American Drug War: The Last Great White Hope

[Tab]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Legalize it all, tax the fuck out of it and ban anyone who does the hardcore stuff from receiving government provided health care.

Stupid idea.

And your solution is?

Legalize it like any other product.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Legalize it all, tax the fuck out of it and ban anyone who does the hardcore stuff from receiving government provided health care.

Stupid idea.

yeah, i agree: government provided health care is an incredibly stupid idea. private health insurance agencies already take into account life style as well, so really either decriminalizing and regulating or legalizing drugs (on a case by case basis) is all we really need to do.

Originally posted by: lupi
So is there any crime we shouldn't simply legalize so we have less people in jail. After all, in these days of every podunk non-talent kiddie getting a trophy for every sport and class, why should we expect anyone to bother distinguishing between right and wrong.

i lost count, how many fallacies are in that paragraph?

i don't get why i always bite ... but whatever ...

crimes are not crimes because our laws define "right and wrong" -- they are simply crimes because our laws define crime. legality is entirely different than "right and wrong". many things that are "wrong" are legal while many things that are "right" are illegal.

while some may argue it is always right to follow the law, many great leaders have disagreed. jury nullification, self government, protesting, encouraging civil disobedience and placing the final burden on doing the right thing on the individual ("just following orders" does not fly -- it is our duty to break a law that requires us to do something "wrong") -- all of these things reinforce the fact that legal is not a synonym for right and illegal is not a synonym for wrong.

so to actually answer your ridiculous question... there's not a case where we should legalize things simply and only to reduce the prison population.

we should decriminalize any law we find to encroach our constitutional rights (or we should amend the constitution to disallow a right). we should decriminalize activities for which the law is more harmful than the thing it prohibits. decriminalizing drugs, while a major benefit would be a reduction in prison population, is supported by other more important concerns.

And legalizing it is definitely the way to go. I mean, it's not like we have any drug problems with heavily regulated prescribed narcotics in this country. What possible harm could ever happen if we throw a couple million more supplies in that direction.

... you would benefit from learning how to argue. i get the sarcasm, and that's kinda funny, but other than that your point is defeated by your own argument.

decriminalizing drugs does not mean throwing cocaine, mdma, lsd, amphetamines, and weed at everyone. on top of that, how much help do you think people in jail for drug abuse actually get? they are even still able to get drugs in jail.

if drugs were decriminalized and there was as much help and encouragement out there to help people quit doing any other drug as there is for helping people quit smoking or drinking we'd be helping a whole lot more people. changing the laws surrounding prescription drugs would help in those cases as well, and we wouldn't want to make decriminalized drugs anything like prescription drugs.

You may be against the general legalization of everything across the board, but you would be the minority veiw among the mass of nutcases that drum this subject.

The creation of laws is not, or should not be, about right or wrong. Following those that have been approved however is. The American spirit of protest for what they feel is in error has nothing to do with whether you can differentitate bewteen something that is right or wrong.

Drugs are consitutionally allowed, um ok. I must have missed that chapter, but I do see where the government can regulate commerce and create laws for the general welfare of the populace.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Legalize it all, tax the fuck out of it and ban anyone who does the hardcore stuff from receiving government provided health care.

Stupid idea.

And your solution is?

Humans are not reasonable people 100% of the time. Give them a chance to kill themselves and they'll do it. We've had legalize drugs in the past and it was devastating. People didn't want to do anything. Productivity was down. At one time 20% of the country was addicted to drugs, mostly housewives. As a leader of a country you don't want to have a nation of zombies. Our current drug laws may not be popular now but they hold the line against generalized apathy and a nation of feeble-minded individuals.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dari
Our current drug laws may not be popular now but they hold the line against generalized apathy and a nation of feeble-minded individuals.

:laugh:

I hope this is sarcasm...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Legalize it all, tax the fuck out of it and ban anyone who does the hardcore stuff from receiving government provided health care.

:thumbsup:

By legalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, etc we would be providing several enormous benefits. First, we'd ensure that those who choose to use drugs would not have to mortgage their lives to afford them. We'd ensure the drugs they use are pure, and not contaminated. We'd be sweeping the feet out from under some of the biggest criminal organizations in the world, who rely on drug money to fund their activities. And, we'd decrease the burden on our prisons.

Not to mention that social programs to help those overcome addiction, or deter people from trying drugs, could be funded by tax revenue from the drugs themselves.

I'll pass Bob. What's behind Showcase number 2?

Care to offer a more substantial critique of his proposal? Other than "drugs are bad, mkay?" I see you offered "amending" drug laws, maybe loosening draconian sentencing, but that has no effect on drug cartels which will still supply the product, maintaining their stranglehold on the black market, the continuation of contaminated drugs, the associated violence inherent in underground/illicit trades, etc.

You can't just amend the laws to make punishment for users less, you have to address the problem. Consider what this country looked like under Prohibition and the consequences of that era. Consider the legal brothels in Nevada (regular STD testing, safety for the women, enforced condom use) vs street walkers getting raped, beaten, owned by pimps, no access to healthcare or the police, etc.

 

[IGBT]

..it's a user drivin problem. Americans love to get dizzy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
what part or program or department on the WOD specifically is bad and not needed? Seems to me if anything we're more tolerant of drug use than we were say 20 years ago. Consider how many jurisdictions give a free pass to small quantities of personal use for example.

In my opinion all law enforcement aspects. I would scrap the DEA in its entirety, I would end the wasteful use of our naval assets in drug interdiction, (who sends a 9000 ton AEGIS cruiser after drug boats!?), I would then turn these policing resources half into community protection for all the real crimes out there, and half into drug treatment and harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges, methadone, education, job training, etc.

I actually wrote a paper on this recently and so I read a lot up on the subject.

wow. well, we all have our ideas. . I'm not going to call call you names or tell you your idea is bad and mine is good, but I will say thankfully some ideas will never come to fruition.

Maybe you could give me an idea of why you think this would be a bad thing? If we're decriminalizing drugs, what is the need for enforcement agencies? The draconian enforcement is the single largest problem with the war on drugs, in many ways our insane policies do more damage to individuals and communities then the drugs themselves.

You say some of these things will never come to fruition, and while maybe a full scale decriminalization isn't in the forseeable future (no matter how much sense it makes) I bet you more then half of what I wrote there is in our relatively near future.

Because realistically the only decriminalization that will take place is personal use. I dont see the legalization of carrying 25 kilos of coke. Do you?

 

[StormRider]

I'll never understand why so many people like to use drugs. I was given some type of painkiller (dillaudid??) when I had 3 wisdom teeth pulled as a kid and when I took it, all I felt was nauseous and dizzy. To me, feeling nauseous and dizzy is not feeling good. I threw the rest of the medication away.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

More like 40yrs of disinformation and propaganda. There is too much money being made either by prison systems or by way of Federal money for police enforcement. Now you tell me how you "undue" 40yrs of that shit. I'll be waiting for your reply.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

I think most people especially Americans are far too easily swayed by their emotions and not grounded in logic as much as we should be.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

You aren't serious are you? Do you realize how much money the government spends every year on propaganda to tell the population that drugs are bad?

Marijuana is a perfect example. Study after study after study has come out saying that marijuana is relatively harmless and should be decriminalized. (some even conducted by the government... oops! How embarrassing when they had to bury them eh?) And yet... it remains illegal.

Why is this? I'll give you a hint: it's not because there's an inherent fallacy in the argument.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Given all the arguemnts that people can be brainwashed by the governemnt (as stated by the above posters), is there also the chance that the drug supporters coiuld also be "brainwashed".

As I stated, they have had 40+ years to make there case and have not done so.

All these excellent justifications for decriminalize/legalizing drugs should be able to resound to the American public.
Laws get changed by either voters having them changed on the balot (exposed to the light for all to see) or by have the lawmakers change them.

And apparently, the drug suporters are unable to do either.

You should think that if they are so correct, that a single community/county or maybe even a states would be able to be convinced. Then the process could snowball.

Instead this seems to be like the Ron Paul effect. Plenty of hot air and promises, but no one is able to actaully show up when they need to be counted.

One person at a time to be converted should equal quite a few people over the past 40 years. Or how long does it take to convert a person to a wrong cause. And is that convert just hot air on are they able to convert another.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

You aren't serious are you? Do you realize how much money the government spends every year on propaganda to tell the population that drugs are bad?

Marijuana is a perfect example. Study after study after study has come out saying that marijuana is relatively harmless and should be decriminalized. (some even conducted by the government... oops! How embarrassing when they had to bury them eh?) And yet... it remains illegal.

Why is this? I'll give you a hint: it's not because there's an inherent fallacy in the argument.

Has nothing to do with the people electing a congress who will change the laws. Two seperate issues here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given all the arguemnts that people can be brainwashed by the governemnt (as stated by the above posters), is there also the chance that the drug supporters coiuld also be "brainwashed".

As I stated, they have had 40+ years to make there case and have not done so.

All these excellent justifications for decriminalize/legalizing drugs should be able to resound to the American public.
Laws get changed by either voters having them changed on the balot (exposed to the light for all to see) or by have the lawmakers change them.

And apparently, the drug suporters are unable to do either.

You should think that if they are so correct, that a single community/county or maybe even a states would be able to be convinced. Then the process could snowball.

Instead this seems to be like the Ron Paul effect. Plenty of hot air and promises, but no one is able to actaully show up when they need to be counted.

One person at a time to be converted should equal quite a few people over the past 40 years. Or how long does it take to convert a person to a wrong cause. And is that convert just hot air on are they able to convert another.

You have two groups. One supports drug criminalization, one supports drug legalization. One of these has spent more then a billion and a half dollars on advertising over the last several years. Guess which one it is.

So pretty much your argument is that the argument for legalizing drugs isn't a good one because it hasn't succeeded. That's incredibly weak.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

You aren't serious are you? Do you realize how much money the government spends every year on propaganda to tell the population that drugs are bad?

Marijuana is a perfect example. Study after study after study has come out saying that marijuana is relatively harmless and should be decriminalized. (some even conducted by the government... oops! How embarrassing when they had to bury them eh?) And yet... it remains illegal.

Why is this? I'll give you a hint: it's not because there's an inherent fallacy in the argument.

Has nothing to do with the people electing a congress who will change the laws. Two seperate issues here.

It has everything to do with it. If reality says one thing and the government spends billions to convince people otherwise, why should we take it as a knock against the legalization argument if the propaganda has been effective?

There are some really neat studies that have shown the more people learn about drugs the less dangerous they think they are.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given all the arguemnts that people can be brainwashed by the governemnt (as stated by the above posters), is there also the chance that the drug supporters coiuld also be "brainwashed".

As I stated, they have had 40+ years to make there case and have not done so.

All these excellent justifications for decriminalize/legalizing drugs should be able to resound to the American public.
Laws get changed by either voters having them changed on the balot (exposed to the light for all to see) or by have the lawmakers change them.

And apparently, the drug suporters are unable to do either.

You should think that if they are so correct, that a single community/county or maybe even a states would be able to be convinced. Then the process could snowball.

Instead this seems to be like the Ron Paul effect. Plenty of hot air and promises, but no one is able to actaully show up when they need to be counted.

One person at a time to be converted should equal quite a few people over the past 40 years. Or how long does it take to convert a person to a wrong cause. And is that convert just hot air on are they able to convert another.

You have two groups. One supports drug criminalization, one supports drug legalization. One of these has spent more then a billion and a half dollars on advertising over the last several years. Guess which one it is.

So pretty much your argument is that the argument for legalizing drugs isn't a good one because it hasn't succeeded. That's incredibly weak.

If you have the message, then get it out.

This is where you are failing.
I do not see media ads for legalization.
I do not see billboards.
I do not see protests.
Where are the people running for electoral office that are stating that they need your support to legalize the drugs.
Where is the support for people in office that are for legalization.

If all you are going to do is sit around and complain that you are being held down, then it will happen.

After 40 years, what have you accomplished?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

Because they are federal laws instead of state laws, like they should be. The federal government doesn't have the authority via the Constitution to make these kinds of laws. And this is a perfect example of why the federal government shouldn't have that authority. It is much easier for citizens to petition to their state governments rather than the federal government to get laws changed.

When we elect congressmen and presidents, there are WAY too many issues involved when we have to make a selection, and too many important issues get left in the dust because other even more important issues are at hand.

Now, imagine, if the federal government actually adhered to the 10th Amendment, and the federal government was not involved in matters like health care, social security, abortion, gay marriage, etc., wouldn't it be a lot easier to vote for Congressmen and Presidents? Wouldn't we get better candidates who would be forced to stand on fewer issues?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

All of these "excellent" arguments should be able to sway the voters and/or elect people that are in favor of changing the laws.

Or is there an inherit fallacy in the argument or the supporters are unable to actually present a strong enough argument to actually make a change?

With over 40 years of proof that drugs are not evil, there should be no problem with getting the "inmoral" laws revoked.

You aren't serious are you? Do you realize how much money the government spends every year on propaganda to tell the population that drugs are bad?

Marijuana is a perfect example. Study after study after study has come out saying that marijuana is relatively harmless and should be decriminalized. (some even conducted by the government... oops! How embarrassing when they had to bury them eh?) And yet... it remains illegal.

Why is this? I'll give you a hint: it's not because there's an inherent fallacy in the argument.

Has nothing to do with the people electing a congress who will change the laws. Two seperate issues here.

It has everything to do with it. If reality says one thing and the government spends billions to convince people otherwise, why should we take it as a knock against the legalization argument if the propaganda has been effective?

There are some really neat studies that have shown the more people learn about drugs the less dangerous they think they are.

Again not directly related. If, for example, there were enough candidates running who pledge to write a bill legalizing personal use drugs, and the citizens agreed to that and elected them, does the billions spent on demonizing drugs come into play? NO. Dollars dont vote. People do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It has everything to do with it. If reality says one thing and the government spends billions to convince people otherwise, why should we take it as a knock against the legalization argument if the propaganda has been effective?

There are some really neat studies that have shown the more people learn about drugs the less dangerous they think they are.

Again not directly related. If, for example, there were enough candidates running who pledge to write a bill legalizing personal use drugs, and the citizens agreed to that and elected them, does the billions spent on demonizing drugs come into play? NO. Dollars dont vote. People do.

Wrong again, it is directly related. People vote based upon their views on various subjects. The government is directly influencing people's views on drugs through deceptive advertising, thus they are altering how they would vote on the subject.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It has everything to do with it. If reality says one thing and the government spends billions to convince people otherwise, why should we take it as a knock against the legalization argument if the propaganda has been effective?

There are some really neat studies that have shown the more people learn about drugs the less dangerous they think they are.

Again not directly related. If, for example, there were enough candidates running who pledge to write a bill legalizing personal use drugs, and the citizens agreed to that and elected them, does the billions spent on demonizing drugs come into play? NO. Dollars dont vote. People do.

Wrong again, it is directly related. People vote based upon their views on various subjects. The government is directly influencing people's views on drugs through deceptive advertising, thus they are altering how they would vote on the subject.

I see. Then, again, the problem lies on the shoulders of the 40% of Americans who vote. If they cant make decisions without the government's help it's no fault but their own.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..it's a user drivin problem. Humans love to get dizzy.

Fixed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Given that so many people seem to feel that the drugs should be legalized, then why can not they get the laws changed?

Because they are federal laws instead of state laws, like they should be. The federal government doesn't have the authority via the Constitution to make these kinds of laws. And this is a perfect example of why the federal government shouldn't have that authority. It is much easier for citizens to petition to their state governments rather than the federal government to get laws changed.

When we elect congressmen and presidents, there are WAY too many issues involved when we have to make a selection, and too many important issues get left in the dust because other even more important issues are at hand.

Now, imagine, if the federal government actually adhered to the 10th Amendment, and the federal government was not involved in matters like health care, social security, abortion, gay marriage, etc., wouldn't it be a lot easier to vote for Congressmen and Presidents? Wouldn't we get better candidates who would be forced to stand on fewer issues?

No matter which level, there are few if any candidates that are working to change the laws. If they must be changed at the Federal level, why have not candidates come forward and been elected or if elected, where are the bills that they are sponsoring.

People have the freedom to choose their candidate.

Apparently there are not enough "legalizers" that are willing to run for office and make a statement on how great legalization.

If only 40% of Americans voted; then you folks can not even convince 1/4 of America that what you have is a good thing....

And that is to get it to succeed, even 10% would get it into the public eye.

What does that say about either your message or the ability to get your message out.

Seems like a RP situation, a very dedicated inconsequential minority that makes a lot of white noise.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No matter which level, there are few if any candidates that are working to change the laws. If they must be changed at the Federal level, why have not candidates come forward and been elected or if elected, where are the bills that they are sponsoring.

People have the freedom to choose their candidate.

Apparently there are not enough "legalizers" that are willing to run for office and make a statement on how great legalization.

If only 40% of Americans voted; then you folks can not even convince 1/4 of America that what you have is a good thing....

And that is to get it to succeed, even 10% would get it into the public eye.

What does that say about either your message or the ability to get your message out.

Seems like a RP situation, a very dedicated inconsequential minority that makes a lot of white noise.

Well, your first statement is not necessarily true. A nice handful of states have legalized medical marijuana, of course, the federal laws override that.

But this kinda proves my point above. It is easier to petition your state to change or create laws, compared to the Federal Government.

So, there is quite a bit of support out there, for at least medical marijuana, which I don't think would have come about if not for those who are calling for full legalization.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Are these changes from referendum by the people or laws changed by the legislature?

If by the legislature, then the people are able to realize that they can elect people at the state level; now why not at the Federal to get the Fed laws changed.

If by referendum, then the people should have no problem getting a Congressionl Representative in place to start making waves.

Or since it has been 40 years to get to this point, it will take another 2 generations to make the next step?