in fact, when someone brought up portugal, they failed to acknowledge that using drugs is still punishable by such mandatory treatment.
No, I believe what happens is you are brought to a panel of some sort, so they can evaluate you and recommend treatment. You aren't even required to do the treatment. And they have had great success doing it.
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.
In Switzerland, we were close to decriminalize marijuana. Studies by scientifics, health professionals, and even the gouvernement all agreed that it was probably better. But it had to be voted and approved by the people... Then all the clueless KVHs came out saying how they were such altruists and cared about the children and the weak and blabla....
And here we are back to 1960...
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
keithvanhorn said:
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.
You should do comedy...but not intentionally, just get on stage and talk issues like this one...sure fire laugh riot.
in fact, when someone brought up portugal, they failed to acknowledge that using drugs is still punishable by such mandatory treatment.
No, I believe what happens is you are brought to a panel of some sort, so they can evaluate you and recommend treatment. You aren't even required to do the treatment. And they have had great success doing it.
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.
So you didn't even read the links I provided. (desperately googled)
First you claimed it impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. You were wrong about that.
Then ask about broader effects that you claim are "obviously incapable of being quantified". Yet, again, such information can be obtained easily.
Now you make the ridiculous assumption that NOBODY in the history of drug misuse and treatment, has ever considered that a parents' drug problem may have a negative impact on their children.
Whilst continuing to claim 'it's impossible to quantify', to what end I don't know. In many ways, as I proved, it clearly is. But how any of this furthers your argument I don't get. You seem to just be making completely baseless statements in an attempt to say 'drugs are bad, mkay' in a rather confused & convoluted way. And nothing more.
Yet despite being woefully ignorant on the subject in general, you refuse to listen any opinion that falls outside of your dogmatic stance. So it's pretty futile to continue this conversation.
First you claimed it impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. You were wrong about that.
State and federal governments have no idea how much money they spend. Do you think someone is assigning figures to who is collecting unemployment compensation because a drug addiction cost them their job? How about for the children of that person who is now being fed on food stamps? Or for the mother who lost her kids to Child's Services? You don't get it. I don't know if you live in the United States but I can assure you as someone who deals with these agencies on occasion - they aren't collecting this type of data, nor does this information even become public knowledge in a lot of cases. A mother might lose her child because her house is filthy but DHS may or may not know the reason is because she is an addict.
Then ask about broader effects that you claim are "obviously incapable of being quantified". Yet, again, such information can be obtained easily.
No. See above.
Now you make the ridiculous assumption that NOBODY in the history of drug misuse and treatment, has ever considered that a parents' drug problem may have a negative impact on their children.
Whilst continue claiming 'it's impossible to quantify', to what end I don't know. In many ways, as I proved, it clearly is. But how any of this furthers your argument I don't get. You seem to just be making completely baseless statements in an attempt to say 'drugs are bad, mkay' in a rather confused & convoluted way, and nothing more.
Despite being woefully ignorant on the subject in general, you refuse to listen any opinion that falls outside of your dogmatic stance. So it's pretty futile to continue this conversation.
MY POINT IS THAT ADDICTIVE DRUGS RUIN FAMILIES AND HAVE TERRIBLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. PERIOD.
If you want to argue that drug laws are not a deterrent, prove it. If not, there is nothing to argue about. Every post that talks about the uselessness of jail time for possession charges is completely missing the point if they are trying to respond to arguments that I have made. Whether a drug user gets probation, therapy or jail time is not going to have a major effect on whether the mere fact that the drugs are illegal servers as a deterrent so long as there a risk of punishment and a criminal record.
When I was in 9th grade I shared a marijuana cigarette with some friends.
In the 10th-12th grades I was stoned from morning to night. (explains a lot huh?)
This was the early 70s.
I also took large amounts of hallucinogens, smaller amounts of barbiturates, amphetamines, muscle relaxants, Valium, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco and opiates. (explains a lot more.)
I kicked my tobacco habit while still in HS. (that shit will kill you.)
I quit taking everything but pot after I graduated and got a real job. I had no problem quitting. (and did not quit because they were illegal.)
Then I became addicted to prescribed codeine at 19. (cue Buffy Saint Marie [love that song])
Kicked it on my own.
When I was in my early 20s I decided to quit pot. Hardest thing I have ever done.
I know that for me, marijuana is addictive, and impairs cognitive abilities and makes me lazy.
It took more than a year to stop.
It took at least 6 months for me to feel like it wasn't in my system anymore.
Quit alcohol about 15 years later to preserve my boyish figure. Easiest thing I have ever done.
I was drug free for many years.
Then a buddy got busted. A friend and I went to clean out his bedroom. Drugs in every box, drawer, nook and book. We flushed all the pot and LSD.
My buddy, who was also my boss, who also owned the bedroom, had just come off a 6 month cocaine bender that almost cost him his business.
He talked me into doing a few lines with him. Promising he wouldn't fall back.
I went on a 45 minute walk until the effects started to wear off. He went on a 48 hour bender, screaming at me because I wouldn't give him the remaining stash.
Anyway, I hate cocaine. No fear of ever being addicted.
I also hated downers and speed when I did them. Never wanted to keep using.
So when I hear that decriminalization (which is different than legalization) would result in out of control meth use because if you just try meth once you will be addicted for life and your teeth will fall out, I don't believe it. Yeah, drugs are bad. I think pot is bad, which no doubt puts me in a minority here, but not everyone wants to do them, and not everyone is instantly addicted after their first taste. Most are not.
When I was in 9th grade I shared a marijuana cigarette with some friends.
translation:
i think by marijuana cigarette Dan meant "a joint"
and D, you flushed the pot and LSD down the toilet and kept the yayo???
i understand this happened a while back, but i am looking at you sternly from across the country
When I was in 9th grade I shared a marijuana cigarette with some friends.
translation:
i think by marijuana cigarette Dan meant "a joint"
and D, you flushed the pot and LSD down the toilet and kept the yayo???
i understand this happened a while back, but i am looking at you sternly from across the country
yayo? What that?
I wanted to flush it all. My boss, wanted the snow.
If I had known I would saved it until I met you.
My friend who was busted was doing sound for a band when he had a drug induced seizure. The ETMs found the drugs.
It took another year, and the death of Jerry Garcia, to admit he had a problem.
I saw him a few years back. Clean sober and doing sound for Alex De Grassi.
MY POINT IS THAT ADDICTIVE DRUGS RUIN FAMILIES AND HAVE TERRIBLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. PERIOD.
but who in this thread is contradicting that ?
You are such an idiot.
can't believe we went 6 pages without you pointing that out. thank you. i changed my mind - drugs should be legal, even crack, heroin and meth. i thought i was arguing that laws which serve (in some capacity) to act as a deterrent are worth it because "ADDICTIVE DRUGS RUIN FAMILIES AND HAVE TERRIBLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY". But by selectively isolating that one sentence and calling me an idiot, i am now a believer.
now go contact 99% of the democratic countries in the world and let them know that every elected leader and all their constituents have made a terrible mistake because the soulstrut poll favors decriminalizing all drugs.
yeah i was just playing. its definitely a great thing when people can clean up...any substance, when it starts running things.
casey, i think a lot of people are agreeing with the basic premise that drugs can and do ruin lives. but theres definitely some different opinions on how to handle that as a society.
we let the underground economy provide access to illegal drugs. if people are caught dealing/using, they go through the legal system and face penalties of fines, incarceration and stigma. it doesnt seem to be slowing down consumption and commerce of drugs tho and we have the highest incarceration rates in the world as a result. as DOR pointed out, the prison system is very biased and ruins many loves, predominately poor and minority populations.
if legalized or decriminalized, the government could take over control of salses. they could cut deals directly with afghani opium growers and columbian coca lords (which they probably already do) and cut out the underworld middlemen. it could be dispensed in a controlled manner, with access to health screenings, treatment and rehab. there would be no need to glamorize, privatize or advertise drug use (more than it already is by popular culture).
people are gonna do it anyway.lets work from that position since our current policies obviously dont work
casey, i think a lot of people are agreeing with the basic premise that drugs can and do ruin lives. but theres definitely some different opinions on how to handle that as a society.
we let the underground economy provide access to illegal drugs. if people are caught dealing/using, they go through the legal system and face penalties of fines, incarceration and stigma. it doesnt seem to be slowing down consumption and commerce of drugs tho and we have the highest incarceration rates in the world as a result. as DOR pointed out, the prison system is very biased and ruins many loves, predominately poor and minority populations.
tony - i haven't been advocating for the current criminal sentencing guidelines. i agree that our jails should not be filled with people who have chemical addictions - it doesn't make sense on any level. my point is that if we can agree that drugs have so many terrible effects on society (which i believe are immeasurable) - then we have to talk about what can be done to deter usage/abuse. can anyone argue that there is not a segment of society who is deterred by even trying hardcore drugs because it is illegal? just by classifying something as illegal it also contributes to people's perception of it as socially/morally/ethically wrong.
if people can't agree that decriminalizing drug use will create more users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison.
if people can't agree that decriminalizing drug use will create more users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison.
No we can't. Because all of the evidence from before prohibition, the netherlands, portugal and cali with med pot points to at best a very slight increase.
I think it's very safe to say that legalizing all drugs would have way more positive than negative effects.
No one would want to argue that drugs ruin lives and devastate families. That's because they already are easily available. If you legalize them, you neutralize most of the crime caused by drug use. Also, the quality of drugs will increase and could be monitored. Most heroin users die because of impurities and the damage caused by them than by the heroin itself. If the purity of the heroin is easy to monitor, the risk of an accidental overdose will be eliminated. That's only one example.
People decide to not do drugs because they are educated about them and because drug use is (rightfully) stigmatized by society and not because they're illegal. Open your eyes, drugs already are everywhere. The only reason why you have drug related crime s because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and you automatically kill the entire world of illegal drug trafficking. It's the only way how you can win the "war on drugs". To legalize drugs would not take away the perception of drug use being bad for you and your environment but it would decriminalize the user. It would turn the public perception of the addict from a source of danger into a being worthy of compassion.
It boils down to a basic question of how free you want to be as a people and how much freedom you think you can handle.
Also: the gun industry would take a drastic hit by this. Stocks would tumble and the interests of some very powerful people would suffer. I'm afraid that there are a lot of lobbyists with a lot of money out there who will forever prevent this from happening.
if people can't agree that decriminalizing drug use will create more users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison.
No we can't. Because all of the evidence from before prohibition, the netherlands, portugal and cali with med pot points to at best a very slight increase.
Yep. also
if people can't agree that criminalizing drug use creates users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison
yeah, im not sure. havent read whats been posted yet about portugal (but i will) or the studies on cali holland etc.
from what i imagine, its just reclassifying it as a health problem as opposed to a criminal problem. i think there would have to be a serious education campaign about the addictive qualities and side effects of each substance to go along with a regulated dispensation. no way do you set up heron cigarette machines.
i think the deterring factor of drugs being illegal is the key factor.
i know many many people who have decided to sell or use despite the legal risks.
then again, i (for the most part) didnt smoke weed when i went to Thailand because soulstrut (and my momz) told me the government cracks down hard over there. but from what i understood in conversation, they still have a big drug usage problem out there
people are speaking in a manner-of-fact way about something that is counter-intuitive. forget thailand, my friend just moved to singapore - which has mandatory capital punishment for certain drug offenses.
to say that laws don't effect how many people behave in this country is just a ridiculous proposition. it's true that people take hardcore drugs while being fully aware of the risks - but the same can be said for those who flagrantly cheat on their taxes. if you say it's not a crime anymore, you remove that deterrent from those who otherwise would not do it. i never said everyone thinks the same way.
I think it's very safe to say that legalizing all drugs would have way more positive than negative effects.
No one would want to argue that drugs ruin lives and devastate families. That's because they already are easily available. If you legalize them, you neutralize most of the crime caused by drug use. Also, the quality of drugs will increase and could be monitored. Most heroin users die because of impurities and the damage caused by them than by the heroin itself. If the purity of the heroin is easy to monitor, the risk of an accidental overdose will be eliminated. That's only one example.
People decide to not do drugs because they are educated about them and because drug use is (rightfully) stigmatized by society and not because they're illegal. Open your eyes, drugs already are everywhere. The only reason why you have drug related crime s because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and you automatically kill the entire world of illegal drug trafficking. It's the only way how you can win the "war on drugs". To legalize drugs would not take away the perception of drug use being bad for you and your environment but it would decriminalize the user. It would turn the public perception of the addict from a source of danger into a being worthy of compassion.
It boils down to a basic question of how free you want to be as a people and how much freedom you think you can handle.
Also: the gun industry would take a drastic hit by this. Stocks would tumble and the interests of some very powerful people would suffer. I'm afraid that there are a lot of lobbyists with a lot of money out there who will forever prevent this from happening.
Co-sign x100
If you can't recognize this you are either extremely naive, willfully ignorant. or have a vested interest in the big business of illegal drugs.
I'm giving KVH the benefit of the doubt and chalking it up to youthful naivete.
people are speaking in a manner-of-fact way about something that is counter-intuitive. forget thailand, my friend just moved to singapore - which has mandatory capital punishment for certain drug offenses.
to say that laws don't effect how many people behave in this country is just a ridiculous proposition. it's true that people take hardcore drugs while being fully aware of the risks - but the same can be said for those who flagrantly cheat on their taxes. if you say it's not a crime anymore, you remove that deterrent from those who otherwise would not do it. i never said everyone thinks the same way.
My nazi grandfather always told me how low crime was during the Third Reich.
Robberies, rapes, break ins, according to him basically non-existent.
The reality is there is not much of a deterrent from a user's standpoint. Users are rarely locked up, they are often fined or given probation instead. The laws lock up low level drug dealers, which creates openings for new low level drug dealers, criminalizing way more people than is healthy for a society.
frank, im not sure crime would disappear entirely, but their role/power undoubtedly would be greatly diminished. but i agree with just about everything else
i agree completely that its an issue of freedom and if we're ready to handle it or not.
personally, i WANT access to alcohol and marijuana and halucinogenics. they dont run my life or impact me negatively (i think)...but its my personal choice. other shit is definitely out of my comfort zone to say we should have access to it, but id have to line up on the side of personal freedom and say decriminalize it all.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I love this idea how the same agents that are supplying the drugs in the first place are supposed to be deterring people from using them...ha!
i agree completely that its an issue of freedom and if we're ready to handle it or not.
personally, i WANT access to alcohol and marijuana and halucinogenics. they dont run my life or impact me negatively (i think)...but its my personal choice. other shit is definitely out of my comfort zone to say we should have access to it, but id have to line up on the side of personal freedom and say decriminalize it all.
you can't have it both ways. if freedom is your argument, then you oppose government intervention. just listen to what is being suggested: "i want to be free to do heroin and crack but i want the government to sell it to me and help me (not prosecute me) if i succumb to addiction". this is the suggested policy? not happening.
what are the proposed limits if we decriminalize? does a pregnant woman have the freedom to do crack? what about a parent in the presence of his/her child? how do we police these things?
frank, im not sure crime would disappear entirely, but their role/power undoubtedly would be greatly diminished.
I didn't say that all crime would disappear but that "most of the crime caused by drug use" would be neutralized. And that legalizing drugs and a government controlled sale of drugs would "kill the entire world of illegal drug trafficking". To me that's only logical, no? Where would be the profit in running weed into the US from Mexico when it's legally being farmed all over the country?
From what I have read, the Mexican drug cartels are financed mostly by marijuana more than by cocaine trafficking. That's crazy! The restrictive policies towards such a harmless substance is responsible for that much death, torture and mayhem (and gun sales).
Then you look at TV shows like "Cops" or similar shit where sick people are treated like subhumans. Meth heads being dragged around station houses with sacks over their heads, strapped to chairs and filmed while they sit there naked and screaming.
A lot of the drug restrictions in this country make no sense at all. You let kids drive cars when they're 16. Two years later they can sign up to "be all that they can be" and ship to Iraq. Three years later they're finally allowed to legally walk into a bar and drink a beer...WTF?
Comments
No, I believe what happens is you are brought to a panel of some sort, so they can evaluate you and recommend treatment. You aren't even required to do the treatment. And they have had great success doing it.
In Switzerland, we were close to decriminalize marijuana. Studies by scientifics, health professionals, and even the gouvernement all agreed that it was probably better. But it had to be voted and approved by the people... Then all the clueless KVHs came out saying how they were such altruists and cared about the children and the weak and blabla....
And here we are back to 1960...
You should do comedy...but not intentionally, just get on stage and talk issues like this one...sure fire laugh riot.
Meth Panels?
you should move to your own island and amuse yourself with phrases like "sure fire laugh riot".
First you claimed it impossible to quantify the amount of money the federal (and state) government spends on drug related issues. You were wrong about that.
Then ask about broader effects that you claim are "obviously incapable of being quantified". Yet, again, such information can be obtained easily.
Now you make the ridiculous assumption that NOBODY in the history of drug misuse and treatment, has ever considered that a parents' drug problem may have a negative impact on their children.
Whilst continuing to claim 'it's impossible to quantify', to what end I don't know. In many ways, as I proved, it clearly is. But how any of this furthers your argument I don't get. You seem to just be making completely baseless statements in an attempt to say 'drugs are bad, mkay' in a rather confused & convoluted way. And nothing more.
Yet despite being woefully ignorant on the subject in general, you refuse to listen any opinion that falls outside of your dogmatic stance. So it's pretty futile to continue this conversation.
State and federal governments have no idea how much money they spend. Do you think someone is assigning figures to who is collecting unemployment compensation because a drug addiction cost them their job? How about for the children of that person who is now being fed on food stamps? Or for the mother who lost her kids to Child's Services? You don't get it. I don't know if you live in the United States but I can assure you as someone who deals with these agencies on occasion - they aren't collecting this type of data, nor does this information even become public knowledge in a lot of cases. A mother might lose her child because her house is filthy but DHS may or may not know the reason is because she is an addict.
No. See above.
MY POINT IS THAT ADDICTIVE DRUGS RUIN FAMILIES AND HAVE TERRIBLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. PERIOD.
If you want to argue that drug laws are not a deterrent, prove it. If not, there is nothing to argue about. Every post that talks about the uselessness of jail time for possession charges is completely missing the point if they are trying to respond to arguments that I have made. Whether a drug user gets probation, therapy or jail time is not going to have a major effect on whether the mere fact that the drugs are illegal servers as a deterrent so long as there a risk of punishment and a criminal record.
In the 10th-12th grades I was stoned from morning to night. (explains a lot huh?)
This was the early 70s.
I also took large amounts of hallucinogens, smaller amounts of barbiturates, amphetamines, muscle relaxants, Valium, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco and opiates. (explains a lot more.)
I kicked my tobacco habit while still in HS. (that shit will kill you.)
I quit taking everything but pot after I graduated and got a real job. I had no problem quitting. (and did not quit because they were illegal.)
Then I became addicted to prescribed codeine at 19. (cue Buffy Saint Marie [love that song])
Kicked it on my own.
When I was in my early 20s I decided to quit pot. Hardest thing I have ever done.
I know that for me, marijuana is addictive, and impairs cognitive abilities and makes me lazy.
It took more than a year to stop.
It took at least 6 months for me to feel like it wasn't in my system anymore.
Quit alcohol about 15 years later to preserve my boyish figure. Easiest thing I have ever done.
I was drug free for many years.
Then a buddy got busted. A friend and I went to clean out his bedroom. Drugs in every box, drawer, nook and book. We flushed all the pot and LSD.
My buddy, who was also my boss, who also owned the bedroom, had just come off a 6 month cocaine bender that almost cost him his business.
He talked me into doing a few lines with him. Promising he wouldn't fall back.
I went on a 45 minute walk until the effects started to wear off. He went on a 48 hour bender, screaming at me because I wouldn't give him the remaining stash.
Anyway, I hate cocaine. No fear of ever being addicted.
I also hated downers and speed when I did them. Never wanted to keep using.
So when I hear that decriminalization (which is different than legalization) would result in out of control meth use because if you just try meth once you will be addicted for life and your teeth will fall out, I don't believe it. Yeah, drugs are bad. I think pot is bad, which no doubt puts me in a minority here, but not everyone wants to do them, and not everyone is instantly addicted after their first taste. Most are not.
Anyway, thats my story.
I need help.
Please stop me from responding to KVH's last post.
Such a retarded statement.
In other news.
translation:
i think by marijuana cigarette Dan meant "a joint"
and D, you flushed the pot and LSD down the toilet and kept the yayo???
i understand this happened a while back, but i am looking at you sternly from across the country
yayo? What that?
I wanted to flush it all. My boss, wanted the snow.
If I had known I would saved it until I met you.
My friend who was busted was doing sound for a band when he had a drug induced seizure. The ETMs found the drugs.
It took another year, and the death of Jerry Garcia, to admit he had a problem.
I saw him a few years back. Clean sober and doing sound for Alex De Grassi.
but who in this thread is contradicting that ?
You are such an idiot.
can't believe we went 6 pages without you pointing that out. thank you. i changed my mind - drugs should be legal, even crack, heroin and meth. i thought i was arguing that laws which serve (in some capacity) to act as a deterrent are worth it because "ADDICTIVE DRUGS RUIN FAMILIES AND HAVE TERRIBLE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY". But by selectively isolating that one sentence and calling me an idiot, i am now a believer.
now go contact 99% of the democratic countries in the world and let them know that every elected leader and all their constituents have made a terrible mistake because the soulstrut poll favors decriminalizing all drugs.
casey, i think a lot of people are agreeing with the basic premise that drugs can and do ruin lives. but theres definitely some different opinions on how to handle that as a society.
we let the underground economy provide access to illegal drugs. if people are caught dealing/using, they go through the legal system and face penalties of fines, incarceration and stigma. it doesnt seem to be slowing down consumption and commerce of drugs tho and we have the highest incarceration rates in the world as a result. as DOR pointed out, the prison system is very biased and ruins many loves, predominately poor and minority populations.
if legalized or decriminalized, the government could take over control of salses. they could cut deals directly with afghani opium growers and columbian coca lords (which they probably already do) and cut out the underworld middlemen. it could be dispensed in a controlled manner, with access to health screenings, treatment and rehab. there would be no need to glamorize, privatize or advertise drug use (more than it already is by popular culture).
people are gonna do it anyway.lets work from that position since our current policies obviously dont work
tony - i haven't been advocating for the current criminal sentencing guidelines. i agree that our jails should not be filled with people who have chemical addictions - it doesn't make sense on any level. my point is that if we can agree that drugs have so many terrible effects on society (which i believe are immeasurable) - then we have to talk about what can be done to deter usage/abuse. can anyone argue that there is not a segment of society who is deterred by even trying hardcore drugs because it is illegal? just by classifying something as illegal it also contributes to people's perception of it as socially/morally/ethically wrong.
if people can't agree that decriminalizing drug use will create more users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison.
No we can't. Because all of the evidence from before prohibition, the netherlands, portugal and cali with med pot points to at best a very slight increase.
No one would want to argue that drugs ruin lives and devastate families. That's because they already are easily available. If you legalize them, you neutralize most of the crime caused by drug use. Also, the quality of drugs will increase and could be monitored. Most heroin users die because of impurities and the damage caused by them than by the heroin itself. If the purity of the heroin is easy to monitor, the risk of an accidental overdose will be eliminated. That's only one example.
People decide to not do drugs because they are educated about them and because drug use is (rightfully) stigmatized by society and not because they're illegal. Open your eyes, drugs already are everywhere. The only reason why you have drug related crime s because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and you automatically kill the entire world of illegal drug trafficking. It's the only way how you can win the "war on drugs". To legalize drugs would not take away the perception of drug use being bad for you and your environment but it would decriminalize the user. It would turn the public perception of the addict from a source of danger into a being worthy of compassion.
It boils down to a basic question of how free you want to be as a people and how much freedom you think you can handle.
Also: the gun industry would take a drastic hit by this. Stocks would tumble and the interests of some very powerful people would suffer. I'm afraid that there are a lot of lobbyists with a lot of money out there who will forever prevent this from happening.
if people can't agree that criminalizing drug use creates users and addicts (particularly among the lower class), then it's pointless to go through all the other potential issues - which pale in comparison
from what i imagine, its just reclassifying it as a health problem as opposed to a criminal problem. i think there would have to be a serious education campaign about the addictive qualities and side effects of each substance to go along with a regulated dispensation. no way do you set up heron cigarette machines.
i think the deterring factor of drugs being illegal is the key factor.
i know many many people who have decided to sell or use despite the legal risks.
then again, i (for the most part) didnt smoke weed when i went to Thailand because soulstrut (and my momz) told me the government cracks down hard over there. but from what i understood in conversation, they still have a big drug usage problem out there
to say that laws don't effect how many people behave in this country is just a ridiculous proposition. it's true that people take hardcore drugs while being fully aware of the risks - but the same can be said for those who flagrantly cheat on their taxes. if you say it's not a crime anymore, you remove that deterrent from those who otherwise would not do it. i never said everyone thinks the same way.
Co-sign x100
If you can't recognize this you are either extremely naive, willfully ignorant. or have a vested interest in the big business of illegal drugs.
I'm giving KVH the benefit of the doubt and chalking it up to youthful naivete.
My nazi grandfather always told me how low crime was during the Third Reich.
Robberies, rapes, break ins, according to him basically non-existent.
i agree completely that its an issue of freedom and if we're ready to handle it or not.
personally, i WANT access to alcohol and marijuana and halucinogenics. they dont run my life or impact me negatively (i think)...but its my personal choice. other shit is definitely out of my comfort zone to say we should have access to it, but id have to line up on the side of personal freedom and say decriminalize it all.
you can't have it both ways. if freedom is your argument, then you oppose government intervention. just listen to what is being suggested: "i want to be free to do heroin and crack but i want the government to sell it to me and help me (not prosecute me) if i succumb to addiction". this is the suggested policy? not happening.
From what I have read, the Mexican drug cartels are financed mostly by marijuana more than by cocaine trafficking. That's crazy! The restrictive policies towards such a harmless substance is responsible for that much death, torture and mayhem (and gun sales).
Then you look at TV shows like "Cops" or similar shit where sick people are treated like subhumans. Meth heads being dragged around station houses with sacks over their heads, strapped to chairs and filmed while they sit there naked and screaming.
A lot of the drug restrictions in this country make no sense at all. You let kids drive cars when they're 16. Two years later they can sign up to "be all that they can be" and ship to Iraq. Three years later they're finally allowed to legally walk into a bar and drink a beer...WTF?