Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: drugs....
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Skinny 
Juts wondering what everybody thought... (decriminalized =/= legalized, by the way, if it's decriminalized, there is no penalty for taking them, but there is a fine for selling them).
TwoFacedTanner
My main problem is with Marijuana.

And I guess it comes from my best friend in High School. I don't see him anymore, and its because of marijuana.
He started smoking it in 12th grade. I thought to myself, "Oh Well".
But then I learned that he was going to this guys house every day before school to get high. Again, not my business but it worried me a bit.
Then I knew it was getting bad when he, and this guy had a massive movie collection, started selling his DVDs and he sold his xbox 360 for money to get weed.
He got arrested for possession, got off put on probation.
The whole time he was on probation he kept smoking it even though he had drug tests to take. It was some kind of victory over the man to pass them when he had smoked it.
Well he got off probation and continued to smoke it.
He used to be a funny guy, full of life, and I saw him not to long ago, he has no personality at all.
Hes like talking to a wall.
And on top of that he got arrested again for possession and resisting arrest. Got tazed and maced.

The drug changed him. It went from a once a week thing, to a daily habit. To now something he spends almost his entire pay check on.
He used to have dreams of getting out the town we live in, he was always like "You and me, we're gonna get out of here man, we're going to make it."
Thats all just a nice memory.

Before you tell me I'm wrong for not liking marijuana because of that. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if its legalized or not, but I'm not going to like it.

The only thing legalizing would do in my opinion, is let people do the drugs in public, or have it on them without being arrested.
Skinny 
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 19 2008, 05:01 PM) [snapback]1472123[/snapback]
Before you tell me I'm wrong for not liking marijuana because of that. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if its legalized or not, but I'm not going to like it.

Nobodies asking you to like the drugs, only to be tolerant of other peoples personal choices, the choice to mess up their lives. Your friends messed up, not me, so as a taxpayer, why should I have to spend my hard earned money on having crooks and thugs (DEA) going round to peoples houses, to put out their joints?

QUOTE
The only thing legalizing would do in my opinion, is let people do the drugs in public, or have it on them without being arrested.

And give the government massive tax revenue off the drug to clean up for whatever trouble it causes, create jobs rather than crime cartels, drastically reduce crime, medicinal uses will mean cheaper and easier access to it for the sick, not to mention more competition in pharmasutical market, and all round cheaper medicine because of that.

Hence why I voted for all drugs to be made 100% legal for adults.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
It wouldn't be available in crazy concentrations, or require a whole week's paycheck to buy, if it was legal.

I always thought the weakest arguments against decriminsalisation were the sob stories about people who have been hurt not by the drug, but by the fact that it's illegal.
TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 19 2008, 02:48 AM) [snapback]1472128[/snapback]
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 19 2008, 05:01 PM) [snapback]1472123[/snapback]
Before you tell me I'm wrong for not liking marijuana because of that. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if its legalized or not, but I'm not going to like it.

Nobodies asking you to like the drugs, only to be tolerant of other peoples personal choices, the choice to mess up their lives. Your friends messed up, not me, so as a taxpayer, why should I have to spend my hard earned money on having crooks and thugs (DEA) going round to peoples houses, to put out their joints?

QUOTE
The only thing legalizing would do in my opinion, is let people do the drugs in public, or have it on them without being arrested.
And give the government massive tax revenue off the drug to clean up for whatever trouble it causes, create jobs rather than crime cartels, drastically reduce crime, medicinal uses will mean cheaper and easier access to it for the sick, not to mention more competition in pharmasutical market, and all round cheaper medicine because of that.

Hence why I voted for all drugs to be made 100% legal for adults.


Eh, I wouldn't want all drugs legal really.
I guess you're right about the extra income the government would have with taxing it.

But some drugs, really shouldn't be legal.
Hardcore Ottoman
I picked C. Will elaborate later.
DiO
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 19 2008, 04:14 PM) [snapback]1472186[/snapback]
I picked C. Will elaborate later.



As did I. Its almost like that in Canada. The punishments for mary are certainly too harsh as is. A lot of officers wont even lay charges for having some. That being said I never done it. However most of my friends, my brothers and my dad do.
Skinny 
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 20 2008, 06:17 AM) [snapback]1472176[/snapback]
But some drugs, really shouldn't be legal.

Why should they be illegal?

QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Nov 20 2008, 05:49 AM) [snapback]1472172[/snapback]
I always thought the weakest arguments against decriminsalisation were the sob stories about people who have been hurt not by the drug, but by the fact that it's illegal.

I'd say that sob stories about anyone being hurt by a drug, are week arguments for a statist aproach to the drug problem. If someone wants to do drugs, fuck them, it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to keep the drug away from them.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
tbh even heroine would be safe if it wasn't mixed with just whatever to make it cheaper.
PabloHoneyOle
Damn, people get all up in arms about some drug posts on this site.

I think it's safe to say we all have different opinions about narcotics and their legality based on our own personal experiences with drugs. There's no doubt they have affected your life in some shape or form whether you've used them or know someone who has used them; or seen someone use them on TV. There's no point in getting in a namecalling spatfest over your own personal perspective on drugs and their legality.

That said; personally, I would like to see the decriminalization of marijuana, just for my own sake. I'd just like to be able to grow my own and smoke all I want and play videogames.
Ex-PS Fanboy
Personally i'd like to see marijuana legalized, and maybe shrooms, but i cant see that happening, but mainly marjuana because it's alot safer than most of the legal drugs out there e.g. alcohol. Since it's next to impossible to OD from it and because it's commonly used. Other deadly drugs like coke should be banned, but i don't have to much experience with chemical drugs so i can't really make and informed opinion
Skinny 
QUOTE(Stoic Person Eater @ Nov 21 2008, 01:26 AM) [snapback]1472230[/snapback]
That said; personally, I would like to see the decriminalization of marijuana, just for my own sake. I'd just like to be able to grow my own and smoke all I want and play videogames.

...

How can you grow it if it's decriminalized? You would need it to be legalized.

QUOTE(PS FANBOY @ Nov 21 2008, 03:39 AM) [snapback]1472238[/snapback]
Other deadly drugs like coke should be banned

They seriously shouldn't.
PabloHoneyOle
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 21 2008, 06:20 AM) [snapback]1472311[/snapback]
QUOTE(Stoic Person Eater @ Nov 21 2008, 01:26 AM) [snapback]1472230[/snapback]
That said; personally, I would like to see the decriminalization of marijuana, just for my own sake. I'd just like to be able to grow my own and smoke all I want and play videogames.

...

How can you grow it if it's decriminalized? You would need it to be legalized.

Touche'.

It only matters if I get caught anyway.
Hardcore Ottoman
Some drugs aren't good for the safety of others around those people, Skinny.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 23 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]1472454[/snapback]
Some drugs aren't good for the safety of others around those people, Skinny.

So people shouldn't hang out with drug adicts. It's your responibility to pick your friends.

And I didn't say I want it to be legal to walk around the streets on meth.

Plus, who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 23 2008, 12:31 AM) [snapback]1472466[/snapback]
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 23 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]1472454[/snapback]
Some drugs aren't good for the safety of others around those people, Skinny.

So people shouldn't hang out with drug adicts. It's your responibility to pick your friends.

And I didn't say I want it to be legal to walk around the streets on meth.

Plus, who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?


Too bad some people like to bring their problems into public settings... don't tell me you've never seen a drunk walk into a business or commercial establishment before. Imagine someone on serious drugs.

So, with legalizing hard drugs now we have to make laws against being fucked up on the streets? Like public drunkenness laws? Too much work just to legalize something based on untried and probably untrue ideals.

People might try it if it's legal. I'm certain curiosity reigns over humankind.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 24 2008, 10:44 AM) [snapback]1472537[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 23 2008, 12:31 AM) [snapback]1472466[/snapback]
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 23 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]1472454[/snapback]
Some drugs aren't good for the safety of others around those people, Skinny.

So people shouldn't hang out with drug adicts. It's your responibility to pick your friends.

And I didn't say I want it to be legal to walk around the streets on meth.

Plus, who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?


Too bad some people like to bring their problems into public settings... don't tell me you've never seen a drunk walk into a business or commercial establishment before. Imagine someone on serious drugs.

I can imagine someone on serious drugs, it wouldn't be pretty, excpet this is a complete dodge of my question, wich was; "who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?" The correct answer is nobody.

QUOTE
So, with legalizing hard drugs now we have to make laws against being fucked up on the streets? Like public drunkenness laws?
It will be a piece of cake compared to the money and effort spent getting rid of drugs altogether (and without tex revenue, mind you). The laws against being intoxicated won't be any more effort than the flick of a pen, just extend the public drunkeness laws to include all intoxication.

QUOTE
Too much work just to legalize something based on untried and probably untrue ideals.

Untried? Drugs have been legal before, and society didn't collapse. Untrue? What does it have to do with being true? It's a simple philosophy; that people can persue happiness on their own accord, it's none of my business. As opposed to your "mummy government knows best, without the help of corrupt politicians, people will go insane and kill each other" philosophy.

QUOTE
People might try it if it's legal. I'm certain curiosity reigns over humankind.

They might indeed (though it's very unlikely that people who aren't into drugs will just run out and buy a bunch of heroin), and who are you to stop them?
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 25 2008, 12:05 AM) [snapback]1472676[/snapback]
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 24 2008, 10:44 AM) [snapback]1472537[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 23 2008, 12:31 AM) [snapback]1472466[/snapback]
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 23 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]1472454[/snapback]
Some drugs aren't good for the safety of others around those people, Skinny.

So people shouldn't hang out with drug adicts. It's your responibility to pick your friends.

And I didn't say I want it to be legal to walk around the streets on meth.

Plus, who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?


Too bad some people like to bring their problems into public settings... don't tell me you've never seen a drunk walk into a business or commercial establishment before. Imagine someone on serious drugs.

I can imagine someone on serious drugs, it wouldn't be pretty, excpet this is a complete dodge of my question, wich was; "who exactly do you think is going to do meth/crack when it's legal, that won't when it's illegal?" The correct answer is nobody.
No, it wasn't a dodge. That question was last, and I addressed it last. Not first. The correct answer is you don't know and your philosophy will not simply work as easily as you think.

QUOTE
QUOTE
So, with legalizing hard drugs now we have to make laws against being fucked up on the streets? Like public drunkenness laws?
It will be a piece of cake compared to the money and effort spent getting rid of drugs altogether (and without tex revenue, mind you). The laws against being intoxicated won't be any more effort than the flick of a pen, just extend the public drunkeness laws to include all intoxication.
I'd love to see some estimates done because I'm sticking with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" here. Why rework something to please an ideal?

QUOTE
QUOTE
Too much work just to legalize something based on untried and probably untrue ideals.

Untried? Drugs have been legal before, and society didn't collapse. Untrue? What does it have to do with being true? It's a simple philosophy; that people can persue happiness on their own accord, it's none of my business. As opposed to your "mummy government knows best, without the help of corrupt politicians, people will go insane and kill each other" philosophy.
Untried in context of democratic nations. Name me one that allows people to shoot up heroin right after taking out the trash. You have given no proof and may I remind you the burden of some corroboration is dire in your case. Btw, the social contract is the ethical system I go by, not the ethical egoist. That system is flawed and it's the one you are using. I don't give a shit about the gov't and giving it extra power to "protect."

QUOTE
QUOTE
People might try it if it's legal. I'm certain curiosity reigns over humankind.

They might indeed (though it's very unlikely that people who aren't into drugs will just run out and buy a bunch of heroin), and who are you to stop them?

How about when a neighbor accidentally gives some kid GHB instead of Pez on Halloween? Maybe a neighborhood guy brings his kid over for coffee and he gets into a goodie bag. More federal cases and money wasted on a broader drug-offending palette. People who do drugs and live paranoid by keeping it a secret will not leave out goodie bags or etcetera the way a casual person might if it was legalized. His logic: I've got nothing to hide, besides, I hate going in my closet to take a few caps for a truly psychadelic breakfast.

Well, the current system of criminalized drugs has created a state of entropy where dealing with accidents such as the quick ones I thought up are much easier. Toss him in jail.

Hard as fuck drugs Skinny. HARD. I can understand weed and MDMA and shit, but not harder shit. Even Amsterdam sticks to its coffee shops...
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Honestly though, I'm not even sure heroine would be that dangerous if it's of known concentration. I've heard of people holding down good jobs for decades with a serious addiction, but they can do it because they know what they're taking and are meticulous about it. No idea what effect legalising would have, it might just make the kind of people who would be less discerning, less likely to harm themselves.

There's always "remove the safety labels and let things sort themselves out" method of government.
Hardcore Ottoman
I've never known a heroine addict so I wouldn't really know. In some ways I can say as a rule that anything can be controlled if handled properly, but inversely... it seems like a lot of work for nothing. A system already exists, I just wish it exempt weed and MDMA and such.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 25 2008, 04:37 PM) [snapback]1472677[/snapback]
No, it wasn't a dodge. That question was last, and I addressed it last. Not first. The correct answer is you don't know and your philosophy will not simply work as easily as you think.

This isn't a matter of philosophy, this is a matter of me not wanting to pay for someone elses irresponsibility by keeping drugsaway from them. It's simple: I want my money for me, not some drug dealer, who is making thousands off the war on drugs.

QUOTE
I'd love to see some estimates done because I'm sticking with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" here.
It IS "broke". You don't see a system where you pay taxes instead of drugs dealers, while drugs dealers make millions off you tax money as being "broke"?

QUOTE
Why rework something to please an ideal?

You seem to be under the impression that the libertarian philosophy is just minarchy for the sake of it. It's becuase we don't want to pay for other peoples drug habbits, and to let them sort it out themselves.

QUOTE
Untried in context of democratic nations. Name me one that allows people to shoot up heroin right after taking out the trash.
The war on drugs didn't even start until the seventies >.>

QUOTE
Btw, the social contract is the ethical system I go by, not the ethical egoist. That system is flawed and it's the one you are using. I don't give a shit about the gov't and giving it extra power to "protect."

Yay! Let's give a bunch of dickheads all our money because people like you don't think you can stay away from heroin on your own. rolleyes.gif

You are under the impression that the government finances itself. You have to absurdly high pay taxes if you want a mummy government.

QUOTE
How about when a neighbor accidentally gives some kid GHB instead of Pez on Halloween?
You really think addicts who spend all their money on drugs, like to stock up on candy for halloween?

QUOTE
Maybe a neighborhood guy brings his kid over for coffee and he gets into a goodie bag.

Again, do you think drugs addicts like to have their neibours and their kids round for a cup of tea?

QUOTE
More federal cases and money wasted on a broader drug-offending palette.
Wich will be nothing compared to the ammounts spent on the war on drugs. It's a clear reality, since most of the stuff you are saying would happen, happens now anyway.

QUOTE
Well, the current system of criminalized drugs has created a state of entropy where dealing with accidents such as the quick ones I thought up are much easier. Toss him in jail.

...

Because it's not like you have to pay for a trial, food for all the time hes in there, guards to make sure he doesn't get out etc. rolleyes.gif
Indy
Legalise; then sell and tax weed. It would do wonders for our economy.
Sharpie Fetish
QUOTE(Ind¥ @ Nov 26 2008, 04:05 PM) [snapback]1472871[/snapback]
Legalise; then sell and tax weed. It would do wonders for our economy.


Alistair Darling meet your savior!

I think Marijuana should be legalised its pretty much impossible to overdose on and like Jesus said up there it could help
DiO
Criminalize tobacco.
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 26 2008, 08:20 AM) [snapback]1472853[/snapback]
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 25 2008, 04:37 PM) [snapback]1472677[/snapback]
No, it wasn't a dodge. That question was last, and I addressed it last. Not first. The correct answer is you don't know and your philosophy will not simply work as easily as you think.

This isn't a matter of philosophy, this is a matter of me not wanting to pay for someone elses irresponsibility by keeping drugsaway from them. It's simple: I want my money for me, not some drug dealer, who is making thousands off the war on drugs.

QUOTE
I'd love to see some estimates done because I'm sticking with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" here.
It IS "broke". You don't see a system where you pay taxes instead of drugs dealers, while drugs dealers make millions off you tax money as being "broke"?

QUOTE
Why rework something to please an ideal?

You seem to be under the impression that the libertarian philosophy is just minarchy for the sake of it. It's becuase we don't want to pay for other peoples drug habbits, and to let them sort it out themselves.

QUOTE
Untried in context of democratic nations. Name me one that allows people to shoot up heroin right after taking out the trash.
The war on drugs didn't even start until the seventies >.>

QUOTE
Btw, the social contract is the ethical system I go by, not the ethical egoist. That system is flawed and it's the one you are using. I don't give a shit about the gov't and giving it extra power to "protect."

Yay! Let's give a bunch of dickheads all our money because people like you don't think you can stay away from heroin on your own. rolleyes.gif

You are under the impression that the government finances itself. You have to absurdly high pay taxes if you want a mummy government.

QUOTE
How about when a neighbor accidentally gives some kid GHB instead of Pez on Halloween?
You really think addicts who spend all their money on drugs, like to stock up on candy for halloween?

QUOTE
Maybe a neighborhood guy brings his kid over for coffee and he gets into a goodie bag.

Again, do you think drugs addicts like to have their neibours and their kids round for a cup of tea?

QUOTE
More federal cases and money wasted on a broader drug-offending palette.
Wich will be nothing compared to the ammounts spent on the war on drugs. It's a clear reality, since most of the stuff you are saying would happen, happens now anyway.

QUOTE
Well, the current system of criminalized drugs has created a state of entropy where dealing with accidents such as the quick ones I thought up are much easier. Toss him in jail.

...

Because it's not like you have to pay for a trial, food for all the time hes in there, guards to make sure he doesn't get out etc. rolleyes.gif


Jeez, where are your fucking numbers? No corroboration? Forgot that part? I still would rather pay taxes to keep crazy fucking addicts out of Cici's Pizzas than finance the gov't by letting irresponsibility slide under the gov'ts nex policy: hey, we were wrong do whatever you want what's the point of a central gov't now? Enforce taxation in another way to fit the agenda of idealistic drug addicts? Ninja please. You just wish to have drugs legalized. More importantly, hard drugs. Drugs that bring about fucked up things starting with the Opium Wars.

Even if you got 100% legalization I look at the poll results and I'll bet Americans will complain and probably just get restrictive measures put on hard drugs. Basically, only truly harmless drugs should be legalized. That is the main point of many of your arguments... blah blah Jim Crow, it's harmless why is it illegal? Yes, that makes sense, but no, legalizing hard drugs doesn't.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Nov 27 2008, 01:57 PM) [snapback]1472965[/snapback]
I still would rather pay taxes to keep crazy fucking addicts out of Cici's Pizzas

Again, I didn't say you could shoot up then walk around wherever you want. Just that you can do what you want, with your own body in your own home.

QUOTE
hey, we were wrong do whatever you want what's the point of a central gov't now?
The role of government isn't the topic at hand, but since you asked, the government can only rightly protect us from violence, fraud and preditor loaning, protect the free market from fraud and the forces of illegally created monopolies, build roads, provide the option of free education and protect us from foreign invasion.

Drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. should be individual rights. Collectivists can be funny sometimes, but sheesh...

QUOTE
Enforce taxation in another way to fit the agenda of idealistic drug addicts?

Oh, I see. So if we tax drugs addicts and spend it on roads, hospitals and schools for the rest of us, drugs addicts are benefiting. rolleyes.gif

No, drug dealers are making millions under the current nanny state, and drug addics don't have to pay tax. You are the one who is supporting drug addicts/dealers.

QUOTE
You just wish to have drugs legalized.
You just wish to have them prohibited. What's your point here?

QUOTE
More importantly, hard drugs. Drugs that bring about fucked up things starting with the Opium Wars.

Drugs that aren't going to magically go away when your nanny government signs a piece of paper. Drugs are here to stay, it's better to regulate and tax them, then just attempt to cut them out of the picture, because we all know that doesn't work?

QUOTE
Even if you got 100% legalization I look at the poll results and I'll bet Americans will complain and probably just get restrictive measures put on hard drugs.
Good. This is one of my main points for lefgalizing them. You can't regulate them if they're illegal.

QUOTE
Basically, only truly harmless drugs should be legalized. That is the main point of many of your arguments... blah blah Jim Crow, it's harmless why is it illegal? Yes, that makes sense, but no, legalizing hard drugs doesn't.

It really does.

TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 28 2008, 05:57 AM) [snapback]1473106[/snapback]
QUOTE
Basically, only truly harmless drugs should be legalized. That is the main point of many of your arguments... blah blah Jim Crow, it's harmless why is it illegal? Yes, that makes sense, but no, legalizing hard drugs doesn't.

It really does.


Goddamnit thats annoying.

Why? Why do they need to be legalized?
So you can do them with no repercussions? Is that why? Do you use hard drugs?
Do you say "fuck other people dying as long as I can do what I want. They should have control just like me"
Thats selfish.
Skinny 
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 29 2008, 02:25 AM) [snapback]1473113[/snapback]
Why? Why do they need to be legalized?

Tax revenue to allow the damage the drug does to clean up after itself, drastically lower taxes due to the war on drugs no longer being fought, eliminating organised crime, regulation to ensure as much safety as possible, better knowlege of who is using drugs, so the drugs stores don't open in random areas, also better knowlege of users will make it easier to get kids out of the homes of drug users, and to keep it out of the hands of children.

QUOTE
So you can do them with no repercussions?
If someone wants to do hard drugs, why not let them? Why should the government try to make you a better person? As Ron Paul said "if your getting fat, does the government force you onto a diet"? No.

QUOTE
Is that why? Do you use hard drugs?

Classic. You don't have an argument so you are asserting that I am a drug user.

QUOTE
Do you say "fuck other people dying as long as I can do what I want. They should have control just like me"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If people have no self control, why should I have to protect them? Should we outlaw smoking, playing with nail guns etc.? And it's not so I can do what I want, it's so I can spend my money on stuff I actually want, not on guns to shoot drug dealers/users that I have no objection to.

QUOTE
Thats selfish.

Why don't I have the right to be selfish? Either way, I never said yo ucan't give donations to rehabilitation centers to help drug users who have been volantarily commited to them, just that it's not alright to break down their doors to take the crack pipes out of their mouths, all while using the money I worked hard for.
Hardcore Ottoman
*This response is done sentence by sentence for the most part.*

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Nov 30 2008, 05:36 PM) [snapback]1473366[/snapback]
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 29 2008, 02:25 AM) [snapback]1473113[/snapback]
Why? Why do they need to be legalized?

Tax revenue to allow the damage the drug does to clean up after itself, drastically lower taxes due to the war on drugs no longer being fought, eliminating organised crime, regulation to ensure as much safety as possible, better knowlege of who is using drugs, so the drugs stores don't open in random areas, also better knowlege of users will make it easier to get kids out of the homes of drug users, and to keep it out of the hands of children.
Hmm, I doubt organized crime would end unless I'm wrong that there are rings of selling cigarettes and booze illegally already... this will hardly end crime organized crime. How will regulation ensure safety? How??? Oh great, the gov't has another way to offer the media and employers info to ruin reputations and reject applicants, respectively. It seems like the gov't is still probing into the lives of addicts and users by holding this info public. These people will be villified no matter what. You must see this. Drug stores will then act like normal businesses. Some chains will put new shops in projective areas in effort to boost profits... what seems wrong about profitting off of people's addictions? (Btw, I'm a moderate anti-consumerist and I loathe the exploitation of people's weaknesses to products that don't help them and don't work). Regulation to prevent them from expanding their base will only put these drug businesses on the same level as utilities. Users will dislike the control of prices and the quality and a black market will still be in demand/exist. Not even mentioning the bitterness ex-dealers will feel and react to by continued illegal selling in rebellion to this regulation (and possibly the large amount of small-time dealers losing their jobs). The knowledge and info these businesses and the gov't will collect on users to prevent children from living with them will only frighten current users and new users from even bothering with the regulated sales and just revert to using the black market.

QUOTE
QUOTE
So you can do them with no repercussions?
If someone wants to do hard drugs, why not let them? Why should the government try to make you a better person? As Ron Paul said "if your getting fat, does the government force you onto a diet"? No.
Well, the gov't is indirectly villifying users in your prosed system and will just make people continue to be the same people below the radar or live lives in shame and ridicule. The gov't doesn't have to physically coerce you into quitting...

QUOTE
QUOTE
Is that why? Do you use hard drugs?

Classic. You don't have an argument so you are asserting that I am a drug user.
I must point out I would never claim you take hard drugs. Ad hominem is hardly ever appropriate in argument.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Do you say "fuck other people dying as long as I can do what I want. They should have control just like me"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If people have no self control, why should I have to protect them? Should we outlaw smoking, playing with nail guns etc.? And it's not so I can do what I want, it's so I can spend my money on stuff I actually want, not on guns to shoot drug dealers/users that I have no objection to.
This is where your proposal would fail miserably if you ever truly wanted all drugs to be legalized. For one, it doesn't appeal to making it gov't regulated as I've pointed it out it doesn't really solve the problem anyway. Also, it seems you only desire this selfishly. Fair enough Mister Ethical Egoist. You failed when you stepped out of your bounds and said "blah blah gov't reg ends crime and earns money for gov't blah blah." Don't bullshit us, ethical egoists are only in it for themselves. Thanks for finally admitting this. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to pay for the War on Drugs, but perhaps you should find out how much money you are actually paying toward it and whether or not it isn't worth it to stop paying. Maybe your world is a lot safer with it and you have no reference point to show that the previous statement is false. You cannot know if supporting it begrudgingly is actually helping or being a waste to your coffers. That is why you need to corroborate. Seriously, not doing so is hurting your argument.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Thats selfish.

Why don't I have the right to be selfish? Either way, I never said you can't give donations to rehabilitation centers to help drug users who have been voluntarily committed to them, just that it's not alright to break down their doors to take the crack pipes out of their mouths, all while using the money I worked hard for.
Like I said. Fair enough. But the suggestions in this post do not even help or hurt your argument. You don't know how your money is being used by them. You haven't researched it or you have provided it with us. Do so, please.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Dec 1 2008, 02:39 PM) [snapback]1473383[/snapback]
Hmm, I doubt organized crime would end unless I'm wrong that there are rings of selling cigarettes and booze illegally already... this will hardly end crime organized crime.

There are rings of selling tobacco and booze illegally... there is a market for selling EVERYTHING illegally. They are very small when compared to the "five family" style organised crime in the heroin trade. You hardly make millions of dollars when trying to compete with leginimate businesses.

QUOTE
How will regulation ensure safety? How???
I find it hard to believe you can't rationalize this for yourself. If a substance is illegal and unregulated, they will just mix it with whatever to make it cheaper. I think you can imagine that "whatever" isn't quite safe.

QUOTE
Oh great, the gov't has another way to offer the media and employers info to ruin reputations and reject applicants, respectively. It seems like the gov't is still probing into the lives of addicts and users by holding this info public.

I never said to make it PUBLIC, I said if say, someone from social services was investigating local households, and is suspicous that one mother might be using drugs, they could go to the local store and ask. Also, it will make studies of the drug more effective as people will actually admit to doing it.

QUOTE
Regulation to prevent them from expanding their base will only put these drug businesses on the same level as utilities.
You don't need regulation for that, the businesses will know where to put their stores better. How many bottle shops do you see outside your window? Then go somehwere else and count them.

QUOTE
Users will dislike the control of prices and the quality and a black market will still be in demand/exist.

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone risk getting mugged/rapped/ripped off by their dealer, who doesn't use safe ingredients, when they can go to a leginimate business. Like I said, the dealers can't compete.

QUOTE
what seems wrong about profitting off of people's addictions?
Are they your addictions? But out of other people's business. Most of them wanted to burry their problems with drug use anyway, they want it. Hence why there is a demand for drugs.

QUOTE
Not even mentioning the bitterness ex-dealers will feel and react to by continued illegal selling in rebellion to this regulation (and possibly the large amount of small-time dealers losing their jobs).

Ex-Dealers? They can still be drug dealers, they just have to pay taxes. If not, they may result to a less profitable area of the crime spectrum, but then they ar eless of a problem.

QUOTE
Well, the gov't is indirectly villifying users in your prosed system and will just make people continue to be the same people below the radar or live lives in shame and ridicule. The gov't doesn't have to physically coerce you into quitting...
Se above.

QUOTE
This is where your proposal would fail miserably if you ever truly wanted all drugs to be legalized.

LOL. Your system has already failed miserably. The war on drugs is a fiasco.

QUOTE
Also, it seems you only desire this selfishly. Fair enough Mister Ethical Egoist. You failed when you stepped out of your bounds and said "blah blah gov't reg ends crime and earns money for gov't blah blah." Don't bullshit us, ethical egoists are only in it for themselves.
There are many other reasons besides me having to pay for it. Increased murder rate, for one:



along with the fact that thge drug dealers aren't paying taxes that could be used to treat our sick in hospitlas and to educate our children and the fact that is overcrowds prisons. The war on drugs has created ghettos, it may not have occured to you, but in areas that have crack dealers shooting each other all the time, nobody wants to (or can) open business, so they have no jobs, and they can't sell their houses because nobody will pay much for a house in a war zone; a legal market for drugs would sove this problem.

QUOTE
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to pay for the War on Drugs, but perhaps you should find out how much money you are actually paying toward it and whether or not it isn't worth it to stop paying. Maybe your world is a lot safer with it and you have no reference point to show that the previous statement is false. You cannot know if supporting it begrudgingly is actually helping or being a waste to your coffers. That is why you need to corroborate. Seriously, not doing so is hurting your argument.

...

Like I said. Fair enough. But the suggestions in this post do not even help or hurt your argument. You don't know how your money is being used by them. You haven't researched it or you have provided it with us. Do so, please.

It's about one hundred and twenty million a year. The link also covers the ammount of wasted cops, etc.
Mohawk
some countries have legal pot, and nothing significant cahnged there...
some other countries make money out of drugs, like Colombia, and that place is just a big mess, if you ever studied Colombia, you will know that the economy is based on coffee and illegal production of coke...
I mean, legal/illegal with "light" drugs doesn't matter, stuff will be the same, bug harsher drugs as coke or heroin, stuff can gat bad, because people will grow it to export, and them we are screwed...
By the way, Swiss people are voting to legalize heroin, just read it on FOXNews
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 1 2008, 04:44 AM) [snapback]1473409[/snapback]
There are rings of selling tobacco and booze illegally... there is a market for selling EVERYTHING illegally. They are very small when compared to the "five family" style organized crime in the heroin trade. You hardly make millions of dollars when trying to compete with legitimate businesses.
I stated that... I used something called sarcasm. The only reason selling cigarettes and booze illegally is smaller is because there is less risk in doing so. There are lots of risks selling hard drugs.

QUOTE
I find it hard to believe you can't rationalize this for yourself. If a substance is illegal and unregulated, they will just mix it with whatever to make it cheaper. I think you can imagine that "whatever" isn't quite safe.
Ever since the start of the War on Drugs, drug purity has increased to high levels and yet the price still stays down. It doesn't seem like "whatever" is causing horrible accidents with users. People are being irresponsible, and govt regulation isn't going to prevent that. Regardless, none of the systems are making it better for anyone because people will abuse anything. So far all I see is the appropriation of drug money in a different form... yet I see that even govt regulation won't end the black market for these drugs. If drugs are already at high purity levels and their prices are generally lower each year, no one is going to buy gov't regulated heroin or cocaine or speed.

I don't find anything you said to be rational, duh.

QUOTE
I never said to make it PUBLIC, I said if say, someone from social services was investigating local households, and is suspicious that one mother might be using drugs, they could go to the local store and ask. Also, it will make studies of the drug more effective as people will actually admit to doing it.
The risk of collecting such data is bound to be hacked or released publicly. If people are going to these drug stores, how fucking easy do you think it is for a reporter muckraking his ass to self-righteousness to simply videotape anyone that goes in? Jeez, anyone would know where to look. Seems very public to me. Drugs studies can easily prove that even hard drugs can be taken responsibly in amounts not even worth the time or money, but no one is going to do this. Drug data is going to show that no matter what people have a high tendency of abusing drugs that offers them highs and other escapes from the unfairness of their reality.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Regulation to prevent them from expanding their base will only put these drug businesses on the same level as utilities.
You don't need regulation for that, the businesses will know where to put their stores better. How many bottle shops do you see outside your window? Then go somewhere else and count them.
My point is that if these shops become chains and if the govt wants to look out for how close these shops are to school zones, etcetera... they are going to have to regulate. I know damn well these shops will know how to expand... that's not what I'm worried about. Regardless of the little appeal vitamin shops and GNC's have, the customer base for these drug shops go leagues higher than the formers. I'm doubt they'll spot the turf as much as McDonald's or any fast food chain, however.

QUOTE
That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone risk getting mugged/rapped/ripped off by their dealer, who doesn't use safe ingredients, when they can go to a legitimate business. Like I said, the dealers can't compete.
It makes plenty of sense. Not everyone is scared of repercussions of hard drugs via the govt or their dealers... that is why people still buy hard drugs. The dealers can compete, their drugs are still very pure (at least from the source) and prices are still lower than what many project. If they added unsafe ingredients before and the govt starting ruining their business, they can adapt and still take advantage of the low prices of the pure source.

QUOTE
Are they your addictions? But out of other people's business. Most of them wanted to bury their problems with drug use anyway, they want it. Hence why there is a demand for drugs.
Don't equivocate. It's a matter of ethics. If you want the govt to regulate this stuff, then you have to convince them the people will approve. At least with the War on Drugs the govt is against drugs... if regulated the govt performs two big evils. Not very logical for the govt to regulate now is it?

Btw, addictions aren't tangible objects. "Are they your addictions?"...

QUOTE
Ex-Dealers? They can still be drug dealers, they just have to pay taxes. If not, they may result to a less profitable area of the crime spectrum, but then they are less of a problem.
No, most dealers wouldn't even bother with selling the prices the govt put in place for them. No, they'll do as I have explained before speaking on the control they can have with low prices and high drug purity. The black market will continue to thrive. This doesn't seem any less of a problem.

QUOTE(Skinny)
QUOTE(punxtr)
Well, the govt is indirectly vilifying users in your proposed system and will just make people continue to be the same people below the radar or live lives in shame and ridicule. The govt doesn't have to physically coerce you into quitting...
See above.
They isn't enough dead space in the USA to keep these people from being seen in the 'burbs. These people will be your neighbors and they'll continue to be the same problems as well.

QUOTE
Your system has already failed miserably. The War on Drugs is a fiasco.
Yours will never happen. I find that even worse. I don't really believe the War on Drugs works nor do I actually support its income just like you, but govt regulation and legalization of all drugs just will not work.

QUOTE
There are many other reasons besides me having to pay for it. Increased murder rate, for one:

Okay, first off, here's a lesson in logic. Correlation isn't causation. Trends can be influenced by plenty of reasons and in this case the reason for increased homicides cannot be sufficiently blamed on Prohibition and the War on Drugs. These graphs are what swindle the simple-minded. Qualitative research would necessary to find the root of that which causes homicides. Yes, I'm saying your research sucks. One fucking image? Gtfo.

QUOTE
Along with the fact that the drug dealers aren't paying taxes that could be used to treat our sick in hospitals and to educate our children and the fact that it overcrowds prisons. The War on Drugs has created ghettos, it may not have occurred to you, but in areas that have crack dealers shooting each other all the time, nobody wants to (or can) open business, so they have no jobs, and they can't sell their houses because nobody will pay much for a house in a war zone; a legal market for drugs would solve this problem.
No, it wouldn't. The black market will still thrive and people will still shoot each other for other reasons. Besides, the War on Drugs hasn't created ghettos--they were already there. Ghettos have social problems beyond simply drugs. Regulating drugs would keep the social problems at home evermore, yet perhaps some rehabilitation programs and information resources could perchance help these people.

But, yes, the War on Drugs is drawing money away from more important solutions to be found to the same problems. I just cannot logically see govt regulation solving these problems. I hope neither can you.

QUOTE
It's about one hundred and twenty million a year. The link also covers the amount of wasted cops, etc.


Here's a better one: http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Almost half of the arrests are of marijuana possession. Interesting as this drug and a couple other ones are exactly what I want legalized. This would take off a humongous load for the taxpayers and would be a temporary celebration for us. However, we would need to find a solution better than govt regulation to solve the drug problem.

--------

Oh, and, Mohawk brings up an excellent point. Colombia is a perfect role model for the new USA...
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 1 2008, 09:44 AM) [snapback]1473409[/snapback]
THough I agree with you, I'd like to point out that murder tends to be higher just before these laws are instated. A more reasonable hypothesis would be that increased murder rates lead to reactionary laws.


QUOTE(Mohawk @ Dec 1 2008, 11:18 AM) [snapback]1473417[/snapback]
some countries have legal pot, and nothing significant cahnged there...
A political science student once told me that American Republicanism relies on "The myth of Europe", ie many Americans who would never dream of going abroad believe that stable, liberal European states like Germany and the UK are literally on the brink of collapse at all times, or at best being propped up wholesale by the United States. This explains how an educated nation can remain so right wing and insular (at this point I would like to request that anyone taking issue with my perceived anti-Americanism can shove it, I don't want this to devolve into an argument about WHOZ COUNTRY IS BETTER). It also explains how the GOP can push certain policies which would be considered inane almost anywhere else: Europe is falling apart, the US is not, therefore all policies which are uniquely American are better than the European alternatives.

Regardless of the success or faiulure of those policies, an atmosphere of "o well at least it's not france" often holds American administrations back from experimentation with policy which could be seen as "French". English speaking states follow this lead, China and Japan wish to emulate America, all but the world's most reactionary nations consider the G8 example to be a good one and their combined influence is felt the world over creating a great barrier against progress.

Where this can most acutely be seen is in drug policy, and it means that most states in the developed world ban all leisure drugs altogether, and ELDCs aren't able to hold onto such draconian legistlation, so it's exploited. Drugs cost an assload, they're impure and dangerous and jails are filled with people who would, let's face it, otherwise not be driven to crime.
QUOTE
some other countries make money out of drugs, like Colombia, and that place is just a big mess, if you ever studied Colombia, you will know that the economy is based on coffee and illegal production of coke...
I mean, legal/illegal with "light" drugs doesn't matter, stuff will be the same, bug harsher drugs as coke or heroin, stuff can gat bad, because people will grow it to export, and them we are screwed...
By the way, Swiss people are voting to legalize heroin, just read it on FOXNews
Sorry but using Colombia as an example of a state that has legal drugs (it doesn't) is disingenuous, not least because if cocaine production were legal and well-managed in the States, there'd hardly be anywhere to export it to illegally. Either legislation would fall into line across most countries, or people would go to America to get it.

There just cannot be any rational point to saying "Oh, and, Mohawk brings up an excellent point. Colombia is a perfect role model for the new USA...". He doesn't -- not that that was the point he was making as far as I can tell.
Hardcore Ottoman
Do I have to call him a dumbass to get my sarcasm across? I originally put in a closed 'sarcasm' tag but the editor for this forum didn't seem to like my unclosed tag... weird, because it's never happened to me before.

Edit--And while your hypothesis is much better than Skinny's, it still doesn't stand to prove what causes murder to be because of reactionary legislation. But, I'll digress. This might linger on skepticism if I get into this.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I understand that it was supposed to be sarcastic, my reply was made with that assumption.

Whatever the cause of the increased murder rates, it can be seen that the named legislation certainly does nothing to curtail them.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Dec 2 2008, 09:40 AM) [snapback]1473531[/snapback]
The only reason selling cigarettes and booze illegally is smaller is because there is less risk in doing so. There are lots of risks selling hard drugs.

No... it's because they have legal competition. Like I said, who is going to buy drugs that have probably been mixed with paint stripper when they can get safer stuff that probably works better and is cheaper, at the sho pdown the street?

QUOTE
Ever since the start of the War on Drugs, drug purity has increased to high levels and yet the price still stays down. It doesn't seem like "whatever" is causing horrible accidents with users. People are being irresponsible, and govt regulation isn't going to prevent that.
It really has been. Alot of the time when people die from using pills that aren't that dangerous, it's becuase the supplier decided using something he found under the sink would be cheaper than the actual ingredients?

QUOTE
So far all I see is the appropriation of drug money in a different form...

Yeah, it will go to schools hospitals and roads, wich is the same as giving it to the mafia, amirite? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
yet I see that even govt regulation won't end the black market for these drugs. If drugs are already at high purity levels and their prices are generally lower each year, no one is going to buy gov't regulated heroin or cocaine or speed.
Okay, first of all, you voted for soft drugs like speed to be legalized, so I don'ot know what you are getting at there.

Anyway, people WILL buy it because the purifty levels will be higher, becuase people aren't mixing it with ink or whatever to make it cheaper.

QUOTE
I don't find anything you said to be rational, duh.

And your idea of "lets keep using the liberal and conservative policies that put us in a financial crisis and a crime epidemic" is rational? Social conservatism and fiscal liberalism have failed miserably, get over them.

QUOTE
The risk of collecting such data is bound to be hacked or released publicly. If people are going to these drug stores, how fucking easy do you think it is for a reporter muckraking his ass to self-righteousness to simply videotape anyone that goes in? Jeez, anyone would know where to look
You can get your kids taken off you if you are an alcoholic or are on pain killers all the time, but even though pharmacies and bottle shops keep sales records like anyone else - people don't use black market alcohol or oxy.

And why would a reporter want to video tape people going in? I very much doubt that public figures take hard drugs, and celebrities wouldn't drive down there and pick it up themselves, so that's an irrelevant argument.

QUOTE
Drugs studies can easily prove that even hard drugs can be taken responsibly in amounts not even worth the time or money, but no one is going to do this. Drug data is going to show that no matter what people have a high tendency of abusing drugs that offers them highs and other escapes from the unfairness of their reality.

I don't know why you are saying this. I'm talking about collecting data to see what age, gender and income group would take the drug, duh.

QUOTE
My point is that if these shops become chains and if the govt wants to look out for how close these shops are to school zones, etcetera... they are going to have to regulate. I know damn well these shops will know how to expand... that's not what I'm worried about. Regardless of the little appeal vitamin shops and GNC's have, the customer base for these drug shops go leagues higher than the formers. I'm doubt they'll spot the turf as much as McDonald's or any fast food chain, however.
Another irrelevant point. Why would they want to open up next to a school in the first place? So if they're not allowed to, they're harldy going to buger all the perks of being a leginimate business just to be able to sell drugs to kids who can't affod them, and still have the "just say no" slogan stuck in their mind.

QUOTE
It makes plenty of sense. Not everyone is scared of repercussions of hard drugs via the govt or their dealers... that is why people still buy hard drugs. The dealers can compete, their drugs are still very pure (at least from the source) and prices are still lower than what many project. If they added unsafe ingredients before and the govt starting ruining their business, they can adapt and still take advantage of the low prices of the pure source.

Yes, because they are supposed to be pure. And prices won't be lower, becuase then the dealers won't make profit enough to keep selling it illegaly. They sell becuase they want to make money, not te be rebelious and cool, so if they are going to make more money through higher prices, they are goign to sell it legally.

And people who take cocaine are often pretty wealthy, so they do care about what's in their coke.

QUOTE
Don't equivocate. It's a matter of ethics.
haha, what is remotely ethical about butting into other people's business, when they really rather you wouldn't, or about starting drug wars that lower the property value in inner city areas, creating ghettos. And I am the selfish one?

QUOTE
If you want the govt to regulate this stuff, then you have to convince them the people will approve. At least with the War on Drugs the govt is against drugs... if regulated the govt performs two big evils. Not very logical for the govt to regulate now is it?

And is the government not against people getting stuck in train doors and peopel shooting themselves in the eye with a nail gun? Do we put someone in jail is something like that happens to them? No, we don't, just like we shouldn't put drug users in jail for using drugs.

QUOTE
Btw, addictions aren't tangible objects. "Are they your addictions?"...
So? words like that can still be used possesively (ie, "has your headache gotten better"?)

QUOTE
No, most dealers wouldn't even bother with selling the prices the govt put in place for them. No, they'll do as I have explained before speaking on the control they can have with low prices and high drug purity. The black market will continue to thrive. This doesn't seem any less of a problem.

When did I say to raise the prices? We want people to not have to rob people to buy their drugs.

QUOTE
Yours will never happen. I find that even worse. I don't really believe the War on Drugs works nor do I actually support its income just like you, but govt regulation and legalization of all drugs just will not work.
It will work, and has worked for years before the war on drugs started. Was society on the verge of collapsing before the war on drugs? No.

QUOTE
Okay, first off, here's a lesson in logic. Correlation isn't causation. Trends can be influenced by plenty of reasons and in this case the reason for increased homicides cannot be sufficiently blamed on Prohibition and the War on Drugs. These graphs are what swindle the simple-minded. Qualitative research would necessary to find the root of that which causes homicides. Yes, I'm saying your research sucks.

lawl, if you never equate correlation to causation, then all statistics are uselss. Canada's health care may have improved when it was socialized... but lemme guess, something else is probably responsible, and it's just a big coincidence? The same analogy could be used for every statistic ever thought of.

QUOTE
No, it wouldn't. The black market will still thrive and people will still shoot each other for other reasons.
Of course people will continue to shot each other for some reason, but not as many people would do it? By this logic, we should legalize murder, because somewhere, in some place, someone is murdering someone - nevermind that the frequency of murders will decrease.

QUOTE
Regulating drugs would keep the social problems at home evermore, yet perhaps some rehabilitation programs and information resources could perchance help these people.

And aren't rehabilitation programs easier when we can tell the users from the dealers, so none of them are thrown in jail? Would information resources be easier to create when the drugs are legal, so we can study them?

QUOTE
But, yes, the War on Drugs is drawing money away from more important solutions to be found to the same problems. I just cannot logically see govt regulation solving these problems. I hope neither can you.
I only said regulation can solve the problem of people mixing drugs with whatever crap they can find (you seemed to think I was advocating making drugs weaker), and that taxes would cover the rehabilitation programs, rather than trying to tackle the drug problem with not tax revenue whatsoever.

QUOTE
However, we would need to find a solution better than govt regulation to solve the drug problem.

I don't want to "sove the drug problem" becuase incase you didn't pick it up when i said i don't care about drug users, I don't care about the drug problem, I just thinking making it alot worse by outlawing the drugs is stupid and too expensive, when I could be spending my money on things I want, rather than a warm feeling, knowing that I've just intervened in someones life with my tax dollars.

QUOTE
Oh, and, Mohawk brings up an excellent point. Colombia is a perfect role model for the new USA...

As Mellow said, drugs aren't even legal in Columbia, they just have alot of Coca plants, so the USA would hardly become the "new columbia".

And maybe you should read Mohawks post again, becuase he posted a link wich shows that a government-authorized heroin program for addicts, managed to stop them shooting up in parks, and decreased the crime commited by addicts by a whopping 60%.

Hardcore Ottoman
Some quick points:

1. Regulated drugs will never be cheaper. They inflate the way the price of cigarettes did.
2. People are irresponsible. And the dealers exploit this. They don't have to mix drugs.
3. You have no idea what the govt will do with that taxed money. Your plan won't even pass anyway as no one likes the idea of legal hard drugs.
4. Drugs are not so fucking impure as you suggest. You're not even a user. Besides, these regulated drugs will have humongous dollar signs hanging off of them.
5. First off, the War on Drugs didn't put us in a crime epidemic nor has it put us in a financial crisis. Please, reconsider spouting off that fucking claim when you haven't even proven it...
6. Your doubts are wrong, public figures are usually narcissistic and like the 'heat.' Doing hard drugs is a high to them. Second, you don't even know how celebrities get their drugs so how can you doubt that they'll get drugs from these shops?
7. And all of that data will show that people have been and always will take drugs because they are: etcetera...
8. The funny counter-point you made is that, if drugs are too expensive for schoolkids and they've been taught they're bad wouldn't it turn out that drug shops would only operate in rich neighborhoods? Does that not follow when you claim drugs are rampant in ghettos and crime is day-to-day? Well, it turns out drugs are located in the rich areas and crime is very low there. Hmm, your graph is proven wrong yet again. A single graph doesn't prove shit and neither have you.
9. Whether are not the drugs are actually 'pure' in the absolute sense of the word is not the point. Drug purity levels have increased ever since the War on Drugs and the prices have continued to stay lower than expected. Dealers have a big incentive to continue selling in the same way because they can outcompete govt regulated prices. As long as the illegal price is lower than the legal one, profits will be had and the govt will see no demand for their regulated prices. Why would dealers raise their prices above the govts to make profit if users will just buy the govts instead? You don't make any sense here.
10. You are the selfish one because you don't give a fuck about the drug problem. You just want to save some money on taxes to something I have already stated I think is bullshit anyway. I don't want the War on Drugs just as much as you, but I sure as hell don't see govt regulation happening in a long time. The govt wouldn't be ethical by allowing people to shoot up and walk the same streets with children and let the impressionable minds be subjected to horror. Not everyone can be left alone, and personal privacy is hard to respect if their interests are not in line with a nation dedicated to appearance of peace and normality.
11. This point about the govt being against being stuck in doors or whatever doesn't make much sense. I'll ignore it until you elaborate more.
12. Zeugma is something you use in literature and creative writing, not unnecessary ad hominem arguments such as yours.
13. Regulated drug prices will not be cheap dumbshit. WHat makes you think that? Think of how utilities are handled...
14. The drugs that were present before the War on Drugs were not present during then and now. Sorry, you are incorrect.
15. Statistics can be very useless. For one, during the rise of hard and designer drugs the War on Drugs was initiated to lower usage and prevent the increase in homicides. Statistics showed that poor areas were hotspots of drugs. Instead of fixing the problem of why drugs were there in high concentrations, the WoD simply requested a shit load of money from taxpayers in assurance that the cops were doing something more than the drugs themselves... bullshit. But now, because the WoD was started right at about the same time as the increase in illegal drugs and homicide, some people assume it is the WoD that is propagating the same problems and by simply removing it and letting people to continue to do drugs will end the problem... just so long as the apathetic taxpayers are pleased.
16. Well, some reasons behind the WoD is to prevent homicide and drug use. Making drugs legal won't solve that problem as you have fully admitted anyways... basically, you are a defeatist: people will always use drugs so fuck them I don't want to pay for them anymore. I beg to differ. People can be helped, and not by legalizing their problems.
17. Hey, you said legalize hard drugs--not decriminalize them. People can still go to jail for abusing drugs in certain cases is what you were suggesting. Besides, you don't even give a fuck about them and your plan would leave them in the same place just without a different dealer: the govt.
18. No, I didn't 'seem' to suggest that drugs be made weaker. What I said is that the govt's supply of drugs is no more pure than the current source of drugs sold illegally, yet the illegal drugs are still cheap enough compared to what the govt hoped and projected would be higher and higher drug prices. Wrong, of course. Tax revenue off of drugs will not cover rehab because no one will fucking buy the higher regulated prices. Drugs currently can be quite pure and cheap, but currently dealers have some leeway in getting away with being even cheaper. Do you think they won't change their plan if drugs became regulated? Raise their prices to compensate for not cutting corners but keep them lower than the govt's prices, and they'll keep their current customers.
19. Seriously, it is invalid to find something ethically wrong with intervening in others' lives yet stand apathetic to their plight. I guess when your whole life is governed by ideals rather than pragmatic understanding you can get away with such a contradiction. If you don't care about these people, why do you care about their privacy?
20. It was sarcasm dumbass. Mohawk is a fucking moron. Read my previous post.

Tell you what, write to the peeps downtown by you and prove to me that others are interested in your selfish plan. Convince me that I'm wrong about the govt and about ethics and of humanity. Because even this small web forum is showing me that no one has yet to agree with you.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Dec 6 2008, 08:49 AM) [snapback]1473991[/snapback]
1. Regulated drugs will never be cheaper. They inflate the way the price of cigarettes did.

No, they will be cheaper becuase there will be greater access to them, and they won't have to cover the cost of sneakign them into the country.

QUOTE
2. People are irresponsible. And the dealers exploit this. They don't have to mix drugs
Well they do. I can tell you first hand.

QUOTE
3. You have no idea what the govt will do with that taxed money. Your plan won't even pass anyway as no one likes the idea of legal hard drugs.

It was just an example of a better way to spend the money. No need to start jumping out of your pants, here.

QUOTE
4. Drugs are not so fucking impure as you suggest. You're not even a user. Besides, these regulated drugs will have humongous dollar signs hanging off of them.
Yes, alot of drugs are impure because they mix it with cheaper ingredients. I don't see why this is so hard for you to fathem.

QUOTE
5. First off, the War on Drugs didn't put us in a crime epidemic nor has it put us in a financial crisis. Please, reconsider spouting off that fucking claim when you haven't even proven it...

Read my post again. I'm not talking specifically about the war on drugs, i was talking about the modern left and right raping the shit out of our freedom.

QUOTE
. Your doubts are wrong, public figures are usually narcissistic and like the 'heat.' Doing hard drugs is a high to them.Second, you don't even know how celebrities get their drugs so how can you doubt that they'll get drugs from these shops?
These people have ALOT of money, they aren't going to drive down the the store and pick some up... they will have them delivered, or just pick them up at whatever party they are at.

QUOTE
8. The funny counter-point you made is that, if drugs are too expensive for schoolkids and they've been taught they're bad wouldn't it turn out that drug shops would only operate in rich neighborhoods? Does that not follow when you claim drugs are rampant in ghettos and crime is day-to-day? Well, it turns out drugs are located in the rich areas and crime is very low there.

Why would they only operate in rich areas? Even people in poorer neibourhoods have more money than little kids at school. Again, you have failed to read.

QUOTE
Whether are not the drugs are actually 'pure' in the absolute sense of the word is not the point. Drug purity levels have increased ever since the War on Drugs and the prices have continued to stay lower than expected.
Sorce?

QUOTE
10. You are the selfish one because you don't give a fuck about the drug problem.

No, I don't give a fuck about drug addicts, but I do give a fuck about people whos fathers/husbands have been killed in drug wars, or have been incarcerrated for nonviolent crimes. That's a result of the drug war, not the drugs themselves.

QUOTE
The govt wouldn't be ethical by allowing people to shoot up and walk the same streets with children and let the impressionable minds be subjected to horror. Not everyone can be left alone, and personal privacy is hard to respect if their interests are not in line with a nation dedicated to appearance of peace and normality.
So the government shouldn't allow people to shoot up if they please to? And I never said it should be okay to shoot up anywhere you want, only in your own home. The government bursting down your door to take away the heroin you bought with your own money is hardly ethical, so ethics are always a bad point for a statist.

QUOTE
12. Zeugma is something you use in literature and creative writing, not unnecessary ad hominem arguments such as yours.

...

You are the one using ad hominem. Example:

QUOTE
Regulated drug prices will not be cheap dumbshit.

And on that point I never said to regulate the prices, I said to regulate that they are made in safe conditions and taxed.

QUOTE
bullshit. But now, because the WoD was started right at about the same time as the increase in illegal drugs and homicide, some people assume it is the WoD that is propagating the same problems and by simply removing it and letting people to continue to do drugs will end the problem... just so long as the apathetic taxpayers are pleased.
I'm not saying murder rates will drop back to what they were before some of these drugs came along, but they will decrease, simply becuase there won't be wars in the streets for control of the drug market, and there will be less kids with no father figures.

QUOTE
16. Well, some reasons behind the WoD is to prevent homicide and drug use. Making drugs legal won't solve that problem as you have fully admitted anyways... basically, you are a defeatist: people will always use drugs so fuck them I don't want to pay for them anymore. I beg to differ. People can be helped, and not by legalizing their problems.

This is by far one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's the logic of "they need help, throw them in jail". If you want to help them, legalizing them is the best solution, as that way they can actually be honest about the fact that they have a drug problem. Somebody might be using drugs because they are troubled and the cops might find them with hard drugs more than once, and it's 25 to life. I would have no objection to some of my tax dollars going towards actually helping drug addicts, but shooting them, locking them up, and forbiding them from takign drugs is a diffrent story.

QUOTE
Besides, you don't even give a fuck about them and your plan would leave them in the same place just without a different dealer: the govt.
So taxing = selling?

QUOTE
hoped and projected would be higher and higher drug prices. Wrong, of course. Tax revenue off of drugs will not cover rehab because no one will fucking buy the higher regulated prices. Drugs currently can be quite pure and cheap, but currently dealers have some leeway in getting away with being even cheaper. Do you think they won't change their plan if drugs became regulated? Raise their prices to compensate for not cutting corners but keep them lower than the govt's prices, and they'll keep their current customers.

See above. I dont want to regulate the actual prices, or for the government to sell drugs.

QUOTE
19. Seriously, it is invalid to find something ethically wrong with intervening in others' lives yet stand apathetic to their plight. I guess when your whole life is governed by ideals rather than pragmatic understanding you can get away with such a contradiction.
You are th eone whos argument is governed b ideals. Anyone can clearly see that the government will just fuck things up, but you stand by the argument of "it's morally worng to let people make their own decisions, mummy gov knows best".

QUOTE
If you don't care about these people, why do you care about their privacy?

Becuase once they go to jail for something i have no objection to, i will have to pay for their stay in prison.

CODE
Tell you what, write to the peeps downtown by you and prove to me that others are interested in your selfish plan.

I may not care about people who have made the choice to take drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't care about kids whos dad went to jail for selling something, when it was the only way to feed his kids. Me having to pay high taxes may be one thing, but the WoD has hurt people all over.

CODE
Convince me that I'm wrong about the govt and about ethics and of humanity

You are wrong about ethics, becuase it seems your logic in this matter is "i know what's best for people, therefore, they should be forbidden to make their own choices."

CODE
Because even this small web forum is showing me that no one has yet to agree with you.

Just becuase the majority agrees with you, doens't mean you're right. The majority may see the sense in beating a dead horse, but that doesn't make them right.
TwoFacedTanner
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 7 2008, 09:00 AM) [snapback]1474236[/snapback]
CODE
Because even this small web forum is showing me that no one has yet to agree with you.

Just becuase the majority agrees with you, doens't mean you're right. The majority may see the sense in beating a dead horse, but that doesn't make them right.


Well, just because its your opinion doesn't mean you're right.
Skinny 
^ the clear failure of the war on drugs takes care of that. it's time for a new method, rather than a nanny state.
Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 7 2008, 10:00 AM) [snapback]1474236[/snapback]
No, they will be cheaper because there will be greater access to them, and they won't have to cover the cost of sneaking them into the country.
No, there will be easier access to them. Drugs--if you assert that most people who didn't do drugs before won't get curious (like I asserted)--will still be purchased in the same quantities. The only difference is price, which will go up due to govt regulation.

QUOTE
Well they do. I can tell you first hand.
Well they can change there prices too, and I can tell you they will, considering the money to be had in doing so. Just packing up and forgetting the drug business does not follow for the character of a drug dealer.

QUOTE
It was just an example of a better way to spend the money. No need to start jumping out of your pants, here.
Well, I see any argument on any subject to hold water only if it is actually feasible in addition to however logical it is. Most arguments for change are very logical, yet they aren't very feasible. So it would be nice if you actually completed your plan instead of leaving the govt with a bigger paycheck while you are slightly better off with the lack of a tiny tax you'll never notice that was removed by said govt. Do you really want the govt to benefit this much while yours is insignificant per capita? I wouldn't.

QUOTE
Yes, a lot of drugs are impure because they mix it with cheaper ingredients. I don't see why this is so hard for you to fathom.
I understand it, but the source of the drugs sold themselves are said to be cheap--not the goddamn kind that are mixed to be even cheaper. Can't you fucking read?

QUOTE
Read my post again. I'm not talking specifically about the war on drugs, i was talking about the modern left and right raping the shit out of our freedom.
Fine. A weakness in my opinion in your argument.

QUOTE
These people have A LOT of money, they aren't going to drive down the the store and pick some up... they will have them delivered, or just pick them up at whatever party they are at.
So it is legal to take hard drugs at nightclubs where some participants might only be on MDMA? Seems like a criminal activity still. And besides, more money does not equal more brains.

QUOTE
Why would they only operate in rich areas? Even people in poorer neighborhoods have more money than little kids at school. Again, you have failed to read.
I haven't failed to read, you have failed to prove that your graph proves the War on Drugs is causing a drug war--more murders. But if most murders are located within poor neighborhoods, and most of the drugs being sold and busted on are in the richer areas then it seems something else is causing an increase in murders. Hmm... maybe it is irresponsible trigger happy motherfucking pigs. I'll talk on that later.

QUOTE
Source?
Here's one:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines...s-dropping.html

This one shows that prices increase too, but offers another explanation as to what causes price increase and it isn't the govt:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-cocaine_N.htm

QUOTE
No, I don't give a fuck about drug addicts, but I do give a fuck about people whose fathers/husbands have been killed in drug wars, or have been incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. That's a result of the drug war, not the drugs themselves.
You do realize that legalizing drugs isn't the only solution to this problem do you? I never said keep the War on Drugs.

QUOTE
So the government shouldn't allow people to shoot up if they please to? And I never said it should be okay to shoot up anywhere you want, only in your own home. The government bursting down your door to take away the heroin you bought with your own money is hardly ethical, so ethics are always a bad point for a statistician.
Drugs users are mobile. They can go to and fro, and they usually aren't fully aware of what they are doing. Contrary to popular belief, the mind is the brain and when it is fucked up--it is fucked up. No, they don't have to bust down to doors, but what you originally hinted by legalizing drugs is that they should be decriminalized too (probably because of the example you just gave me). No, people have a certain privacy (which is hard to explain in a single sweep of rhetoric) and it is rooted in the home space. But do you agree they should be arrested outside of their homes?

QUOTE

... You are the one using ad hominem.

And on that point I never said to regulate the prices, I said to regulate that they are made in safe conditions and taxed.
Ignoring the truth that I did use that argument and will not apologize because I think the assertion still stands... tell me, how are the govt going to tax hard drugs without heavy regulation? I'm talking on the level of utilities, and all major utilities have price floors and other such measures. But seriously, how long did it take for the USDA to actually make meat sanitary? Do you think the govt will do a good job funded from a small drug tax? It'll probably be higher if they want to do the job right and prevent drug mixing like you so vehemently desire to prevent.

QUOTE
I'm not saying murder rates will drop back to what they were before some of these drugs came along, but they will decrease, simply because there won't be wars in the streets for control of the drug market, and there will be less kids with no father figures.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/463/at...nues_to_unravel

It seems most fatalities occur from cop stupidity and abuse of power. Something that I agree on wholeheartedly. End the War on Drugs, but don't legalize drugs and I'll be satisfied. Find another solution because this one is not feasible nor have you convinced me it'll stop drug problems (because you've told me you don't care about that--I do).

QUOTE
This is by far one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's the logic of "they need help, throw them in jail". If you want to help them, legalizing them is the best solution, as that way they can actually be honest about the fact that they have a drug problem. Somebody might be using drugs because they are troubled and the cops might find them with hard drugs more than once, and it's 25 to life. I would have no objection to some of my tax dollars going towards actually helping drug addicts, but shooting them, locking them up, and forbidding them from taking drugs is a different story.
No, it's not that logic. Maybe the current system does that and goddammit I know it because I've been through it, but it's not the logic I'm using. People need help from those in a community and they need to stop being vilified. Legalizing drugs will still leave many people vilifying these users and that is a giant social problem. Giant. It's bigger than your obsession with increasing your coffers. Some compassion and understanding is a hard thing to reach though, I will admit.

QUOTE
So taxing = selling?
... the govt will take a giant role in regulating drugs so most of the pricing will indirectly be as a result of it. Sort of fallacious writing... my bad. :/

QUOTE

See above. I don't want to regulate the actual prices, or for the government to sell drugs.
Well, regulation is necessary...

CODE
You are the one whose argument is governed by ideals. Anyone can clearly see that the government will just fuck things up, but you stand by the argument of "it's morally wrong to let people make their own decisions, mummy gov knows best".
... no. I haven't stuck to one side of the pole in this entire argument. The govt doesn't know best because it started the War on Drugs and it is letting the FBI and the fucking police to do the job terribly and getting away with it. I know the govt fucks things up, tell me where did I explicitly say I support what the govt does always? I haven't; you're making hasty generalizations.

CODE
Because once they go to jail for something i have no objection to, i will have to pay for their stay in prison.
Fair enough, but let it be known that personal use at home is fine by me but not drug factories.

CODE
I may not care about people who have made the choice to take drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't care about kids whose dad went to jail for selling something, when it was the only way to feed his kids. Me having to pay high taxes may be one thing, but the WoD has hurt people all over.


But your main stance is that you wish not to pay for it, not that you have full compassion with users. Some of the best musicians did some crazy shit... tongue.gif Btw, the plight of the children losing their father is something much more complicated because you are bringing into subject the quality of adoptive services and so on. Although it doesn't seem to be such a bad idea to explore. I have met a few kids who've lost their parents because such were "unfit for parenthood." Very fucked up. But are you supporting decriminalization here? Do you honestly agree a man who's so down on the pole that his only choice is to sell drugs? I don't think so.

CODE
You are wrong about ethics, because it seems your logic in this matter is "i know what's best for people, therefore, they should be forbidden to make their own choices."
What seems may not always be what is. This is a very bad argument against my integrity because I'm not suggesting I actually know how to solve the problem adeptly. You are. You feel you have the answer, while I'm playing the skeptic.

CODE
Just because the majority agrees with you, doesn't mean you're right. The majority may see the sense in beating a dead horse, but that doesn't make them right.
Terrible analogy because I'm not making sense in beating a dead horse. Nor is the situation of the War on Drugs a dead horse either. If you wanted to make a counter-point on principle, then fine, but realize the reflexivity of this argument and let's both end it before we begin an infinite regress.

Here's a point to stop this, the masses don't make the choices.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Dec 7 2008, 05:01 PM) [snapback]1474245[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 7 2008, 09:00 AM) [snapback]1474236[/snapback]
CODE
Because even this small web forum is showing me that no one has yet to agree with you.

Just becuase the majority agrees with you, doens't mean you're right. The majority may see the sense in beating a dead horse, but that doesn't make them right.


Well, just because its your opinion doesn't mean you're right.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of the logical fallacies in this thread, but this is just a massive redundancy.

He's not saying it's right because it's his opinion. I think it's quite demonstrably the other way around. However the point levelled at Skinny was that he is wrong because he's in a minority, which is never an acceptable argument.
Donnie
Personally I believe that drugs should be legalised as the goverment would be able to have more control over drug use in society. In my local town we have a place called the 'needle exchange' where heroin addicts can come and exchange their old needles for clean ones. The process is rather good because it stops junkies using dirty needles and also at the same time the needle exchange provides rehab programmes.
NCP
I thought my government was doing pretty well last years, but now they want to ban paddos. Some French chick ate them and she killed herself, that's why the ban is coming. Well lets ban alcoholic drinks aswell as that kills on a daily basis...There will be some protest ofcourse.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Üsername @ Dec 8 2008, 03:51 PM) [snapback]1474361[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Dec 7 2008, 10:00 AM) [snapback]1474236[/snapback]
No, they will be cheaper because there will be greater access to them, and they won't have to cover the cost of sneaking them into the country.
No, there will be easier access to them. Drugs--if you assert that most people who didn't do drugs before won't get curious (like I asserted)--will still be purchased in the same quantities. The only difference is price, which will go up due to govt regulation.

Governmet regulation will only increase prices if they go completely over the top, like, by sending a representative to every drug store or something. I'm talking about enforcing safety laws and public intoxication laws. I'm not a statist, so I wouldn't support the government taking things too far.

QUOTE
Well, I see any argument on any subject to hold water only if it is actually feasible in addition to however logical it is. Most arguments for change are very logical, yet they aren't very feasible. So it would be nice if you actually completed your plan instead of leaving the govt with a bigger paycheck while you are slightly better off with the lack of a tiny tax you'll never notice that was removed by said govt. Do you really want the govt to benefit this much while yours is insignificant per capita? I wouldn't.
First off, the war on drugs costs one hundred and twenty million dollars a year (see the link I posted earlier), and when you spread that cost around for little over twenty million citizens, it's a fairly large ammount,

Secondly, what do you mean the government will cash a "bigger paycheck"? The government is not a business, and surplusses aren't profit for politicians, they go to tax rebates or back inot the system.

QUOTE
Fine. A weakness in my opinion in your argument.

By all means, elaborate.

QUOTE
So it is legal to take hard drugs at nightclubs where some participants might only be on MDMA?
Nightclubs aren't public property, you don't own them. Why shouldn't the owners who own the place, and carry all it's debts, get to choose what people are allowed to do inside of it?

QUOTE
I haven't failed to read, you have failed to prove that your graph proves the War on Drugs is causing a drug war--more murders.

I haven't heard about any alcohol wars, have you?


QUOTE
But if most murders are located within poor neighborhoods, and most of the drugs being sold and busted on are in the richer areas then it seems something else is causing an increase in murders
Drugs are primarily sold to richer people? Really, becuase you won't see any crack or heroin addicts in double bay or beverly hills, but my friend from redfern (a very poor neighbourhood) once found a box filled with used needles on the sidewalk.

QUOTE
Hmm... maybe it is irresponsible trigger happy motherfucking pigs. I'll talk on that later.

And what's your solution to these trigger happy pigs? You want them to keep the power they abuse, I want to take it away from them. this isn't helping you.

QUOTE
That didn't show that the war on drugs changed anything, it only showed that things just so happened to change over a span of two years.

QUOTE

Becuase there are other factors in rising drug prices, it doesn't mean your one is the only one.

QUOTE
You do realize that legalizing drugs isn't the only solution to this problem do you?
Then povide one. Because as far as I can tell, people will go to jail if they sell drugs under your system.

QUOTE
I never said keep the War on Drugs.

If it is illegal to sell drugs or take them, the government is fighting a war against them.

QUOTE
Drugs users are mobile. They can go to and fro, and they usually aren't fully aware of what they are doing. Contrary to popular belief, the mind is the brain and when it is fucked up--it is fucked up.
So arrest them for being intoxicated in public. Alcoholics are just as dangerous as most hard drug users, and people still tend to go out on the street when they drunk, so do we ban alcohol? No.

QUOTE
No, they don't have to bust down to doors, but what you originally hinted by legalizing drugs is that they should be decriminalized too (probably because of the example you just gave me). No, people have a certain privacy (which is hard to explain in a single sweep of rhetoric) and it is rooted in the home space. But do you agree they should be arrested outside of their homes?

Yes, if they are outside of their home when taking drugs that can casue violent behaviour, they should be taken off the street. Not necessarily charged with a crime, but taken off the street the way drunk people are today.

QUOTE
tell me, how are the govt going to tax hard drugs without heavy regulation? I'm talking on the level of utilities, and all major utilities have price floors and other such measures. But seriously, how long did it take for the USDA to actually make meat sanitary? Do you think the govt will do a good job funded from a small drug tax? It'll probably be higher if they want to do the job right and prevent drug mixing like you so vehemently desire to prevent.
What small drug tax? GST is at ten percent, and a gram of cocaine can cost up to a hundred dollars around here. Either way, it's not liek the government actually has to pay to make it sanitary, factories do that themselves, and if they don't, charge them, if they start selling illegaly, make them pay back their taxes (as we do with all tax cheats) and continue to fine them for unsafe business practises. if they import drugs, collect tarifs, if they don't pay the tarifs, again, punish them as tax cheats. Simple.

QUOTE
No, it's not that logic. Maybe the current system does that and goddammit I know it because I've been through it, but it's not the logic I'm using. People need help from those in a community and they need to stop being vilified. Legalizing drugs will still leave many people vilifying these users and that is a giant social problem. Giant. It's bigger than your obsession with increasing your coffers. Some compassion and understanding is a hard thing to reach though, I will admit.

What does compassion have to do with it? if anything, you are the one who is using no compassion, becuase you want to throw the users in jail. You might say you don't, but outlawing the sale and no the use of drugs, will only leave us with either dealers getting off by saying it's for personal use, or users getting locked up for intent to sell.

If you want to help drug users, legalizing drugs is the only way that they can get treatment as people with actual problems.

QUOTE
It seems most fatalities occur from cop stupidity and abuse of power. Something that I agree on wholeheartedly.
So you don't want the cops to abuse thier power, but you want them to keep the power? Absurd.

QUOTE
End the War on Drugs, but don't legalize drugs and I'll be satisfied.
So you want to have your cake and eat it too? If drugs aren't legalized, the government is still fighting a war against them - you can't have it both ways.

QUOTE
Find another solution because this one is not feasible
This one is very feasible. You haven't showed why it won't work, you've only brought up the very small issue of tax cheats.

QUOTE
nor have you convinced me it'll stop drug problems

Nothing is going to stop drug problems, I thought you realized that by now? I only want people to have the freedom to make their own decissions, rather than having society or and the government make them for them - all that has done is made the problems worse.

CODE
... no. I haven't stuck to one side of the pole in this entire argument. The govt doesn't know best because it started the War on Drugs and it is letting the FBI and the fucking police to do the job terribly and getting away with it. I know the govt fucks things up, tell me where did I explicitly say I support what the govt does always? I haven't; you're making hasty generalizations

There is no middle way between legalization and the war on drugs. Even if drugs are decriminalized, the government is fighting a war against their sale.

CODE
Fair enough, but let it be known that personal use at home is fine by me but not drug factories.

As i've said before, if it is legal to use at home you will end up with eitherd ealers getting off by saying it's for personal use, or users getting locked up for possesion with intent to sell.

CODE
But your main stance is that you wish not to pay for it, not that you have full compassion with users.

Does that make my argument less valid?

And it's not just that, there' alos alot of moral issues with my money being spent on having consenting adults who are amkign a business arangement arrested, when they are not hurting me at all.

CODE
Btw, the plight of the children losing their father is something much more complicated because you are bringing into subject the quality of adoptive services and so on.

It has nothing to do with adoptive services, even if you go to a good foster home, your father being locked up wil lalways be a massive drag.

CODE
What seems may not always be what is. This is a very bad argument against my integrity because I'm not suggesting I actually know how to solve the problem adeptly. You are. You feel you have the answer, while I'm playing the skeptic.

You don't get to play the skeptic, becuase you are the one who is advocating an action (prohibition) while I'm saying we should treat drugs like any other commodity. I am skeptical of the statists and their absurdly radical ideads.
P-nut
Alright, the good ole' "to legalise or not to legalise"-argument again. Here are my two cents... (and forgive me for saying anything others may have already said; I simply got bored reading all of the long-ass replies [mostly Skinny and punxtr who did have a nice argument going but got stuck in repeated themselves over and over] and on top of that I simply want my entire opinion to get across...)

Now first of all, I believe all drugs should be legal, taxed and regulated by the government, and yes, even produced by them. In the ideal case, which is definately NOT going to happen, at least not in my lifetime, they should be FREE (sorry for raising a totally different issue altogether... if you want be to elaborate, ask, for now I'll leave it be, since it involves my theories for a better world which will distract us from the issue at hand).

First of all, I'd like to make a comparison between the situation in my country (the Netherlands) and that in the rest of Europe and the US. For the people who don't know, marijuana usage, selling, and growing (on a small scale) is condoned here (not legal; it is a strange system, but I'll get to this later). Also, possession of hard drugs in small quantities is allowed. Generally, we have an open-minded way of dealing with drug-issues (the tendency towards this is changing because of our current neo-christian/conservative government, but I'll not bore you with national politics).
Let's look at some data comparing holland and the us:

EDIT: HMM I CANT GET THIS TABLE COPIED DECENTLY. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW FOR A BETTER VIEW
Social Indicator / Comparison Year / USA / Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) / 2001 / 36.9% *1 / 17.0% *2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) / 2001 / 5.4% *1 / 3.0% *2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) / 2001 / 1.4% *1 / 0.4% *2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population / 2002 / 701 *3 / 100 *4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) / 1998 / €379 *5 / €223 *5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average / 1999-2001 / 5.56 *6 / 1.51 *6

Sources:
*1: US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.
*2: Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.
*3: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3, Table 2.
*4: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 5, Table 4.
*5: van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control" (Netherlands: Ministry of Justice, June 2000), p. 9, Table S.13.
*6: Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001," Issue 12/03 (London, England: Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate, October 2003), p. 10, Table 1.1.

(I copied this table from this page, and I'll refer to it later on as well.)
As you can see, critisists of our drug-policies can shove their argument of how it encourages people to use drugs down the drain. Criminalising something actually does. There are tons of more studies to be found to point this out.
To generally paint a picture: drug use is much lower in the netherlands if compared to other western countries. If you are too lame to search for additional research to back this, ask me and I'll happily comply.
To go one step further, most drug-related problems like violence or, as NCP pointed out earlier, suicide whilst on drugs (a recent inquiry pointed out btw that it is not proven this french girl was even high on shrooms at the time of her suicide; the mass-media simply copy-pasted a rumour as a fact), come from foreigners who come to my country and go totally berserk with all the freedom they get here, which they dont have in their own country. I live close to the "tri-nation point" (I just made up that term litteraly translating it from dutch; not a clue if there's a decent english word for it) where holland, belgium and germany meet. Also, my city is the closest dutch city if you come from france (Maastricht, google-map it if you want to know where exactly it is). Therefor, there is lots of drug-tourism here with all it's accompanying problems, and I experienced this first handed.
The point I'm trying to make is that a healthy attitude towards drugs, not one of condemnation and criminalisation but one of information and consent, is the better solution for dealing with drug-problems.

On top of this, I firmly believe every person has the right to decide what to do with his or her body whatever they want to. Also, if people want to use drugs, you cannot stop them, and, Skinny made this point several times already, I'd rather want that money going to the government then to some shady characters. There will always be a market for illegal things.

On the issue of health, yes, government regulation DOES have a positive effect on the quality of drugs. I've seen for myself dealers spraying hairspray on weed to make it heavier. I have snorted cocaine that contained unhealthy byproduct, making me feel like shit for a few days and making my nose sting like a motherfucker. Not to mention dealers lacing their coke with heroin to make their clients addicted without their knowing. And tons more examples of cases where decent regulation would end this malpractise. Yes, black market business will always exist next to a regulated system, but it forces dealers to drasticly improve their quality to compete with the rest, or their clients will simply go away.

Now, whe have special programmes where hard drugs are provided to serious addicts to prevent them from commiting criminal acts to get money to fund their habit. This happens in places where they are also allowed to use it, keeping them off the streets, and where they are informed about possibilities of detox-clinics and rehabilitation programmes. A very good system in my opinion.

On the flaws of our system and how it should be: in holland, weed is still illegal. However, we have a policy of allowing people to smoke, grow (limited to a few plants) and for coffee-shop to sell weed. However, a coffee-shop is not allowed to buy their product for themselves, meaning it magically has to appear in the coffeeshop (this is called the 'back-door problem'). Because of that, coffee-shop are still forced to get their product from the illegal trade which is dominated by organised crime (and especially, sorry to sound like a bigot, gypsies). My solution to this is government-controlled or regulated cultivation, ensuring not only that the profits do not only end up in the pockets of mobsters, but also the quality. As an added effect, you can hire the specialists (read: gypsies) who are experts in the growing and cultivation of marijuana, raising them out of the illegal circuit as well, reducing the chance of them becoming social parias if they are caught, which in turn is good for their integration in society and therefor equality of all citizens and reduction of discrimination. To my great joy there have been congresses of mayors and other regional politicians discussing this very issue. Legislation is only held back by the national government.

There are alot more arguments I'd want to lay across, but this is enough for now (or this post will get too chaotic) so this is all for the moment. If someone wants be to clearify or back up claims I made, I'd be happy to.

Also, if people are interested, I'm working on a translation for a paper I've written in dutch on the political and social situation in holland and the rest of europe, containing a big part about this subject. The big problem is that I lack the skill in the english language to correctly translate my writings to accurately reflect my viewpoints, so it's a very slow process rolleyes.gif
TheAnalogKid2112
I voted Medicinal drugs should be legal, and soft recreational drugs (marijuana, LSD, MDMA) should be decrminalized, while hard drugs should be illegal, but I only feel marijuana should be legal. LSD and MDMA are addictive, and I consider them to be "hard" drugs. Marijuana is simply.... ahhh. But that's how I feel. We need to legalize just that and we'd have a much more peaceful country..
Skinny 
QUOTE(TheAnalogKid2112 @ Dec 28 2008, 07:04 AM) [snapback]1476830[/snapback]
LSD and MDMA are addictive, and I consider them to be "hard" drugs.

Okay, first off, LSD isn't addictive at all. Secondly, things like MDMA are only psychologically addictive; no physicalchemicals in the drug lead to addiction. Any high can be mentally addictive, that's why people can be psychologically addicted to things like riding the rollercoaster, video games and sex (infact, I would assert that the latter two are much more addictive than any soft drugs.
istealkegs
QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Nov 19 2008, 01:01 AM) [snapback]1472123[/snapback]
My main problem is with Marijuana.

And I guess it comes from my best friend in High School. I don't see him anymore, and its because of marijuana.
He started smoking it in 12th grade. I thought to myself, "Oh Well".
But then I learned that he was going to this guys house every day before school to get high. Again, not my business but it worried me a bit.
Then I knew it was getting bad when he, and this guy had a massive movie collection, started selling his DVDs and he sold his xbox 360 for money to get weed.
He got arrested for possession, got off put on probation.
The whole time he was on probation he kept smoking it even though he had drug tests to take. It was some kind of victory over the man to pass them when he had smoked it.
Well he got off probation and continued to smoke it.
He used to be a funny guy, full of life, and I saw him not to long ago, he has no personality at all.
Hes like talking to a wall.
And on top of that he got arrested again for possession and resisting arrest. Got tazed and maced.

The drug changed him. It went from a once a week thing, to a daily habit. To now something he spends almost his entire pay check on.
He used to have dreams of getting out the town we live in, he was always like "You and me, we're gonna get out of here man, we're going to make it."
Thats all just a nice memory.

Before you tell me I'm wrong for not liking marijuana because of that. Go fuck yourself. I don't care if its legalized or not, but I'm not going to like it.

The only thing legalizing would do in my opinion, is let people do the drugs in public, or have it on them without being arrested.



Maybe your friend has no personality around you because he feels like can't act himself.... he knows that you LOOK at him like he has a problem... whether you say it or not...

I am a pot smoker. I smoke every day. It is my medicine.

Since I started smoking, several years ago, I have run into people from high school and the past. I too must've appeared to have no personality like your friend... but it was never that I LOST my personality... I just felt that I didn't share the same ideas and lifestyle choices with those people any more. I find it very difficult to conversate with people who are anti-marijuana, regardless of the subject being discussed.

However, when I am with my pot smoking friends, I am the same person I was back in the day... full of life, and personality... maybe you friend just doesn't feel comfortable around you any more...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.