1 in 100 people are in jail.

[blackangst1]

Snipped to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Yes this would never happen because we all known a cigarette does not have toxic cancer causing agents in it or a addictive substance (Nicotine is on par if not gram for gram more addictive then heroin.) in it. Oh and alcohol is not toxic to your liver and other bodily functions nor can it become addictive. Ever seen someone go through alchohol withdrawals? Alcohol is considered to be the worst addiction to kick because of it's withdrawal symptoms.

I won't even mention the fact that most hardcore pain killers (Of which are sold underground because grandma/pa can't find affordable health insurance.) are basically opiates just like heroin. WTF do you think Rush Limbaugh was hooked on when he was using OxyContin? OxyContin is a opiate same as herion, hence the "Hillbilly Heroin" title. If you seriously think that our goverment has not sold or is allowing the sale of drugs that are as addictive or as toxic as some of our own illegal drugs then you are naive IMHO or flat out being dishonest in the point you are trying to make IMHO.

Im not arguing those points. And I know about the primary ingrediants of Oxy. Thanks. There's many pain killers derived from opiates.

It's been said if ciggys were to somehow be invented today the FDA wouldnt approve them for consumer use, so IMHO it's a poor analogy. As technology and knowledge advance, we try and make wise choices for health, the "we did something similar before so we'll do it again" is laughable. Here's a short list of ingrediants to make meth:

Alcohol -
Gasoline additives/Rubbing Alcohol
Ether (starting fluid)
Benzene
Paint thinner
Freon
Acetone
Chloroform
Camp stove fuel
Anhydrous ammonia
White gasoline
Pheynl-2-Propane
Phenylacetone
Phenylpropanolamine
Rock, table or Epsom salt
Red Phosphorous
Toluene (found in brake cleaner)
Red Devil Lye
Drain cleaner
Muraitic acid
Battery acid
Lithium from batteries
Sodium metal
Iodine


Our government will not condone this for public use. Period. Using your analogy blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus. You know...coz we used to do it that way.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate behavior.

Then what is the prohibition of those drugs supposed to do? If the drug laws are not intended to change behavior, then they are just an excuse to incarcerate undesirables. Your logic here is severely flawed.

As I've said before, a lot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them.

The reason these crimes occur is because of the high prices of drugs caused by prohibition. Addicts would not have to commit the crimes you list to support a 50 cent-per-day habit; dealers wouldn't have high profits to protect, and would have no incentive for violence.

It doesn't matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still won't have money.

Right. Without prohibition, they would be able to support a habit with casual day labor or even panhandling (like the proverbial skid-row wino).

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offenses make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligible.

Legalizing weed may not make much of a difference in prison population or law enforcement costs, but the tax revenue would more than pay the cost of administering the regulation. Look at tobacco and alcohol; both are real cash cows for all levels of government.

mmmkay. And can you give an example outside of the USPS where ANYTHING regulated by the government is paid for completely by taxes on that product?

See tobacco and alcohol reference above.

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldn't be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We can't.

Here we agree. Of course, I would also point out that we cannot assume there would be more driving deaths due to drug legalization. How can we be sure the same people wouldn't die in traffic accidents, just intoxicated on other substances?

And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Your lack of coherent logic and circular reasoning become tiresome. Repeating the same flawed arguments does not strengthen them; it only exposes their weakness.

Here's a short list of ingredients to make meth:
(...)
Our government will not condone this for public use. Period.

And none of those contaminants remain in the finished product from any competent manufacturer. You may as well list all the toxic substances used in producing synthetic fibers; You would never wear nylon or rayon again.


I love how small-government conservatives try to expand government powers to eliminate behavior they find distasteful.

Read your history, Bucky. Prior to 1914, there was no federal legislation prohibiting any recreational drug. According to the Consumer Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, anti-drug legislation was fueled by racism and xenophobia. Opiates were banned in areas where Asians were supposedly using them to seduce white women; marijuana was prohibited to prevent blacks from using it to seduce white women; cocaine was prohibited to prevent it from driving "big black bucks" to rape white women; do we see a pattern here?


Finally, my apologies for correcting all the errors in spelling and grammar in the above quotations. I couldn't resist.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You cannot legislate behavior.

Then what is the prohibition of those drugs supposed to do? If the drug laws are not intended to change behavior, then they are just an excuse to incarcerate undesirables. Your logic here is severely flawed.

Drug laws, or any laws for that matter, are not there to change behavior. They are there to set boundaries, and punish those that step outside of them. Dont like em? Move, or elect people that will change them. Its no different than parenting. You set boundaries, and if the kiddos step outside those boundaries they are punished. The world is full of boundaries, as Im sure youre aware.

As I've said before, a lot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them.

The reason these crimes occur is because of the high prices of drugs caused by prohibition. Addicts would not have to commit the crimes you list to support a 50 cent-per-day habit; dealers wouldn't have high profits to protect, and would have no incentive for violence.

Are you kidding me? Drugs on the street are NOT expensive. AT ALL. A rock can be had for $5. As can a shot of heroine. I can run across the border here in AZ and get a hit of X for $1. Please. Crime occurs because addicts are either 1. Too lazy to work to earn money, or 2. refuse to get treatment (you cant FORCE treatment), or 3. theyre so far into their addiction they cant control themselves. Sure, the court can sentence treatment, but it's still their choice whether or not to take it. But there ARE consequences.

It doesn't matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still won't have money.

Right. Without prohibition, they would be able to support a habit with casual day labor or even panhandling (like the proverbial skid-row wino).

They can now. You can make $60-$80/day with day labor. With panhandling, they can support their habit now. Like I said above, street drugs are NOT expensive.

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offenses make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligible.

Legalizing weed may not make much of a difference in prison population or law enforcement costs, but the tax revenue would more than pay the cost of administering the regulation. Look at tobacco and alcohol; both are real cash cows for all levels of government.

OK.

mmmkay. And can you give an example outside of the USPS where ANYTHING regulated by the government is paid for completely by taxes on that product?

See tobacco and alcohol reference above.

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldn't be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We can't.

Here we agree. Of course, I would also point out that we cannot assume there would be more driving deaths due to drug legalization. How can we be sure the same people wouldn't die in traffic accidents, just intoxicated on other substances?

Because if it's legal people would have a more relaxed attitude about doing it. Fear is a great motivator. It's one thing to risk driving intoxicated. It's quite another to do so with an illegal substance.

And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Your lack of coherent logic and circular reasoning become tiresome. Repeating the same flawed arguments does not strengthen them; it only exposes their weakness.

Thanks for explaining why Im wrong. Same empty remarks.

Here's a short list of ingredients to make meth:
(...)
Our government will not condone this for public use. Period.

And none of those contaminants remain in the finished product from any competent manufacturer. You may as well list all the toxic substances used in producing synthetic fibers; You would never wear nylon or rayon again.

Youre wrong. Some do linger. Same as chemicals in tobacco. Try and get ahold of toxology reports some time.


I love how small-government conservatives try to expand government powers to eliminate behavior they find distasteful.

Im not proposing expanding anything. There's nothing wrong with the laws we have on the books now. Sure, sentencing can be fucked up, but thats true of alot of crimes. Including murder.

Read your history, Bucky. Prior to 1914, there was no federal legislation prohibiting any recreational drug. According to the Consumer Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, anti-drug legislation was fueled by racism and xenophobia. Opiates were banned in areas where Asians were supposedly using them to seduce white women; marijuana was prohibited to prevent blacks from using it to seduce white women; cocaine was prohibited to prevent it from driving "big black bucks" to rape white women; do we see a pattern here?

LOL Nice revisionist history there. Your racial remark was made by ONE man Dr. Christopher Koch.

Finally, my apologies for correcting all the errors in spelling and grammar in the above quotations. I couldn't resist.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Snipped to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Yes this would never happen because we all known a cigarette does not have toxic cancer causing agents in it or a addictive substance (Nicotine is on par if not gram for gram more addictive then heroin.) in it. Oh and alcohol is not toxic to your liver and other bodily functions nor can it become addictive. Ever seen someone go through alchohol withdrawals? Alcohol is considered to be the worst addiction to kick because of it's withdrawal symptoms.

I won't even mention the fact that most hardcore pain killers (Of which are sold underground because grandma/pa can't find affordable health insurance.) are basically opiates just like heroin. WTF do you think Rush Limbaugh was hooked on when he was using OxyContin? OxyContin is a opiate same as herion, hence the "Hillbilly Heroin" title. If you seriously think that our goverment has not sold or is allowing the sale of drugs that are as addictive or as toxic as some of our own illegal drugs then you are naive IMHO or flat out being dishonest in the point you are trying to make IMHO.

Im not arguing those points. And I know about the primary ingrediants of Oxy. Thanks. There's many pain killers derived from opiates.

It's been said if ciggys were to somehow be invented today the FDA wouldnt approve them for consumer use, so IMHO it's a poor analogy. As technology and knowledge advance, we try and make wise choices for health, the "we did something similar before so we'll do it again" is laughable. Here's a short list of ingrediants to make meth:

Alcohol -
Gasoline additives/Rubbing Alcohol
Ether (starting fluid)
Benzene
Paint thinner
Freon
Acetone
Chloroform
Camp stove fuel
Anhydrous ammonia
White gasoline
Pheynl-2-Propane
Phenylacetone
Phenylpropanolamine
Rock, table or Epsom salt
Red Phosphorous
Toluene (found in brake cleaner)
Red Devil Lye
Drain cleaner
Muraitic acid
Battery acid
Lithium from batteries
Sodium metal
Iodine


Our government will not condone this for public use. Period. Using your analogy blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus. You know...coz we used to do it that way.

Of course the so called ingredients for "Meth" which you listed are ingredients used to release the binding agents from pills that contain the valued and sought after amphetamines found in said pills. Again your view on not legalizing a drug like marijuana because of it's ingredients is off the mark when the facts are highlighted. Especially when it's compared to the ingredients used in other products commonly available to the average consumer today despite your attempts to dismiss this unavoidable fact. Also when you try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way (using over the counter chemicals your average person can easily get a hold of) you actually point out the error in your own logic and viewpoint.

The list of "Meth's ingredients" you posted is a perfect example of how flawed our "War on drugs" has become. This so called "War on drugs" has not stopped anyone who wants to get high from getting high. This is especially true as drug dealers and drug users find new and more inventive ways to get high. All we are doing is making criminals out of drug addicts (of which they should be treated like patients who have a disease instead of criminals) and helping to sustain a drug based and funded sub-culture of thug criminals that prey on these addicts. We are continually clogging up our court systems and prisons without making a single dent in the demand or supply of drugs available today. The current status quo is not reducing government but instead is increasing it's power and scope over the tax payer as an increasingly larger percentage of our population is being incarcerated every year. You can back pedal and grasp at straws all you like but your point is very much flawed when the facts are presented.

P.S. Again our incarceration rate if it is truly head of other nations is not something to be proud of if we are the so called beacon of freedom, reason and logic in the world as the only super power.

 

[Jhhnn]

The government does, in truth, condone the manufacture of methamphetamine, Blackangst1, along with cocaine hcl and a variety of synthetic and semi synthetic opiates- also barbituates and a variety of other psychoactive drugs...

You just need a prescription to get them. As I pointed out earlier, pharmaceutical companies employ purity standards and quality control methods not found in illicit labs, rendering your "point" wrt ingredients entirely moot...

 

[MadRat]

And the crackdown on drugs did not cause drug addiction, its been around since the beginning of mankind. The drug prices rose because of two reasons; 1) demand outstrips supply and 2) the government's crackdown is working to curb the supply. In no way does a crackdown condone usage. Some people just plain choose to live life in a stupor. Who knows what guilt they are trying to bury. Fix the guilt you have a chance to fix the addiction. But you can never legislate that kind of solution nor force it on the addict.

 

[blackangst1]

SNIPPED to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Of course the so called ingredients for "Meth" which you listed are ingredients used to release the binding agents from pills that contain the valued and sought after amphetamines found in said pills. Again your view on not legalizing a drug like marijuana because of it's ingredients is off the mark when the facts are highlighted. Especially when it's compared to the ingredients used in other products commonly available to the average consumer today despite your attempts to dismiss this unavoidable fact. Also when you try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way (using over the counter chemicals your average person can easily get a hold of) you actually point out the error in your own logic and viewpoint.

The list of "Meth's ingredients" you posted is a perfect example of how flawed our "War on drugs" has become. This so called "War on drugs" has not stopped anyone who wants to get high from getting high. This is especially true as drug dealers and drug users find new and more inventive ways to get high. All we are doing is making criminals out of drug addicts (of which they should be treated like patients who have a disease instead of criminals) and helping to sustain a drug based and funded sub-culture of thug criminals that prey on these addicts. We are continually clogging up our court systems and prisons without making a single dent in the demand or supply of drugs available today. The current status quo is not reducing government but instead is increasing it's power and scope over the tax payer as an increasingly larger percentage of our population is being incarcerated every year. You can back pedal and grasp at straws all you like but your point is very much flawed when the facts are presented.

P.S. Again our incarceration rate if it is truly head of other nations is not something to be proud of if we are the so called beacon of freedom, reason and logic in the world as the only super power.

Where did I *ever* "try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way"? Dont put words in my mouth.

In regard to weed only, I wouldnt have a problem per se of legalizing, but I I would rather see sentancing guidelines change. Either way it doesnt affect prison population significantly, as has been posted the number of incarcerations for weed only is tiny. Thats the kicker, is the legalize drugs crown always spouts off about incarceration for weed, when its really insignificant. But I never said anything about ingredients or even compared it to other class I or class II drugs. An apology for ripping me for doing so would be appropriate.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The government does, in truth, condone the manufacture of methamphetamine, Blackangst1, along with cocaine hcl and a variety of synthetic and semi synthetic opiates- also barbituates and a variety of other psychoactive drugs...

You just need a prescription to get them. As I pointed out earlier, pharmaceutical companies employ purity standards and quality control methods not found in illicit labs, rendering your "point" wrt ingredients entirely moot...

Nice twist. If you cant see the difference between prescribing and abusing/manufacturing, you sir are blind.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
SNIPPED to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Of course the so called ingredients for "Meth" which you listed are ingredients used to release the binding agents from pills that contain the valued and sought after amphetamines found in said pills. Again your view on not legalizing a drug like marijuana because of it's ingredients is off the mark when the facts are highlighted. Especially when it's compared to the ingredients used in other products commonly available to the average consumer today despite your attempts to dismiss this unavoidable fact. Also when you try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way (using over the counter chemicals your average person can easily get a hold of) you actually point out the error in your own logic and viewpoint.

The list of "Meth's ingredients" you posted is a perfect example of how flawed our "War on drugs" has become. This so called "War on drugs" has not stopped anyone who wants to get high from getting high. This is especially true as drug dealers and drug users find new and more inventive ways to get high. All we are doing is making criminals out of drug addicts (of which they should be treated like patients who have a disease instead of criminals) and helping to sustain a drug based and funded sub-culture of thug criminals that prey on these addicts. We are continually clogging up our court systems and prisons without making a single dent in the demand or supply of drugs available today. The current status quo is not reducing government but instead is increasing it's power and scope over the tax payer as an increasingly larger percentage of our population is being incarcerated every year. You can back pedal and grasp at straws all you like but your point is very much flawed when the facts are presented.

P.S. Again our incarceration rate if it is truly head of other nations is not something to be proud of if we are the so called beacon of freedom, reason and logic in the world as the only super power.

Where did I *ever* "try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way"? Dont put words in my mouth.

In regard to weed only, I wouldnt have a problem per se of legalizing, but I I would rather see sentancing guidelines change. Either way it doesnt affect prison population significantly, as has been posted the number of incarcerations for weed only is tiny. Thats the kicker, is the legalize drugs crown always spouts off about incarceration for weed, when its really insignificant. But I never said anything about ingredients or even compared it to other class I or class II drugs. An apology for ripping me for doing so would be appropriate.

I think the numbers are actually significant.

Depending on what segments of the population various statistics, say we even put it at the low end and call it .5% of the prison population is in jail for weed. I was seeing that in some states it costs around $32,000 to keep someone in jail for a whole year. What this means is that on a nationwide level, we're pissing away between $5 and $10 billion a year on this. That's almost as much money as the federal government spends on higher education grants each year... why not double those instead?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: Nebor

I can see legalizing it all. I support that. But government funding for addicts? Encouraging them by giving them specialized care? No way.

Well, overcoming ideology is probably just as hard as treating addicts. Until then you just have to live with more and more prisons, violence and fear. While we live with less and less crime, a few more treated addicts, and a lot less dead addicts.

My ideals are far, far more important to me than fear or violence. I can handle fear and violence. I can't handle the world without a frame to view it in.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
SNIPPED to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Of course the so called ingredients for "Meth" which you listed are ingredients used to release the binding agents from pills that contain the valued and sought after amphetamines found in said pills. Again your view on not legalizing a drug like marijuana because of it's ingredients is off the mark when the facts are highlighted. Especially when it's compared to the ingredients used in other products commonly available to the average consumer today despite your attempts to dismiss this unavoidable fact. Also when you try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way (using over the counter chemicals your average person can easily get a hold of) you actually point out the error in your own logic and viewpoint.

The list of "Meth's ingredients" you posted is a perfect example of how flawed our "War on drugs" has become. This so called "War on drugs" has not stopped anyone who wants to get high from getting high. This is especially true as drug dealers and drug users find new and more inventive ways to get high. All we are doing is making criminals out of drug addicts (of which they should be treated like patients who have a disease instead of criminals) and helping to sustain a drug based and funded sub-culture of thug criminals that prey on these addicts. We are continually clogging up our court systems and prisons without making a single dent in the demand or supply of drugs available today. The current status quo is not reducing government but instead is increasing it's power and scope over the tax payer as an increasingly larger percentage of our population is being incarcerated every year. You can back pedal and grasp at straws all you like but your point is very much flawed when the facts are presented.

P.S. Again our incarceration rate if it is truly head of other nations is not something to be proud of if we are the so called beacon of freedom, reason and logic in the world as the only super power.

Where did I *ever* "try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way"? Dont put words in my mouth.

In regard to weed only, I wouldnt have a problem per se of legalizing, but I I would rather see sentancing guidelines change. Either way it doesnt affect prison population significantly, as has been posted the number of incarcerations for weed only is tiny. Thats the kicker, is the legalize drugs crown always spouts off about incarceration for weed, when its really insignificant. But I never said anything about ingredients or even compared it to other class I or class II drugs. An apology for ripping me for doing so would be appropriate.

I think the numbers are actually significant.

Depending on what segments of the population various statistics, say we even put it at the low end and call it .5% of the prison population is in jail for weed. I was seeing that in some states it costs around $32,000 to keep someone in jail for a whole year. What this means is that on a nationwide level, we're pissing away between $5 and $10 billion a year on this. That's almost as much money as the federal government spends on higher education grants each year... why not double those instead?

Actually when you throw in healthcare its about $40k/yr. As far as redirecting funds, well...it's a nice fantasy but prolly wouldnt happen since most states overspend on Dept of Corrections. As I said before, sentencing needs to be addressed and would solve that problem. As much money as that is, although it sounds like alot to us, it's still insignificant in the overall sceme of things. And it certainly wouldnt reduce prison population by a significant amount. Unless .5-1.6% (those are actual numbers) is significant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
SNIPPED to save space

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Of course the so called ingredients for "Meth" which you listed are ingredients used to release the binding agents from pills that contain the valued and sought after amphetamines found in said pills. Again your view on not legalizing a drug like marijuana because of it's ingredients is off the mark when the facts are highlighted. Especially when it's compared to the ingredients used in other products commonly available to the average consumer today despite your attempts to dismiss this unavoidable fact. Also when you try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way (using over the counter chemicals your average person can easily get a hold of) you actually point out the error in your own logic and viewpoint.

The list of "Meth's ingredients" you posted is a perfect example of how flawed our "War on drugs" has become. This so called "War on drugs" has not stopped anyone who wants to get high from getting high. This is especially true as drug dealers and drug users find new and more inventive ways to get high. All we are doing is making criminals out of drug addicts (of which they should be treated like patients who have a disease instead of criminals) and helping to sustain a drug based and funded sub-culture of thug criminals that prey on these addicts. We are continually clogging up our court systems and prisons without making a single dent in the demand or supply of drugs available today. The current status quo is not reducing government but instead is increasing it's power and scope over the tax payer as an increasingly larger percentage of our population is being incarcerated every year. You can back pedal and grasp at straws all you like but your point is very much flawed when the facts are presented.

P.S. Again our incarceration rate if it is truly head of other nations is not something to be proud of if we are the so called beacon of freedom, reason and logic in the world as the only super power.

Where did I *ever* "try to compare something like marijuana to the back woods chemistry used to make meth the hard way"? Dont put words in my mouth.

In regard to weed only, I wouldnt have a problem per se of legalizing, but I I would rather see sentancing guidelines change. Either way it doesnt affect prison population significantly, as has been posted the number of incarcerations for weed only is tiny. Thats the kicker, is the legalize drugs crown always spouts off about incarceration for weed, when its really insignificant. But I never said anything about ingredients or even compared it to other class I or class II drugs. An apology for ripping me for doing so would be appropriate.

I think the numbers are actually significant.

Depending on what segments of the population various statistics, say we even put it at the low end and call it .5% of the prison population is in jail for weed. I was seeing that in some states it costs around $32,000 to keep someone in jail for a whole year. What this means is that on a nationwide level, we're pissing away between $5 and $10 billion a year on this. That's almost as much money as the federal government spends on higher education grants each year... why not double those instead?

Actually when you throw in healthcare its about $40k/yr. As far as redirecting funds, well...it's a nice fantasy but prolly wouldnt happen since most states overspend on Dept of Corrections. As I said before, sentencing needs to be addressed and would solve that problem. As much money as that is, although it sounds like alot to us, it's still insignificant in the overall sceme of things. And it certainly wouldnt reduce prison population by a significant amount. Unless .5-1.6% (those are actual numbers) is significant.

Well I guess I would consider it significant just because the costs involved in doing it are nil. I mean you can get 15,000-40,000 people out of jail immediately, not to mention save the justice system from having to waste resources on any further prosecutions. Yeah its only a start, but it's not a bad one. 1% on a nationwide scale adds up to a lot of people. Of course I would legalize all drugs, but that's just me.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well I guess I would consider it significant just because the costs involved in doing it are nil. I mean you can get 15,000-40,000 people out of jail immediately, not to mention save the justice system from having to waste resources on any further prosecutions. Yeah its only a start, but it's not a bad one. 1% on a nationwide scale adds up to a lot of people. Of course I would legalize all drugs, but that's just me.

Fair enough. Although I see the logic behind legalization, for other reason Im against it. But thats fine. I see greater impact by altering sentencing guidelines. Hopefully we can agree to disagree with respect.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're the one employing whatever fud and hysteria you can find to justify the current state of prohibition, blackangst1. The whole non-argument about purity and ingredients is yours, and applies only to black market manufacture.

A pretty desperate duh-version, and your argument wrt cannabis legalization is just an attempt to pooh-pooh the issue while maintaining the status quo, which is rotten and hypocritical to its core... Drugs and drug incarceration are big business, make no mistake about that. The total cashflow is much greater than if drugs were legal, and the level of graft is incredible.

Which are, I suspect, the real reasons that drugs are illegal- all the right people get a cut of the action, one way or another...

 

[Throckmorton]

The 100 to 1 penalty ratio for crack vs cocaine is another reason for the huge prison population. It looks like the senate is about to pass legislation repealing that, but the DOJ, for no apparent reason, wants to prevent it from acting retroactively.

 

[Jhhnn]

No apparent reason, Throckmorton? Wake up- prisons are supposed to be a growth industry- retroactive sentence reductions run completely counter to that...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're the one employing whatever fud and hysteria you can find to justify the current state of prohibition, blackangst1. The whole non-argument about purity and ingredients is yours, and applies only to black market manufacture.

A pretty desperate duh-version, and your argument wrt cannabis legalization is just an attempt to pooh-pooh the issue while maintaining the status quo, which is rotten and hypocritical to its core... Drugs and drug incarceration are big business, make no mistake about that. The total cashflow is much greater than if drugs were legal, and the level of graft is incredible.

Which are, I suspect, the real reasons that drugs are illegal- all the right people get a cut of the action, one way or another...

Non argument about purity? Go ahead and link more "pure" ingrediants, and a plan to "purify" the production. I wont hold my breath.

Im not poo-pooing the weed argument. I clearly stated a few times sentencing needs to be addressed. The country would make more money fining and not incarcerating than our current system.

 

[CallMeJoe]

You cannot legislate behavior.

Then what is the prohibition of those drugs supposed to do? If the drug laws are not intended to change behavior, then they are just an excuse to incarcerate undesirables. Your logic here is severely flawed.

Drug laws, or any laws for that matter, are not there to change behavior. They are there to set boundaries, and punish those that step outside of them. Dont like em? Move, or elect people that will change them. Its no different than parenting. You set boundaries, and if the kiddos step outside those boundaries they are punished. The world is full of boundaries, as Im sure youre aware.

Your parsing of definitions here is extremely strained; setting boundaries and punishing actions outside those boundaries is classic behavior modification

As I've said before, a lot of criminal behavior that actually directly affects innocent people is crimes like robbery, theft, and even murder. The reason these crimes take place is the person wanting to buy drugs has no money to buy them.

The reason these crimes occur is because of the high prices of drugs caused by prohibition. Addicts would not have to commit the crimes you list to support a 50 cent-per-day habit; dealers wouldn't have high profits to protect, and would have no incentive for violence.

Are you kidding me? Drugs on the street are NOT expensive. AT ALL. A rock can be had for $5. As can a shot of heroine. I can run across the border here in AZ and get a hit of X for $1. Please. Crime occurs because addicts are either 1. Too lazy to work to earn money, or 2. refuse to get treatment (you cant FORCE treatment), or 3. theyre so far into their addiction they cant control themselves. Sure, the court can sentence treatment, but it's still their choice whether or not to take it. But there ARE consequences.

If a single rock were sufficient for a day's usage, your point on price would have some validity. Unfortunately, rock after rock must be consumed to maintain one's habit. You say drugs are not AT ALL expensive; if that were true, there would be no profit in the manufacturer, importation and marketing of those drugs, and the market would collapse on its own.\

It doesn't matter if the US Government sold it or Guido on the corner, they still won't have money.

Right. Without prohibition, they would be able to support a habit with casual day labor or even panhandling (like the proverbial skid-row wino).

They can now. You can make $60-$80/day with day labor. With panhandling, they can support their habit now. Like I said above, street drugs are NOT expensive.

See answer above concerning drug pricing.

Lets say we legalize weed and make it a government regulated product. Are you saying the cost savings of not needing as many prison employees is greater than the cost of adding a new product to regulate? Are you kidding? Seeing how weed offenses make up 1/2 - 1.6% of the prison population your cost saving will pretty much be negligible.

Legalizing weed may not make much of a difference in prison population or law enforcement costs, but the tax revenue would more than pay the cost of administering the regulation. Look at tobacco and alcohol; both are real cash cows for all levels of government.

OK.

I'm glad we found at least one point on which we fully agree.

mmmkay. And can you give an example outside of the USPS where ANYTHING regulated by the government is paid for completely by taxes on that product?

See tobacco and alcohol reference above.

Ever looked at the number of alcohol related deaths in the US every year? How can we be sure there wouldn't be more deaths due to driving while high on crack, meth, heroine, etc? Right. We can't.

Here we agree. Of course, I would also point out that we cannot assume there would be more driving deaths due to drug legalization. How can we be sure the same people wouldn't die in traffic accidents, just intoxicated on other substances?

Because if it's legal people would have a more relaxed attitude about doing it. Fear is a great motivator. It's one thing to risk driving intoxicated. It's quite another to do so with an illegal substance.

Can you demonstrate that the people you say would be driving under the influence of currently illicit drugs are not the same people now driving under the influence of alcohol? You are merely guessing that there would be an increase in fatalities.

And you STILL have the problem of addicts not being able to afford their drug. Thus, they will STILL steal, swindle, and murder to support their habit. They just have a new dealer.

Your lack of coherent logic and circular reasoning become tiresome. Repeating the same flawed arguments does not strengthen them; it only exposes their weakness.

Thanks for explaining why Im wrong. Same empty remarks.

Already answered above

Here's a short list of ingredients to make meth:
(...)
Our government will not condone this for public use. Period.

And none of those contaminants remain in the finished product from any competent manufacturer. You may as well list all the toxic substances used in producing synthetic fibers; You would never wear nylon or rayon again.

Youre wrong. Some do linger. Same as chemicals in tobacco. Try and get ahold of toxology reports some time.

Jhhn answered this point as well as anyone. You somehow assume people will still be running meth labs in trailer parks when they could more easily (and more cheaply) by Pfizer's product at their neighborhood pharmacy.

I love how small-government conservatives try to expand government powers to eliminate behavior they find distasteful.

Im not proposing expanding anything. There's nothing wrong with the laws we have on the books now. Sure, sentencing can be fucked up, but thats true of alot of crimes. Including murder.

Agreed. You merely propose extending an expansion of big government powers

Read your history, Bucky. Prior to 1914, there was no federal legislation prohibiting any recreational drug. According to the Consumer Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, anti-drug legislation was fueled by racism and xenophobia. Opiates were banned in areas where Asians were supposedly using them to seduce white women; marijuana was prohibited to prevent blacks from using it to seduce white women; cocaine was prohibited to prevent it from driving "big black bucks" to rape white women; do we see a pattern here?

LOL Nice revisionist history there. Your racial remark was made by ONE man Dr. Christopher Koch.

You're right; that specific statement was made by just one man. I included it as just one example of the pervasive atmosphere of racism the Report cited during the passage of early anti-drug laws. No revisionism, though I will plead guilty to one count of paraphrasing.
<br

 

[blackangst1]

CallMeJoe:

We can speculate all day long, the both of us. But in the end it's just that. Im not backing out of my argument, but rather seeing were at an impasse as to opinion. Thats fine. But neither one of knows for sure 1. if anything other than weed will be legalized anytime soon, 2. how or where it will be made and with what, 3. pricing, 4. people's driving habits. There's just no way to know. What I *do* know, and something we can probably both agree on, is addiction of any kind, especially illicit drugs, is harmful, even deadly, for the user, and very destructive for those around him/her. We can then go into the argument that we need more counseling and treatment, which I agree with. Having a friend of 25 years addicted to coke, I know all too well there arent enough resources available. But thats a different thread.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Just this morning on C-Span radio I heard a prisoner in Rhode Island costs about $45k/year.
It costs Louisana only $13k/year.

They mentioned Texas, Alabama, (and some other states I may have forgotten) are pretty high on the cost list as well.

 

[MadRat]

The prisoner in Rhode Island is probably treated much nicer than the backwards-ass hick prison treatment down in Louisiana.

 

[Jhhnn]

You probably use drugs from major phamaceutical companies on a regular basis, blackangst1, whose processes, solvents and basic ingredients are just as scary as those needed to mass produce any sort of drug...

I haven't argued for the unlimited and unlicensed production of drugs, at all, but rather for their legalization and their manufacture under the same sort of regulations required to produce aspirin or anything else. Black marketeers can't compete with that, and would quickly disappear- there's only really huge money in it when it's illegal and the price is artificially subsidized by law enforcement...

Artificially reducing supply doesn't reduce demand, at all, it just moves the pricepoint and the profit margin way, way up...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Artificially reducing supply doesn't reduce demand, at all, it just moves the pricepoint and the profit margin way, way up...

wtf kind of voodoo logic is this?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You probably use drugs from major phamaceutical companies on a regular basis, blackangst1, whose processes, solvents and basic ingredients are just as scary as those needed to mass produce any sort of drug...

I haven't argued for the unlimited and unlicensed production of drugs, at all, but rather for their legalization and their manufacture under the same sort of regulations required to produce aspirin or anything else. Black marketeers can't compete with that, and would quickly disappear- there's only really huge money in it when it's illegal and the price is artificially subsidized by law enforcement...

Artificially reducing supply doesn't reduce demand, at all, it just moves the pricepoint and the profit margin way, way up...

yes, I do. And I never thought you meant anything other than controlled, regulated drugs.

Your supply statement, however, is kind of wtf...

 

[Jhhnn]

From Nebor-

wtf kind of voodoo logic is this?

Just standard market theory, Nebor, like when OPEC cuts production and the price of oil goes up... or when the Brazilian coffee crop has big problems and the price of coffee goes up worldwide... it doesn't matter how supply is constricted, merely that it is for prices to rise...

Obviously, Americans want drugs or they wouldn't pay so much to get them, meaning that the demand is there...