Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
It won't. But for cheaper for all of us and will remove the profit motive for an illegal substance which has high demand reducing community shattering violence.
But they will never be legal I think. People tend to be reationary to problems and the natural reaction to something we don't like in our communities is to make it illegal. This is always short sighted and never addresses the real problem of use. Why do people use? and How can we fix this? This problem requires love and not hate to address.
I think we can just agree to disagree. Your last statement tells me a lot though. The thing it tells me about our discussion is that you have not ever dealt with hard-drug abuse. Because if you did, you would realize that punishment and incarceration is showing love and not hate.
"Alcohol related" accidents include accidents where a person who had been to a bar gets run over by someone who is insane, but sober.
This is like the n-th post you made that I have no idea where you are coming from or where you are going. I've seen other people ask that as well. Could you maybe slow down and keep us less-intelligent people in the loop?
Prohibition has been tried for alcohol, and it caused more problems than it solved. Lifting the prohibition removed a lot of the criminality surrounding alcohol, and there is no reason it won't work for other drugs. It's not the government's right or responsibility to protect you from yourself.
If legalizing drugs means we stop with the taxpayer funded social support programs, then I am all for it. I can build a compound protected by a mini-army and ensure the safety of my family. But since noone here is for that, I don't see how legalizing drugs can make things better.
If there are more alcohol-related accidents, that could mean that there are more (responsible, since they aren't driving) drunk (or mildly intoxicated) people walking in neighborhoods with sober, but irresponsible drivers. It really doesn't have any direct bearing on the question of alcoholism or crime.
You are all for stopping taxpayer funded social programs regardless of whether drugs are legalized or not, so no need to link those two.
How much money is spent on imprisoning drug dealers, drug users, drug related crime investigations, prosecutions, social services for children of imprisoned drug users, illicit drug related disease, etc.? So you would save money if you legalized drugs. Not only that, but you would be able to regulate and tax drug sales.
First of all, I am not "all for stopping taxpayer funded social programs" at all. I was being feceitios (sp?) to make a point.
Secondly, a better solution would be to stop people from doing drugs or being involved in the drug trade. It's a fight worth fighting, I think. Do this: sentence hard drug dealers to life in prison, doing hard labor. Drug dealing would plummet.
My concern is not so much for the money we save by legalizing drugs, it's the damage it will cause which I think will be greater than if we did my solution above.
Bottom line: hard drugs are bad for you.
Do you mean legalizing alcohol and legalizing drugs? I have done that already. I'm OK with legalizing POT. Hard drugs (Crystal Meth, Crack, Heroin, etc) are the ones I have a problem with legalizing.
No, the bottom line of your stance is that violating arbitrary laws is bad for you, just like not paying taxes on tea was bad for you in the 1700s.
You know, I don't go around telling you what you are saying. Please don't do that. You sound like an idiot (which I know you are not).
EDIT: My bottom line is that hard drugs are bad for you.
How would drug dealing not plummet if the threat of your actions is not only 30 days in jail but life at hard labor until you die?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
30 days? right now first timer manditory minimums are lengthier than manslaughter, burglury, car theft etc. Text, Which to me violatles the constitution. Anyway, the time is not the factor for someone whos a dealer, typically they have nothing to live for anyway..obviously or they would risk thier whole possible legitamite employment career with a drug conviction...all you do by making the penalty so excessive is put enforcment at more risk because they really have nothing to loose if they'll never get out. "You'll never get me alive coper" is all I keep hearing in my head.
Originally posted by: Zebo
30 days? right now first timer manditory minimums are lengthier than manslaughter, burglury, car theft etc. Text, Which to me violatles the constitution. Anyway, the time is not the factor for someone whos a dealer, typically they have nothing to live for anyway..obviously or they would risk thier whole possible legitamite employment career with a drug conviction...all you do by making the penalty so excessive is put enforcment at more risk because they really have nothing to loose if they'll never get out. "You'll never get me alive coper" is all I keep hearing in my head.
Thanks for the civil discussion. I believe we've reached the end of our road here and I think we've hijacked this thread enough. Just know that I respect your ideas, but disagree with how to handle drug use. You are correct about the 30 days. That was an off-the-top kind of statement and I should have known better. I really appreciate how you didn't resort to name calling or mean statements.
I'm not telling you what you are saying, I am telling you that your summary has nothing to do with the rest of your statements. Kinda like those intelligence documents that Bush used as justification that Iraq is known to have WMDs. You'd be in court right now along side the execs of MCI and Enron if you were an accountant.
Hard drugs seem to be defined as drugs that are bad for you, so trying to prove that they are bad for you is a bit of a no-brainer. Of course, alcohol is bad for you, too, so there seems to be some sort of degree of badness necessary for something to be considered "hard". Bleh.
Originally posted by: rjain
I'm not telling you what you are saying, I am telling you that your summary has nothing to do with the rest of your statements. Kinda like those intelligence documents that Bush used as justification that Iraq is known to have WMDs. You'd be in court right now along side the execs of MCI and Enron if you were an accountant.
Hard drugs seem to be defined as drugs that are bad for you, so trying to prove that they are bad for you is a bit of a no-brainer. Of course, alcohol is bad for you, too, so there seems to be some sort of degree of badness necessary for something to be considered "hard". Bleh.
That's fine. Please understand that because when you write, you seem to be at a totally different plane than everyone else, sometimes your meaning does not come across. To talk to you in person must be like talking to the riddler...
(that was a joke)If we outlaw being poor then you won't have to spend any money fixing the problem and you don't need a mini-army you get the best of both worlds. Of course outlawing being homeless will be as successfull as outlawing drugs but it is clear you don't care about the result.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter