff), it presents all of these questions that can't be answered and logic says that more harm will be done than good.
Also, to those who talk about the abuse of prescription drugs - isn't that a clear example of how access leads to abuse? Most addicts start out being prescribed these drugs for a proper purpose, only to succumb to addiction. The answer to this problem is more government oversight and regulation, not less. Sorry tea partiers.
Let's stop throwing around Reganism's and every time someone disagrees with us let's call them Tea Partiers.
I seriously doubt those folks here who, based on your poll, are the majority, are anything close to a Tea Party member.
And while no one here said anything about "making more money than we spend" , the fact is the government currently makes NOTHING from the sale of drugs(at least not on the record) so anything would be an increase.
Yours is an argument that has been implemented and failed miserably.....period....end of story.
You selectively quoted from what i wrote - there are things capable of being quantified (which you see in those reports), and other broader effects that are obviously incapable of being quantified.
Can you tell me how many people lost jobs and went on welfare because of drug abuse? How about the cost of crimes committed that were done in the name of supporting a drug habit?
KVH....you have been asked two direct questions that you have seemingly refused to answer.
1) Would you support making alcohol illegal? Yes or No
2) Would you start using drugs if they became legal? Yes or No
Who cares and who is to say that i don't use drugs now? Why is that relevant?
As to the idea that making drugs illegal has "failed miserably"....has criminalizing robbery, theft, murder, etc., also failed miserably because crime still exists? You have no baseline. People have been abusing drugs long before there were formalized laws.
KVH....you have been asked two direct questions that you have seemingly refused to answer.
1) Would you support making alcohol illegal? Yes or No
2) Would you start using drugs if they became legal? Yes or No
Who cares and who is to say that i don't use drugs now? Why is that relevant?
As to the idea that making drugs illegal has "failed miserably"....has criminalizing robbery, theft, murder, etc., also failed miserably because crime still exists? You have no baseline. People have been abusing drugs long before there were formalized laws.
Your "laws as a deterrent" have indeed failed as drug use and the subsequent drug related crimes have been on a steady increase.
Legal alcohol has caused more deaths and ruined more families than illegal drugs so the question is very pertinent to the discussion.
You selectively quoted from what i wrote - there are things capable of being quantified (which you see in those reports), and other broader effects that are obviously incapable of being quantified.
Can you tell me how many people lost jobs and went on welfare because of drug abuse? How about the cost of crimes committed that were done in the name of supporting a drug habit?
This could go on and on...
And there are many people whose profession it is to purely collect and correlate such facts & statistics.
Again, it appears you are wholly ignorant with regards to this topic and have formed an opinion based on an over simplified, emotive responses to issue. Maybe should try and cultivate a more informed opinion before becoming so dogmatic.
i would legalize all drugs with quite a bit of trepidation, but id have to support it for a variety of reasons.
policy would have to be very well measured and thought out, of course.
keep people out the prison business. that clip that DOR posted is from my state...that dude should get life in prison in the rankest cell, like any citizen abusing the special powers theyve been granted (cops, politicians, judges etc)
people have sought out mind/body altering substances since the beginning of time. and aint shit we gonna do stop that. we like to experiment and get high in various forms.
legalizing would separate it to a significant extent from the criminal element. let the mobs go back to bootlegging tapes, racketeering and running numbers.
if highly regulates, having hard drugs available OTC at pharmacies for instance, it would be much easier to pinpoint problem cases and offer and recommend rehabilitation.
the "people would be high at work operating heavy machinery" is some bullshit. if youre drunk, schizo or zonked out at work now, you get fired. legalizing drugs is not legalizing them at all times and at all places. cigarettes and alcohol are highly regulated when it comes to where you can do them. and nothing saying drug tests cant still be administered.
id be nervous about coke, meth and heron being legal. but im already really creeped out by the availability of pills. theyve fucked with a lot of lives too
You selectively quoted from what i wrote - there are things capable of being quantified (which you see in those reports), and other broader effects that are obviously incapable of being quantified.
Can you tell me how many people lost jobs and went on welfare because of drug abuse? How about the cost of crimes committed that were done in the name of supporting a drug habit?
This could go on and on...
And there are many people whose profession it is to purely collect and correlate such facts & statistics.
Again, it appears you are wholly ignorant with regards to this topic and have formed an opinion based on an over simplified, emotive responses to issue. Maybe should try and cultivate a more informed opinion before becoming so dogmatic.
Instead of desperately googling for a winning argument, why not use your brain for a second? It is impossible to quantify the far-reaching effects of drugs - even in terms of things like the economy (which are inherently quantifiable). If a father gets addicted to drugs and loses his job, that may effect his ability to live in a neighborhood with better schools for his kids. It may or may not cause psychological and emotional damage to people in his life. A child who has a drug addict as a parent has another hurdle in life. This is one single scenario that hasn't even been properly explored.
No study can possibly capture all of the spiraling effects of drug addiction/abuse.
I???d be more nervous about benzodiazepines, than cocaine and heroin. Cocaine and heroin have the rep as ???Hard Drugs???, and makes people more cautious. Xanax is really deadly, and has a rep as being somewhat innocuous. I know two people that have died using Xanax, and that scares the hell out of me.
There is a huge problem with drug education, and a lot of that has to do with the influence of pharmaceutical companies. That said, I still believe in legalization or at least decriminalization. People will die from drugs, it???s inevitable, either way.
You selectively quoted from what i wrote - there are things capable of being quantified (which you see in those reports), and other broader effects that are obviously incapable of being quantified.
Can you tell me how many people lost jobs and went on welfare because of drug abuse? How about the cost of crimes committed that were done in the name of supporting a drug habit?
This could go on and on...
And there are many people whose profession it is to purely collect and correlate such facts & statistics.
Again, it appears you are wholly ignorant with regards to this topic and have formed an opinion based on an over simplified, emotive responses to issue. Maybe should try and cultivate a more informed opinion before becoming so dogmatic.
Instead of desperately googling for a winning argument, why not use your brain for a second? It is impossible to quantify the far-reaching effects of drugs - even in terms of things like the economy (which are inherently quantifiable). If a father gets addicted to drugs and loses his job, that may effect his ability to live in a neighborhood with better schools for his kids. It may or may not cause psychological and emotional damage to people in his life. A child who has a drug addict as a parent has another hurdle in life. This is one single scenario that hasn't even been properly explored.
No study can possibly capture all of the spiraling effects of drug addiction/abuse.
No one can force a person not to be a drug addict. If they want to let their life spiral out of control, law won???t keep that from happening. Drugs are illegal, lives are constantly spiraling out of control despite our best efforts. Shit there are plenty of drugs in prison, for crying out loud. You can???t stop a junkie from being a junkie.
"disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class"
People who, not surprisingly, are the most likely among us to end up in jail on a possession charge. Wouldn't treatment cost the same or less and be more beneficial? Has doing jail time ever proven to be a successful deterrent to drug use? Just wondering... I've never seen any analysis that indicates jailing for drug offenses is effective at doing anything besides costing lots of money and turning simple drug addicts into criminals - as doing jail time tends to reduce your future prospects more than addiction does. Maybe someone can prove otherwise.
apples and oranges. the argument is that the threat of a criminal penalty is a deterrent. this discussion hasn't been about mandatory minimums or using forced drug treatment therapy as an alternative to jail.
in fact, when someone brought up portugal, they failed to acknowledge that using drugs is still punishable by such mandatory treatment.
again, the question is whether it should be a crime - not whether the sentencing guidelines are fair. that would be an entirely different topic.
As to the idea that making drugs illegal has "failed miserably"....has criminalizing robbery, theft, murder, etc., also failed miserably because crime still exists? You have no baseline. People have been abusing drugs long before there were formalized laws.
:NO:
And here I am going to google my answer, and use "facts". instead of my brain.
The federal criminalization of cannabis occurred in the 1930s. There was not wide spread use at that time. Wide spread use began in the 1960s. As use spread states made drug laws more and more harsh. There is no evidence that those harsh laws had any positive effect. THERE IS A BASELINE.
Likewise there is a baseline for cocaine and heroin whose use was wide spread in the 1800s and outlawed early in the 1900s.
But those are just facts. And not something you are interested.
You started this thread (and I thank you, good discussion) by calling out something I said.
You wanted to see if people really agreed with what I had said. So you say.
You created a poll that only a politician could love. And despite making the choice as one between meth and saving the children, it is clear from your poll people agreed with my statement "almost every honest person on the left and right knows [decriminalization needs to happen]".
You still do not agree, which makes you one of the "almost".
You have a lot of emotional reasons, based on the undisputed fact that drugs are bad, for your stance.
The effects of drugs and criminalization can be studied and quantified. Not ever instance of a shattered life need be recorded for these studies to have validity. Good studies, using scientific methods, and statistical extrapolations, tend to argue for the decriminalization of drugs. If you wanted to, you could find a good study that argues for criminalization, just like it can be argued that climate change is not happening or human caused.
That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
It seems to me that your opinion comes from political, not rational, reasoning.
Bluntly, the democratic party supports the status quo, you support the status quo.
This is consistent of your support for Clinton when she was the status quo candidate, then switching to Obama when he was the status quo candidate.
Thank you for the nice discussion, and a chance to air our opinions and differences of this important issue.
apples and oranges. the argument is that the threat of a criminal penalty is a deterrent. this discussion hasn't been about mandatory minimums or using forced drug treatment therapy as an alternative to jail.
in fact, when someone brought up portugal, they failed to acknowledge that using drugs is still punishable by such mandatory treatment.
again, the question is whether it should be a crime - not whether the sentencing guidelines are fair. that would be an entirely different topic.
"Failed to acknowledge"? I provided a link to an article which says this: "Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts???defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use???are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.
Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction."
Comments
You sound like you are drinking the tea party kool aid. Does requiring that we wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets also abridge freedom? What about car insurance? Forcing us to send our kids to school? Are you against the new health care law? How about banking restrictions? Gun laws?
If you choose to live in a society, as opposed to on your own island or in space, then you agree to a set of rules and laws. It can't work any other way. There is a balancing test between your personal freedom and what's good for society as a whole.
What you are suggesting is such a ridiculously slippery slope it could never work? How do we know whether someone can handle their crack habit or if they have fallen off the deep end?
People who, not surprisingly, are the most likely among us to end up in jail on a possession charge. Wouldn't treatment cost the same or less and be more beneficial? Has doing jail time ever proven to be a successful deterrent to drug use? Just wondering... I've never seen any analysis that indicates jailing for drug offenses is effective at doing anything besides costing lots of money and turning simple drug addicts into criminals - as doing jail time tends to reduce your future prospects more than addiction does. Maybe someone can prove otherwise.
This is something that goes way beyond the concept of decriminalisation/legalisation of drugs. But one could argue that people would me more inclined to seek treatment if they knew their drug use wouldn't have legal ramifications. Also, possibly, trust police more since their focus won't be stopping the distribution of substances anymore. But maybe your right - maybe the religous and ethnical diversity of the US means decriminalisation would never work. Not sure I see why though.
I think this question is really interesting, but it's almost complete speculation since no country has legalised hard drugs. The question is how powerful the legal deterrent is - visavi the cultural deterrent. Alcohol didn't go away during prohibition - for better or worse, it's a part of ("western") culture. Would legalisation of heroin really mean that heroin would be culturally accepted?
One thing I would wish for in any case, is a more honest approach to drug information. When you start lying, kids don't believe in anything you say anymore.
So the current system "protects" the lower class ?
I don't even know where to begin...
My current vices are beer at home and biscuits at work [raises angry fist to sky]. Of course, looking to blame anyone other than myself. Current candidates:
- Drowns out the misery of work/not having work (delete as applicable).
- The devil made me do it.
- I am trying to emulate Charlie Sheen, but on much less money and sex.
- I'd be too perfect otherwise.
Absofuckinglutely.
The theory being that if you can give a heroin addict a steady regular supply, alongside other treatments, they can begin to function more in normal society and begin rehabilitate.
Up until the mid 1960s Heroin addict who lived in England were treated by what was known as the English Method. Basically what this entailed was the addict was provided by there GP with a weekly prescription for pharmaceutical Heroin, which would meet his/her daily needs. In return they were expected to get on with their lives in a law abiding and productive manner, if they failed to do this the prescription would be withdrawn.
It's a program that the Swiss have more recently pioneered. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7755664.stm
Also regarding cost, if you added up the cost of the war on drugs and everything that entails, it would dwarf the cost of such a program. Not to mention the financial benefits of removing a percentage of the heavy drug users from the criminal system.
Aye, those long Winter nights just flew by...
When I was about 17 to 19 I used to hang out with 3 friends, and all of us were on the rock'n'roll. 2 of the 4 of us became junkies out of boredom. 1 out of the three became an alcoholic, part-time crack head, and the last one got addicted to black plastic. I think that the bored & dissaffected will always find some form of escapism, whether it's legal or illegal. Legalising or criminalising drugs only addresses the symptoms and not the causes.
Also, it should be stated that drugs legal or illegal have serious risks associated with them. But it looks like you are safer with illegal drugs???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death
Yeah, it???s from wikipedia, but should be truthy enough for the conversation...
In case you haven't noticed it's ILLEGAL drugs that have had an impact on "the lower class".
Where ILLEGAL drug dealers are looked at as successful role models and a cycle of jail/addiction/death is perpetuated in the name of making ILLEGAL cash on the streets.
Lets take the $$$ we spend on the "War on Drugs", including what we spend on jail cells, private prisons, etc. and use it for Education and Rehabilitation.
Government control of drugs will help insure quality which will reduce deaths due to "dirty" street drugs.
And as far as your extrapolations of ....."But, but, but what if we make drugs legal, what next, cooking babies and eating them" type nonsense, laws do evolve, change and sometimes go away.......and it's time to stop this foolishness that has failed in every way imaginable since we began the "War on Drugs" and all of it's associated insanity.
Are you yourself afraid that once drugs are legal that you will begin using them and become an addict?? Or are you just trying to protect those not quite as bright as you think you are?
First, let's stop using the 80s (Reagan) phrase "war on drugs" because nobody here is applying a uniform definition. It is impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. We aren't just talking about prisons or rehab and various types of educational prevention methods which are capable of being quantified - but also the government spending that goes to the wreckage caused by drug abuse (various forms of welfare, related criminal acts of abusers, etc.). Also, it is pure speculation to say that if the government sold legalized drugs, we would actually make more money than we spent. Can you imagine the fda regulation process and all the various controls that would be in place?
The current system isn't perfect, but the moment you start talking about legalizing drugs (particularly the hard stuff), it presents all of these questions that can't be answered and logic says that more harm will be done than good.
Also, to those who talk about the abuse of prescription drugs - isn't that a clear example of how access leads to abuse? Most addicts start out being prescribed these drugs for a proper purpose, only to succumb to addiction. The answer to this problem is more government oversight and regulation, not less. Sorry tea partiers.
I agree, let???s legalize and regulate drugs.
Let's stop throwing around Reganism's and every time someone disagrees with us let's call them Tea Partiers.
I seriously doubt those folks here who, based on your poll, are the majority, are anything close to a Tea Party member.
And while no one here said anything about "making more money than we spend" , the fact is the government currently makes NOTHING from the sale of drugs(at least not on the record) so anything would be an increase.
Yours is an argument that has been implemented and failed miserably.....period....end of story.
1) Would you support making alcohol illegal? Yes or No
2) Would you start using drugs if they became legal? Yes or No
http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/index.html
You selectively quoted from what i wrote - there are things capable of being quantified (which you see in those reports), and other broader effects that are obviously incapable of being quantified.
Can you tell me how many people lost jobs and went on welfare because of drug abuse? How about the cost of crimes committed that were done in the name of supporting a drug habit?
This could go on and on...
Who cares and who is to say that i don't use drugs now? Why is that relevant?
As to the idea that making drugs illegal has "failed miserably"....has criminalizing robbery, theft, murder, etc., also failed miserably because crime still exists? You have no baseline. People have been abusing drugs long before there were formalized laws.
Your "laws as a deterrent" have indeed failed as drug use and the subsequent drug related crimes have been on a steady increase.
Legal alcohol has caused more deaths and ruined more families than illegal drugs so the question is very pertinent to the discussion.
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/drugImpact.htm
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/1997main/nhsda1997mfWeb-114.htm
http://www.ndsn.org/dec96/welfare.html
Again, it appears you are wholly ignorant with regards to this topic and have formed an opinion based on an over simplified, emotive responses to issue. Maybe should try and cultivate a more informed opinion before becoming so dogmatic.
policy would have to be very well measured and thought out, of course.
keep people out the prison business. that clip that DOR posted is from my state...that dude should get life in prison in the rankest cell, like any citizen abusing the special powers theyve been granted (cops, politicians, judges etc)
people have sought out mind/body altering substances since the beginning of time. and aint shit we gonna do stop that. we like to experiment and get high in various forms.
legalizing would separate it to a significant extent from the criminal element. let the mobs go back to bootlegging tapes, racketeering and running numbers.
if highly regulates, having hard drugs available OTC at pharmacies for instance, it would be much easier to pinpoint problem cases and offer and recommend rehabilitation.
the "people would be high at work operating heavy machinery" is some bullshit. if youre drunk, schizo or zonked out at work now, you get fired. legalizing drugs is not legalizing them at all times and at all places. cigarettes and alcohol are highly regulated when it comes to where you can do them. and nothing saying drug tests cant still be administered.
id be nervous about coke, meth and heron being legal. but im already really creeped out by the availability of pills. theyve fucked with a lot of lives too
Instead of desperately googling for a winning argument, why not use your brain for a second? It is impossible to quantify the far-reaching effects of drugs - even in terms of things like the economy (which are inherently quantifiable). If a father gets addicted to drugs and loses his job, that may effect his ability to live in a neighborhood with better schools for his kids. It may or may not cause psychological and emotional damage to people in his life. A child who has a drug addict as a parent has another hurdle in life. This is one single scenario that hasn't even been properly explored.
No study can possibly capture all of the spiraling effects of drug addiction/abuse.
There is a huge problem with drug education, and a lot of that has to do with the influence of pharmaceutical companies. That said, I still believe in legalization or at least decriminalization. People will die from drugs, it???s inevitable, either way.
But what about the murders.
No one can force a person not to be a drug addict. If they want to let their life spiral out of control, law won???t keep that from happening. Drugs are illegal, lives are constantly spiraling out of control despite our best efforts. Shit there are plenty of drugs in prison, for crying out loud. You can???t stop a junkie from being a junkie.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/
in fact, when someone brought up portugal, they failed to acknowledge that using drugs is still punishable by such mandatory treatment.
again, the question is whether it should be a crime - not whether the sentencing guidelines are fair. that would be an entirely different topic.
:NO:
And here I am going to google my answer, and use "facts". instead of my brain.
The federal criminalization of cannabis occurred in the 1930s. There was not wide spread use at that time. Wide spread use began in the 1960s. As use spread states made drug laws more and more harsh. There is no evidence that those harsh laws had any positive effect. THERE IS A BASELINE.
Likewise there is a baseline for cocaine and heroin whose use was wide spread in the 1800s and outlawed early in the 1900s.
But those are just facts. And not something you are interested.
You started this thread (and I thank you, good discussion) by calling out something I said.
You wanted to see if people really agreed with what I had said. So you say.
You created a poll that only a politician could love. And despite making the choice as one between meth and saving the children, it is clear from your poll people agreed with my statement "almost every honest person on the left and right knows [decriminalization needs to happen]".
You still do not agree, which makes you one of the "almost".
You have a lot of emotional reasons, based on the undisputed fact that drugs are bad, for your stance.
The effects of drugs and criminalization can be studied and quantified. Not ever instance of a shattered life need be recorded for these studies to have validity. Good studies, using scientific methods, and statistical extrapolations, tend to argue for the decriminalization of drugs. If you wanted to, you could find a good study that argues for criminalization, just like it can be argued that climate change is not happening or human caused.
That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
It seems to me that your opinion comes from political, not rational, reasoning.
Bluntly, the democratic party supports the status quo, you support the status quo.
This is consistent of your support for Clinton when she was the status quo candidate, then switching to Obama when he was the status quo candidate.
Thank you for the nice discussion, and a chance to air our opinions and differences of this important issue.
"Failed to acknowledge"? I provided a link to an article which says this: "Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts???defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use???are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.
Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction."
In other words the treatment isn't "mandatory."