Whats the Deal with stoping drugs

[GRIFFIN1]

I think the governement should legalize most illegal drugs and give them away for free to people that sign up for the program. The main drugs I'm talking about are meth, heroin, all the cocain drugs, and anything else that is highly addictive and widely abused. In order for a woman to sign up, she must be placed on some sort of birth control or prove that she has had a tubal ligation. The birth control has to be something like the Norplant where where she doesn't have to take any pills or anything. Since the Norplant isn't on the market anymore, something else will need to be invented.

If drugs are legal and free, then that puts all the drug dealers out of business. It would also cut the crime rates because a large number of the crimes that are committed are committed by people that need money for drugs.

Marijuana should be sold in packs like cigarettes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Please, answer my question. What is the reason why you do not step in front of a speeding semi?

Good job supporting your argument with clever little analogies, rather than factual information. Suicide versus capital punishment? Nice try. I don't step in front of a semi because mommy taught me to look both ways before crossing the street :roll: People commit crimes because of the motivation to do so, not because they want to die.

Show me an article that proves capital punishment deters crime, or just assault me with more invalid comparisons :roll:

Show me ANYTHING from a non-biased source. The last one couldn't have been more biased if you tried.

And the reason you do not step in from of trucks is because :gasp; you do not want to die.

You know that to do so means a sure and swift death. You therefore avoid doing so.

Capital punishment in the US has become such a joke, so rare and so delayed that no criminals even consider it when committing a crime.

 

[cjgallen]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Please, answer my question. What is the reason why you do not step in front of a speeding semi?

Good job supporting your argument with clever little analogies, rather than factual information. Suicide versus capital punishment? Nice try. I don't step in front of a semi because mommy taught me to look both ways before crossing the street :roll: People commit crimes because of the motivation to do so, not because they want to die.

Show me an article that proves capital punishment deters crime, or just assault me with more invalid comparisons :roll:

Show me ANYTHING from a non-biased source. The last one couldn't have been more biased if you tried.

Show me ANYTHING other than stupid comparisons. You've shown me ZERO evidence other than your own opinion.

Here's a link:

LINK

 

[sonambulo]

man, i wish they would just legalize industrial hemp. even if they regulate the siht out of it and only allow it imported. you know, the kind that has pretty much zero thc content in it? you can make *such* delicious food with hemp.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Please, answer my question. What is the reason why you do not step in front of a speeding semi?

Good job supporting your argument with clever little analogies, rather than factual information. Suicide versus capital punishment? Nice try. I don't step in front of a semi because mommy taught me to look both ways before crossing the street :roll: People commit crimes because of the motivation to do so, not because they want to die.

Show me an article that proves capital punishment deters crime, or just assault me with more invalid comparisons :roll:

Show me ANYTHING from a non-biased source. The last one couldn't have been more biased if you tried.

Show me ANYTHING other than stupid comparisons. You've shown me ZERO evidence other than your own opinion.

Here's a link:

LINK

Actually, if you rule out the bias, no one has any proof either way.

And that figures in a country in which the execution of sentence is neither sure nor swift.

 

[cjgallen]

Originally posted by: Amused
Actually, if you rule out the bias, no one has any proof either way.

And that figures in a country in which the execution of sentence is neither sure nor swift.

So, you have nothing. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
The war on drugs is just the governments way of saying they're giving it the old college try. They'll never win but you can't say they're not doing anything about it.

No, the war on drugs is government's way of making sure that black markets always exist for bribery, corruption, and scapegoating.

Originally posted by: Amused
The lack of any and all logic in the OP is simply amazing.

If the government legalized drugs, the scene would look much like the end of prohibition.

Legal drug importers would immediately drive drug dealers out of business. Thus stopping the cause of most "drug related" crimes.

The number of those inclined to do drugs will change very little. I have yet to meet ANYONE who's primary, or even secondary reason for not doing drugs is "they are illegal." Legalizing drugs will have very little impact on abuse rates.

Of course. This is EXACTLY what would happen, and exactly what the situation was like before drug prohibition. Butthen , just as before, a highly vocal minority of the people would not be able to tolerate it because they are insufferable busybodies for whom the slightest flaw in their neighbor cannot be tolerated.

Originally posted by: cjgallen
So it's not Cruel or Unusual enough? Maybe we should amend the Constitution :roll: That whole judicial system is such an inconvenience!

It is Death Row that is cruel and unusual. It is life sentences in solitary confinement that are cruel and unusual. But not capital punishment itself, which was a common punishment during the days of our Founding Fathers (penitentiaries and life sentences did not exist until the early 1800's). Better to kill a man quick that make him suffer 50 years in solitary confinement in a 6x9 windowless room, don't you think? Before you argue, which fact would you prefer? Don't lie...

 

[Ronstang]

Curing the drug problem would be simple but rather Draconian. All the government needs to do is take all the confiscated drugs and lace them with a lethal poison and put them back into the sytem. Overnight thousands of losers would drop dead and either the fear of dying would stop rational people from using drugs or the gene pool would be continue to be cleansed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Actually, if you rule out the bias, no one has any proof either way.

And that figures in a country in which the execution of sentence is neither sure nor swift.

So, you have nothing. :roll:

And neither do you. Which was my point all along.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea its easier to legalize instead. add in government programs for addicts and the need to rob and murder for drugs evaporates. of course this is too simple for the morally righteous. sinners must suffer.

 

[cjgallen]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Actually, if you rule out the bias, no one has any proof either way.

And that figures in a country in which the execution of sentence is neither sure nor swift.

So, you have nothing. :roll:

And neither do you. Which was my point all along.

So every one of the 203,000 Google search results regarding Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of crime is so biased that it's no longer factual? :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Actually, if you rule out the bias, no one has any proof either way.

And that figures in a country in which the execution of sentence is neither sure nor swift.

So, you have nothing. :roll:

And neither do you. Which was my point all along.

So every one of the 203,000 Google search results regarding Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of crime is so biased that it's no longer factual? :roll:

Most of them are repeats from heavily biased anti-capital punishment sites.

The rest are pro-capital punishment responses claiming the opposite.

Both are biased and neither can be trusted. The fact is, there are NO unbiased comprehensive studies on capital punishment and deterrence.

Meanwhile, I made a logical argument as to why it may be far less of a deterrence today, than it was at the founding of our nation and first 50 years or so after when death was sure and swift after conviction.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
You should really run for office. :roll:

lol

inveterate FOR PRESIDENT!!!

 

[cjgallen]

Originally posted by: Amused
Meanwhile, I made a logical argument as to why it may be far less of a deterrence today, than it was at the founding of our nation and first 50 years or so after when death was sure and swift after conviction.

You made the argument, but gave no supporting evidence, and have yet to prove that it DOES deter crime. You scream BIAS and walk out of the argument.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Amused
Meanwhile, I made a logical argument as to why it may be far less of a deterrence today, than it was at the founding of our nation and first 50 years or so after when death was sure and swift after conviction.

You made the argument, but gave no supporting evidence, and have yet to prove that it DOES deter crime. You scream BIAS and walk out of the argument.

I claim bias on both sides. At least I'm being objective here.

This is a very logical and easy thing to figure out here.

If you do not do something dangerous in which death is sure and swift, the deterrence is... wait for it... DEATH.

This holds true for legal, but stupid activities, or illegal activities. If the outcome has a high risk of death, it is a deterrence.

The problem with the modern death penalty in the US is it is neither sure, nor swift.

Not to mention it was a FINE deterrent when it was the ONLY punishment before the advent of penitentiaries. (Yes, that's right. When the "cruel and unusual" clause was added, there was no such things as penitentiaries)

There is no other logical argument.

It always amuses me when DP opponents crow on and on about how it is not a deterrent, and it is more expensive then life in prison when it was THEIR bullsh!t that MADE it that way.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Curing the drug problem would be simple but rather Draconian. All the government needs to do is take all the confiscated drugs and lace them with a lethal poison and put them back into the sytem. Overnight thousands of losers would drop dead and either the fear of dying would stop rational people from using drugs or the gene pool would be continue to be cleansed.

Of course, that is not only Draconian, unjust, arrogant, and cruel, but it is also so impractical and so unrealitistic that only an idiot would think it up. Sorry, but I'm serious. Obviously though, it only proves the point that illicit drugs are in fact so harmless that artificial harm must be created in order to encourage people to stop using them.

As it is, it is already the drug laws themselves that cause most of the deaths from illicit drugs. Under the black market system, quality, purity, and dosage cannot be properly monitored, not even by users, and most illicit drug deaths are from unintentional overdose. Similar to the problem of bad booze back in Alcohol Prohibition that killed as many as 100,000 people every year, Drug Prohibition kills 10,000 people every from bad drugs. And this while legal prescription drugs, properly and legally administered under a doctor's supervision, kill 100,000 people every year.

 

[juice22]

wasnt our leader a coke head

 

[clamum]

Legalization like Amused said makes sense. The way drug policy is now is pathetic. Like people are ever going to stop taking mind and mood altering drugs? Give me a break.

 

[DrPizza]

Legalization makes sense, until you consider the addictive qualities of many of the drugs. But, if any addicting drugs were legal, I find there no reason to not believe that we'd end up with a huge drug problem as a result of teens using them. Sure, make them legal and tell teens that they are stupid to use and they're not allowed to use them until they are 21 years old. That'll stop teens from "trying" them. The majority of people addicted to smoking cigarettes started smoking before they were of a legal age to smoke them. If it weren't for problems with teens that I perceive as being unavoidable by it, I'd support the legalization of marijuana.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Legalization makes sense, until you consider the addictive qualities of many of the drugs. But, if any addicting drugs were legal, I find there no reason to not believe that we'd end up with a huge drug problem as a result of teens using them. Sure, make them legal and tell teens that they are stupid to use and they're not allowed to use them until they are 21 years old. That'll stop teens from "trying" them. The majority of people addicted to smoking cigarettes started smoking before they were of a legal age to smoke them. If it weren't for problems with teens that I perceive as being unavoidable by it, I'd support the legalization of marijuana.

Your barely coherent post here contained 3 major fallacies:
1. You assume that the war on drugs actually stops people (particularly teenagers) from using/trying drugs. That is completely false. If anything, the illegality of these drugs is what encourages people to use them, similar to how alcohol prohibition caused a massive increase in the usage of alcohol (particularly among women), and then alchohol use actually declined after that prohibition was repealed.
2. You assume that marijuana is physically addictive similar to tobacco. That is also completely false. Marijuana is in fact not physically addictive while nictotine is almost as physically addictive as heroin.
3. You assume that drug legalization implies a lack of regulation, i.e. children could walk into the store and buy a pack of joints. Once more, false. Of course, regulation similar to those on alcohol would be implemented, and no rational person has ever argued otherwise.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
You should really run for office. :roll:

Sad to say, he'd probably win :roll:

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Legalization makes sense, until you consider the addictive qualities of many of the drugs. But, if any addicting drugs were legal, I find there no reason to not believe that we'd end up with a huge drug problem as a result of teens using them. Sure, make them legal and tell teens that they are stupid to use and they're not allowed to use them until they are 21 years old. That'll stop teens from "trying" them. The majority of people addicted to smoking cigarettes started smoking before they were of a legal age to smoke them. If it weren't for problems with teens that I perceive as being unavoidable by it, I'd support the legalization of marijuana.

It was always easier for my friends and I to cop a sack of grass than some booze in high school. Drug dealers don't card.

 

[KarenMarie]

stopping, not stoping.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Drug dealers don't card.

Bingo.

 

[Schadenfroh]

politics and news?