Archive

The War on Drugs

  • I Wear Pants
    gut;788651 wrote:Do you oppose speed limits? People can drive safely at 150mph, so the responsible thing to do is eliminate speed limits, correct?
    Quit trying to paste others arguments into different scenarios to make them look bad instead of actually supporting your opinion. But since you won't I'll just start doing it too.
    gut;788647 wrote:It can be used without infringing on the rights of others, but we KNOW many will not. This is the problem of social ills - there has to be a balance between those who use responsibly and the impacts of those who will not. No one starts using with the intention of getting addicted. I disagree, reallly, that you have the right to take a gamble - an unnecessary one at that - where if you lose so do many other people.
    Do you think we should outlaw driving cars? No one starts out with the intention of killing someone with their car but it happens.

    People know the dangers of alcohol and tobacco and yet still consume them
    The vast majority of them do so responsibly. Are you suggesting that you would outlaw both alcohol and tobacco if you could? While you're at it why not tell us what else you don't want us to put in our bodies?
    gut;788495 wrote:It's not a justification to invite more problems by making more harmful substances available. And where are all the dead bodies and social ills from caffeine? I mean, seriously?

    You legaliize just marijuana, and nothing substantial is going to change. You legalize everything, and you're making a trade-off inviting a whole host of other issues and praying there's a net benefit.

    We'll disagree on this. You legalize marijuana and a whole lot changes for the better. You legalize everything else and it's a bit more unclear but everything I've read suggests that it would likely be a positive result.

    And then there's the whole personal liberty thing that I think is worth considering too.
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;788847 wrote:

    The vast majority of them do so responsibly. Are you suggesting that you would outlaw both alcohol and tobacco if you could? While you're at it why not tell us what else you don't want us to put in our bodies?




    And then there's the whole personal liberty thing that I think is worth considering too.

    except with alcohol, i can drink one beer or two without the intent of getting drunk. i dont know anyone who would smoke marijuana or snort cocaine without the intent of getting high.

    well, and personal liberty until its time to get welfare for doing legal activity. then you want personal liberties infringed upon.
  • I Wear Pants
    So you have an inherent problem with people getting drunk or high then?

    And could you clarify what you mean by the second line please? I don't know if I quite understand what you're getting at.
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;788931 wrote:So you have an inherent problem with people getting drunk or high then?

    And could you clarify what you mean by the second line please? I don't know if I quite understand what you're getting at.

    isnt that what drugs are for? getting high? drugs wouldnt be a problem if they didnt get you high.

    second line is a reference to the florida welfare thread.
  • Bigred1995
    gut,
    First of all, I think your little digs at my knowledge of economics are completely and utterly ridiculous, and scream of desperation! But you know what? I don't have an extensive background in Economics. Actually I've only had one Economics class and that was a Macro Econ. class my Jr. year in college, because as a Computer Science Major with an emphasis in math, I simply didn't need to take any more than that! So an Economist, I am not! I am however, a GIS Specialist with more than adequate education and experience. I may not be an Economist, but I do analyze data everyday, so I do know what I'm talking about. But you're right, my knowledge of economics are dismal at best, so I got to thinking, what if, like everything else you've posted so far, what you've posted about the economics is nothing but a bunch of shit! So I decided to put my Google skills to the test! Guess what I found?
    You said, "...even Harvard economists are capable of bad theories and junk science." in regards to Jeffrey Miron, but what about a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences recipient Milton Friedman AND Nobel Laureate George Akerlof AND Daron Acemoglu of MIT,AND Howard Margolis of the University of Chicago, AND Walter Williams of George Mason University plus 500 or so other Economists, are they "capable of bad theories and junk science" together at the same time?
    Time to Legalize Marijuana? - 500+ Economists Endorse Marijuana Legalization
    Anyone who has ever read Milton Friedman's Free To Choose (a book everyone interested in Economics should read at some point in their life) knows that Friedman is a staunch supporter of the legalization of marijuana. Friedman isn't alone in that regard, as he joined over 500 economists in signing An Open Letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures on the benefits of legalizing marijuana. Friedman isn't the only well known economist to sign the letter, it was also signed by Nobel Laureate George Akerlof and other notable economists including Daron Acemoglu of MIT, Howard Margolis of the University of Chicago, and Walter Williams of George Mason University.
    So all of these intelligent people are wrong and you're right?
  • I Wear Pants
    Glory Days;788955 wrote:isnt that what drugs are for? getting high? drugs wouldnt be a problem if they didnt get you high.

    second line is a reference to the florida welfare thread.
    So you have a problem with people getting drunk/high is what I asked.
  • O-Trap
    gut;788647 wrote:It can be used without infringing on the rights of others, but we KNOW many will not.
    So prosecute those who do not, but the abuse of a right by some is not grounds for denying that right to the whole.
    gut;788647 wrote:This is the problem of social ills - there has to be a balance between those who use responsibly and the impacts of those who will not.
    Indeed. The balance is, those who use without infringing on anyone's rights are not prohibited, but those who do are prosecuted. Same as alcohol. If you drink without infringing rights, you are free to drink. The moment you infringe on others rights, whether a result of drugs or alcohol, you are prosecuted. I don't understand what the objection would be to this.

    Would you mind answering that? I'm curious on your input.
    gut;788647 wrote:No one starts using with the intention of getting addicted. I disagree, reallly, that you have the right to take a gamble - an unnecessary one at that - where if you lose so do many other people.
    Indeed nobody starts using with the intention of becoming addicted, but in most cases it takes more than occasional use, and as with anything that can be chemically addictive, you take that risk by partaking in it in the first place.

    Also, again, if you lose, it's not a foregone conclusion that others WILL either. And if my behavior, whether under the influence or not, causes infringement on others' rights, I am held responsible. Not the drugs or the drug use.
    gut;788647 wrote:It's an extreme example, but you realize if everyone finds a drug to get addicted to it's beyond disastrous. And you're arguing to increase the opportunities for addiction, and I think that is grossly irresponsible.
    I'm arguing to increase the opportunities to be personally responsible for your actions. You're arguing that because some will fail to be responsible, that nobody should even have the right to exhibit responsibility in this instance.

    Do you condone this sort of practice across any and all such substances?
    gut;788647 wrote:Nor do I by that people are going to ignore it because they've been educated. You know damn well people don't think like that, they don't think they are going to suffer from trying it once or get addicted from doing it a few times.
    Actually, I don't know a single person who wasn't taught that if they've come up in the public school system.

    Moreover, part of being responsible would be knowing what you're putting in your body.
    gut;788647 wrote:And the more people they see try it and not get addicted, the more likely they will be to try it. People know the dangers of alcohol and tobacco and yet still consume them.
    Yes, they assume personal responsibility in doing so, as well. If I get into an automobile accident while I'm intoxicated, is it the fault of the alcohol, or is it the fault of the person who consumed it and then drove? It's the latter, regardless of what he thought or didn't think.

    I understand the dangers of alcohol, but I occasionally enjoy a glass or two of beer on a given evening. Should I be denied that right because the two people that live behind me got drunk and shot a hole into my window one evening? By your argument, the answer is yes.

    By mine, the answer is no. I should not be denied. They should simply be punished just as they would have been had they been stone sober while committing the same act.
    gut;788647 wrote:I don't know how you can make a rational argument that increased supply/availability isn't going to increase usage.
    Sweet Moses. Point out one place where I have even suggested this. If you have actually been reading my replies, I've gone so far as to agree with you that it WILL increase USE. I can cite myself, if you'd like.

    My point is that it isn't the legislature's responsibility to make that decision for me, because it is an action that I can do or refrain from doing without infringing on the rights of others. No offense to Congress, but I DON'T entrust my decisions to them, and I don't assume that "they know what's best for me."
    gut;788647 wrote:People just don't wake-up one day and decide "hmmm, I really want to try coke" and then go seek it out in a risky side of town and risk being arrested.
    Correct. They're very often hooked on it by using milder drugs that have been laced with it ... something that could be prevented if drug manufacturing and selling was as strictly regulated as food is. However, regulation will never take place as long as drugs are illegal, and lacing will continue to be a practice of drug pushers, because it's good for their business.
    gut;788647 wrote:Completely different ballgame when they walk past a coffee shop or see it on the store shelf and think "yeah, why not give it a try".
    Have you been reading anyone's posts? It would not be sold in coffee shops or the local grocer, and not a single person here is suggesting that it should. They're suggesting distribution centers, which will not have display windows.
    gut;788647 wrote:And, no, I don't favor legalizing marijuana because I don't really see the point.
    You don't see the point of allowing an individual to make his own decisions instead of allowing the government to make everyone's decisions for them?
    gut;788647 wrote:I cannot support legalizing all drugs, well I guess I'm indifferent with marijuana not seeing any great benefit or risk. Certainly I can support decriminalizing at least marijuana.

    Why? After all, it is such a social ill.
    gut;788651 wrote:Do you oppose speed limits? People can drive safely at 150mph, so the responsible thing to do is eliminate speed limits, correct?

    I don't oppose the right of local constituencies to vote on speed limits for certain areas, but I do oppose speed limits being imposed and enforced on every road in America, yes.

    And according to many studies, people are INCREDIBLY unsafe drivers at speeds that high (professional drivers aside), so that statement isn't even a true one.
    I Wear Pants;788931 wrote:So you have an inherent problem with people getting drunk or high then?

    Yes. You don't have a right to decide what you put into your body, because others who put the same stuff in their body (in varying quantities, with varying regularity) have done ... and will do ... stupid things while under its influence.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;788955 wrote:isnt that what drugs are for? getting high? drugs wouldnt be a problem if they didnt get you high.

    There are varying degrees of high, just as there are varying degrees of drunk. Saying drugs wouldn't be a problem if they didn't get you high is like saying alcohol wouldn't be a problem if it didn't get you buzzed/drunk, or trans fat wouldn't be a problem if it made you less healthy.
  • Anna-Town
    I am completely in favor of legalizing marijuana. Some of the other drugs though, not so much.

    Economically you could make a very convincing argument that legalizing everything would make a positive impact on the economy, but I am completely against legalizing something that; could kill a person the first time they use it, or is so addicting that is is almost impossible to use without becoming addicted.

    Ecstasy and cocaine: Both have good evidence or killing people the first time they use it. Cocaine can stress the heart to unnatural levels and induce heart attacks. Ecstasy, possibly the most dangerous drug, it is very common for people to suffer severe hyperthermia and die while taking ecstasy, especially if they are not consuming large amounts of water, if they are in a hot place, or if they are exercising while on it (aka dancing).

    Heroin and Crystal meth: Both are extremely addicting. People say the high from these drugs are so intense that the person becomes obsessed with attempting to reach that high again. One use is all it takes to become addicted to these.

    Aside: You could argue that alcohol can kill you the first time you use it. First, people have attempted to ban alcohol many times throughout history and it has worked zero times, it is useless to even talk about banning alcohol, it will never happen. Second, the body has natural defense mechanisms against alcohol. Specifically, passing out and vomiting, one or both of these mechanisms should kick in before someone dies from alcohol poisoning.
  • gut
    Bigred1995;788961 wrote:Milton Friedman AND Nobel Laureate George Akerlof AND Daron Acemoglu of MIT,AND Howard Margolis of the University of Chicago, AND Walter Williams of George Mason University plus 500 or so other Economists, are they "capable of bad theories and junk science" together at the same time?
    Time to Legalize Marijuana? - 500+ Economists Endorse Marijuana Legalization

    I've said I don't see the big stink about legalizing marijuana, I just don't see it producing all the benefits people claim. Drug cartels aren't only about marijuana. The DEA doesn't watch coke go by waiting for marijuana.

    Many of those economists are coming from the perspective that legalization will reduce crime. I don't disagree, but it's more of an all-or-nothing. I'd also point out that academics, even economists, aren't immune to sacrificing sound theory when it comes to expressing political views. How many libertarians in that bunch? And free markets don't usually like much govt regulation of anything. Also note that saying legalizing will reduce crime is really cherry-picking to avoid the overall merits by consideration of the externalities. Did see a report talking about the potential for organized crime to destabilize some countries, which is a fair point and another valid consideration (that one for legalization).

    Show me their academic, peer reviewed papers with the theory and data supporting it (not a book for profit, ala Miron, ala Kotlikoff, ala Levitt), and then you will convince me it's sound theory more than expression of a political view. Even sound theories frequently fall apart in real world practice. I see these guys making a valid point on crime, and then using that as an opportunity to make political statements. I don't have a horse in this race, just think that purely from an ROI standpoint it's worse, and potentially much worse with legalization.

    The theory of legalization has a long way to go before it warrants real consideration. I wouldn't have an issue with pot if I can be 100% convinced it is safer than tobacco (and there seems to be some compelling research, but I'm talking objective, validated and peer reviewed and maybe it's out there but I haven't really dove into it)...Otherwise after making strides to reduce tobacco smoking and battling a major health crisis stemming from it, it seems foolish to throw marijuana in the mix if it's equally unsafe.

    My point is, the concept is gaining a lot of support and there is some empirical data to suggest positive externalities. Basically, it clearly warrants an extensive study and not cherry picking because I fear we will just continue to chase our tail simply trading one problem for another. And that trade-off could certainly be a preferable outcome, but we need those outcomes quantified and to understand the assumptions being made, especially when you are talking about theories and assumptions that run counter-intuitive to real world observation and other theories. That's how you distinguish junk science and political views from something with some teeth.
  • gut
    O-Trap;789383 wrote:Have you been reading anyone's posts? It would not be sold in coffee shops or the local grocer, and not a single person here is suggesting that it should. They're suggesting distribution centers, which will not have display windows.

    You don't see the point of allowing an individual to make his own decisions instead of allowing the government to make everyone's decisions for them?
    Ummm, I'm referring to Amsterdam style coffer shops. I would have though that's pretty obvious to anyone reading the thread, but it's shown time and again people who throw that insult around are usually guilty of it beforehand.

    And your second comment, let's back up the bus here...When an individual decision impacts others in the society (as it does here, with healthcare costs), society has a right to impose restriction on you. It's no different than if you make unhealthy lifestyle choice, or in bad health as a result, you'll pay a higher insurance premium. In other words, the free market at work does hold you accountable for the choices you make. So let's stop the ridiculous pretense that society bears no impact from someone's decision to use drugs. And as a member of that society, you have to live by the rules of that society. And last I checked, our govt is elected. Locally these measures have been voted down - CA of all places rejected legalization of marijuana.
  • gut
    Y-Town Steelhound;788618 wrote:So gut are you saying that marijuana should be the only drug prohibition that could reasonably be lifted?
    Probably not, but we're going to go back to whether it's responsible to increase the choice of harmful drugs for recreation. Presumably, many of these are illegal for a reason in the first place. Caffeine, for example, is certainly a stimulant but I'm not aware of any real side effects from prolonged exposure, i.e. I don't see a negative economic impact as a result.

    A major impetus behind all this is the crime, and I don't expect legalization to be very effective if some popular drugs are excluded. Keep in mind, as well, some of these drugs are actually medically legal (painkillers, etc..), so when you talk about regulation and restrictions, something short of putting it on the shelf at Walmart, expect to see black markets of various forms remain.

    You're going to establish a potency...well the marijuana from the guy on the corner is WAYYYY better, dude, than the shit they sell you at Walmart. And then we have new drugs cropping up all the time. I presume there'd have to be some approval process and testing, etc... A crazy new drug ain't going to wait for that, but the blackmarket will be ready to push it. Hell, Big Pharma might decide it's more profitable to start cooking the next great designer drug (yeah, that'd be a hell of a benefit). Not that this is particularly likely, but there are A LOT of potential consequences (mostly negative) that people aren't considering or ignoring for a rather naive acceptance of a concept that hasn't been remotely vetted to the needed degree.
  • Bigred1995
    gut;789915 wrote:
    Bigred1995;788961 wrote:Milton Friedman AND Nobel Laureate George Akerlof AND Daron Acemoglu of MIT,AND Howard Margolis of the University of Chicago, AND Walter Williams of George Mason University plus 500 or so other Economists, are they "capable of bad theories and junk science" together at the same time?
    Time to Legalize Marijuana? - 500+ Economists Endorse Marijuana Legalization
    I've said I don't see the big stink about legalizing marijuana, I just don't see it producing all the benefits people claim. Drug cartels aren't only about marijuana. The DEA doesn't watch coke go by waiting for marijuana.
    No they don't, but imagine all of the other drugs they could concentrate on if they did just let Marijuana go by? You could also make the argument that there's a chance that the people that deal in these other drugs would look to make an easier buck by switching to Marijuana.
    gut;789915 wrote: Many of those economists are coming from the perspective that legalization will reduce crime. I don't disagree, but it's more of an all-or-nothing. I'd also point out that academics, even economists, aren't immune to sacrificing sound theory when it comes to expressing political views. How many libertarians in that bunch? And free markets don't usually like much govt regulation of anything.
    So, you're telling me that all 500+ of those economists are only doing this for political reasons? There aren't any Democrats or Republicans in the bunch(one of them was an economic advisor to U.S. President Ronald Reagan)? And if memory serves me correctly, aren't Republican in favor of a smaller federal government? At the very least shouldn't this be an issue for the states?
    gut;789915 wrote:Also note that saying legalizing will reduce crime is really cherry-picking to avoid the overall merits by consideration of the externalities. Did see a report talking about the potential for organized crime to destabilize some countries, which is a fair point and another valid consideration (that one for legalization).
    "some countries" or the United States? Last I checked, I live in the United States and the potential for organized crime to destabilize the country is very small! Also, are you suggesting that the only motivation that "organized crime" would have to "destabilize some countries" would be the legalization of Marijuana, really?
    gut;789915 wrote: Show me their academic, peer reviewed papers with the theory and data supporting it (not a book for profit, ala Miron, ala Kotlikoff, ala Levitt), and then you will convince me it's sound theory more than expression of a political view. Even sound theories frequently fall apart in real world practice. I see these guys making a valid point on crime, and then using that as an opportunity to make political statements. I don't have a horse in this race, just think that purely from an ROI standpoint it's worse, and potentially much worse with legalization.
    Seriously, over 500 economist signed off on this, including some of the most highly regarded economist in the world; how much more peer review do you want it to get?
    gut;789915 wrote: The theory of legalization has a long way to go before it warrants real consideration. I wouldn't have an issue with pot if I can be 100% convinced it is safer than tobacco (and there seems to be some compelling research, but I'm talking objective, validated and peer reviewed and maybe it's out there but I haven't really dove into it)...Otherwise after making strides to reduce tobacco smoking and battling a major health crisis stemming from it, it seems foolish to throw marijuana in the mix if it's equally unsafe.

    My point is, the concept is gaining a lot of support and there is some empirical data to suggest positive externalities. Basically, it clearly warrants an extensive study and not cherry picking because I fear we will just continue to chase our tail simply trading one problem for another. And that trade-off could certainly be a preferable outcome, but we need those outcomes quantified and to understand the assumptions being made, especially when you are talking about theories and assumptions that run counter-intuitive to real world observation and other theories. That's how you distinguish junk science and political views from something with some teeth.
    So far the only people that use "junk science and political views" are the people opposed to legalization. Post some real statistics that legalization would be detrimental to society as a whole then maybe your position can be taken seriously! And I mean actualy statistics not your version of "common sense"!
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;788966 wrote:So you have a problem with people getting drunk/high is what I asked.
    yes. i dont believe drug use is good for society.
    O-Trap;789388 wrote:There are varying degrees of high, just as there are varying degrees of drunk. Saying drugs wouldn't be a problem if they didn't get you high is like saying alcohol wouldn't be a problem if it didn't get you buzzed/drunk, or trans fat wouldn't be a problem if it made you less healthy.

    yeah, but does anyone do drugs without wanting to get high? you can drink a glass of wine at dinner for the purpose making the dinner better, not getting drunk.
  • gut
    Bigred1995;790033 wrote: So far the only people that use "junk science and political views" are the people opposed to legalization. Post some real statistics that legalization would be detrimental to society as a whole then maybe your position can be taken seriously! And I mean actualy statistics not your version of "common sense"!

    Again, when you make claims that defy conventional wisdom (and increased use with increase availability and distribution is conventional wisdom, proven thousands of times in the business world) the honus is on you to show why that claim is valid. I don't need to provide stats to support common sense. It's not a difficult concept. Where is the data that legalization is going to bring all these great benefits? There isn't any because drugs aren't legal anywhere (a few places have decriminalized, which is still very different).

    It's very different from an economist agreeing legalization would reduce crime. If that's the goal, that's fine. But as a policy you have to consider the externalities. It's easy to make a political statement. It's entirely different to put your name and reputation on a piece of paper subjected to peer review and scrutiny (please, point me to this peer-reviewed academic research you are referring to because I'd love to read it). A pure free market person (which most economists tend to be) or libretarian can easily support legalization without any concern or consideration for negative externalities. It's not nearly enough for an economist to say "yeah, I agree with that" on something of this magnitude.

    I'm just pointing out it's entirely possible to validate and supports aspects of legalization. That doesn't make it a good policy because the externalities do (and should) matter.
  • gut
    Bigred1995;790033 wrote:"some countries" or the United States? Last I checked, I live in the United States and the potential for organized crime to destabilize the country is very small! Also, are you suggesting that the only motivation that "organized crime" would have to "destabilize some countries" would be the legalization of Marijuana, really?

    Do you put any thought into what is being said, or do you just blindly attack divergent points of view? I've conceded many valid points for legalization, but what I see from the other side is almost blanket denial of very real, common sense negatives pretending as if they don't and can't exist.

    First off, destabilization is not my idea. It was mentioned in the international committee that just recommended EXPLORING legalization and further decriminilization. I also said this was a PRO for legalization, yet you somehow come out attacking me as if I suggest destabilization was a risk to the US and an argument against legalization. What they were referring to is countries in Latin America being destabilized by these powerful drug cartels - I have no idea why you thought it had anything to do with marijuana or that I was suggesting as much. Now, while I said that's a point worth considering, I love your reaction - "I live in the US, why do I care" which is to say how much importance do we place on this risk. Pre-9/11 I'd have said almost none, but certainly terrorism and drug havens aren't the only consideration.
  • I Wear Pants
    Glory Days;790157 wrote:yes. i dont believe drug use is good for society.



    yeah, but does anyone do drugs without wanting to get high? you can drink a glass of wine at dinner for the purpose making the dinner better, not getting drunk.
    What is the problem with getting drunk/high?

    There isn't one. The problem is people doing illegal/stupid things while drunk or high. Much like guns or knives aren't a problem, but people who use them for nefarious purposes are. Unless you also want to accept that we should get rid of those too I don't see how you can argue that as a main reason to keep them illegal/spend ungodly amounts of money/create the violent criminal underground it does.

    And I think American Idol and other shitty pop music and movies are bad for society but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. I just won't use them.


    Gut, "it's common sense" is not an argument at all. It's a logical fallacy.
  • O-Trap
    gut;789933 wrote:Ummm, I'm referring to Amsterdam style coffer shops. I would have though that's pretty obvious to anyone reading the thread, but it's shown time and again people who throw that insult around are usually guilty of it beforehand.

    You were responding to my post, and I had made no such reference. As such, it was HARDLY obvious.

    However, I see your point, and I WOULD agree that it should not be available in coffee shops.
    gut;789933 wrote:And your second comment, let's back up the bus here...When an individual decision impacts others in the society (as it does here, with healthcare costs), society has a right to impose restriction on you.

    Why is the healthcare cost placed on society? I would contend that THAT is the problem. Not the drug use.

    Moreover, the increase in healthcare cost is not a foregone conclusion, even with drug use.
    gut;789933 wrote:It's no different than if you make unhealthy lifestyle choice, or in bad health as a result, you'll pay a higher insurance premium. In other words, the free market at work does hold you accountable for the choices you make. So let's stop the ridiculous pretense that society bears no impact from someone's decision to use drugs.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect here is. When you make unhealthy lifestyle choices (of which drug use would be one), YOU pay a higher insurance premium. Not society. You. The free market is the very thing that would prevent drug use from being any more a drain on society than food rich in saturated fat (from a healthcare perspective).
    gut;789933 wrote:And as a member of that society, you have to live by the rules of that society.

    Naturally. If I would suggest otherwise, then I wouldn't care about the legality of drug use, because I would be a proponent of "doing it anyway." I'm not, and I believe that reform can, and should, take place without disregarding the law of the land prior to any changes to it.
    gut;789933 wrote:And last I checked, our govt is elected. Locally these measures have been voted down - CA of all places rejected legalization of marijuana.

    California as a state is actually pretty conservative. It's the loud pockets of liberals making noise that makes it seem otherwise (San Francisco, LA, Oakland, Hollywood, etc.). There's a reason the state also voted down same-sex marriages.
    Glory Days;790157 wrote:yes. i dont believe drug use is good for society.
    I don't believe tobacco use, alcohol abuse, or sedentary lifestyles are, either.
    Glory Days;790157 wrote:yeah, but does anyone do drugs without wanting to get high? you can drink a glass of wine at dinner for the purpose making the dinner better, not getting drunk.
    The parallel of tobacco can be just as easily substituted in.
  • majorspark
    Bigred1995;790033 wrote:And if memory serves me correctly, aren't Republican in favor of a smaller federal government? At the very least shouldn't this be an issue for the states?
    This is where I stand on the matter. The federal government propagates the war on drugs. They should end their involvement in it. Stop funding drug enforcement and eliminate the DEA. Leave it to the states and their localities to decide which drugs they want to criminalize and which they want regulate.
  • Footwedge
    The war on drugs has cost the tax payers 1 trillion dollars over the past 40 years. Yet, there has been no progress at all in reducing the use of drugs. Our country has the highest per capita population incarcerated, mostly, drug "criminals". This country was founded on freedom and liberty. How much freedom and liberty do we rerally have....when we have millions in jail, for committing non violent offences?

    The war on drugs is a massive failure....and it is just another government created conglomerate put in place to help reduce the overall unemployment rate in our country. There is no "productivity" in chasing drug lords...just more additions to the national debt.
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;790310 wrote:What is the problem with getting drunk/high?

    There isn't one. The problem is people doing illegal/stupid things while drunk or high. Much like guns or knives aren't a problem, but people who use them for nefarious purposes are. Unless you also want to accept that we should get rid of those too I don't see how you can argue that as a main reason to keep them illegal/spend ungodly amounts of money/create the violent criminal underground it does.

    And I think American Idol and other shitty pop music and movies are bad for society but that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. I just won't use them.

    its hard to get drunk/high responsibly/safely. you can use guns/knives responsibly/safely. getting drunk/high will have a negative influence on your decision making abilities. guns/knives doesnt effect your decision making. hmmm so if people do illegal/stupid things while drunk/high, why not eliminate what makes them drunk/high which would eliminate the illegal and stupid activity?

    In 2005 there were 33,000 drug overdoses. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/mar/21/drug_overdose_deaths_are_going_t
    In 2004 there were 649 unintentional firearm deaths. http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
    Even if you add in all other firearm related deaths, its not as many as overdoses.
  • Bigred1995
    gut;790165 wrote:Again, when you make claims that defy conventional wisdom (and increased use with increase availability and distribution is conventional wisdom, proven thousands of times in the business world) the honus is on you to show why that claim is valid. I don't need to provide stats to support common sense. It's not a difficult concept.


    It's not about conventional wisdom, it's already been stated that making drugs legal would more than likely increase availably & distribution; that's not even point of debate! The main points of debate are if the government has the right to tell individuals what they can and cannot put into their bodies and if the act of legalizing would be beneficial overall in both revenue and crime, those are the points of debate.
    I don't know what this "honus" is that you speak of, but the onus is on everyone that wants to have an intellectually honest debate on the topic.
    gut;790165 wrote:Where is the data that legalization is going to bring all these great benefits? There isn't any because drugs aren't legal anywhere (a few places have decriminalized, which is still very different).

    It's very different from an economist agreeing legalization would reduce crime. If that's the goal, that's fine. But as a policy you have to consider the externalities. It's easy to make a political statement. It's entirely different to put your name and reputation on a piece of paper subjected to peer review and scrutiny (please, point me to this peer-reviewed academic research you are referring to because I'd love to read it). A pure free market person (which most economists tend to be) or libretarian can easily support legalization without any concern or consideration for negative externalities. It's not nearly enough for an economist to say "yeah, I agree with that" on something of this magnitude.

    I'm just pointing out it's entirely possible to validate and supports aspects of legalization. That doesn't make it a good policy because the externalities do (and should) matter.
    I'm not sure how you were taught to perform research but everything I know tells me to use all available objective data to make my decisions, terms like "common sense" & "conventional wisdom" have no room in such debates. All of the relevant data has been presented for this debate, and the decision should be made based on those data!
    gut;790181 wrote:Do you put any thought into what is being said, or do you just blindly attack divergent points of view? I've conceded many valid points for legalization, but what I see from the other side is almost blanket denial of very real, common sense negatives pretending as if they don't and can't exist.

    First off, destabilization is not my idea. It was mentioned in the international committee that just recommended EXPLORING legalization and further decriminilization. I also said this was a PRO for legalization, yet you somehow come out attacking me as if I suggest destabilization was a risk to the US and an argument against legalization. What they were referring to is countries in Latin America being destabilized by these powerful drug cartels - I have no idea why you thought it had anything to do with marijuana or that I was suggesting as much. Now, while I said that's a point worth considering, I love your reaction - "I live in the US, why do I care" which is to say how much importance do we place on this risk. Pre-9/11 I'd have said almost none, but certainly terrorism and drug havens aren't the only consideration.
    I guess to go along with your inability to post any relevant data or sources on the topic you also have an inability to post context to your, "out of left field" postings. How in the world was I supposed to know what I have in bold in the quote above based solely on, "Did see a report talking about the potential for organized crime to destabilize some countries, which is a fair point and another valid consideration (that one for legalization)." And how was I supposed to know that, "(that one for legalization)", wasn't some sort of sarcasm? This is why posting links and sources is important for any and all discussion on an Internet forum!
    Glory Days;791121 wrote:its hard to get drunk/high responsibly/safely. you can use guns/knives responsibly/safely. getting drunk/high will have a negative influence on your decision making abilities. guns/knives doesnt effect your decision making. hmmm so if people do illegal/stupid things while drunk/high, why not eliminate what makes them drunk/high which would eliminate the illegal and stupid activity?

    In 2005 there were 33,000 drug overdoses. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/mar/21/drug_overdose_deaths_are_going_t
    In 2004 there were 649 unintentional firearm deaths. http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
    Even if you add in all other firearm related deaths, its not as many as overdoses.
    So, your only concern is the potential for individuals to harm themselves? I would think the potential harm and the infringement on the rights of others would be more of a concern! Lets take a look at those fire arm statistics again...
    How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

    Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
    In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.
    In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rapes. See table 19 "Violent Crime," from Crime in the United States, 2006.)
    Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.

    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
    There are other great numbers at the site.
  • I Wear Pants
    Glory Days;791121 wrote:its hard to get drunk/high responsibly/safely. you can use guns/knives responsibly/safely. getting drunk/high will have a negative influence on your decision making abilities. guns/knives doesnt effect your decision making. hmmm so if people do illegal/stupid things while drunk/high, why not eliminate what makes them drunk/high which would eliminate the illegal and stupid activity?

    In 2005 there were 33,000 drug overdoses. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/mar/21/drug_overdose_deaths_are_going_t
    In 2004 there were 649 unintentional firearm deaths. http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
    Even if you add in all other firearm related deaths, its not as many as overdoses.
    You're cherry picking the unintentional firearm deaths instead of using the full figure.

    As for the bolded, if you're going to make that argument you have to also make the argument to make sedentary lifestyles, bad food, fast cars, loud music, etc illegal. "Some people are irresponsible with it" is not a legitimate reason to outlaw an activity or item. Much like how I think it's stupid that lawn darts can't be sold in the US. Just because some people are stupid with an item and hurt themselves should not mean the rest of society isn't allowed to have it.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;791265 wrote:As for the bolded, if you're going to make that argument you have to also make the argument to make sedentary lifestyles, bad food, fast cars, loud music, etc illegal. "Some people are irresponsible with it" is not a legitimate reason to outlaw an activity or item. Much like how I think it's stupid that lawn darts can't be sold in the US. Just because some people are stupid with an item and hurt themselves should not mean the rest of society isn't allowed to have it.

    Moreover, it provides a breeding ground for the black market, where there is less restriction, less regulation, and less legal protection.

    One person's/group's idiocy does not serve as proof that all act in idiocy under the same circumstances.

    I actually have a set of "Jarts" (lawn darts). They were bought when they were legal, though. :D
  • I Wear Pants
    Lawn darts are fun as hell, I have a set too.