I know that I am usually advocating this kind of thing---but I can't recall whether or not I have actually started a thread regarding ending prohibition.
The reason I am starting this one has to do with my semi-hijacking of the Raji thread and the seemingly growing sentiment that this drug war thing has to come to an end.
Lately, I have found that both my local paper, and the larger metropolitan paper have published pieces calling for dialogue on drug legalization. Even staunch conservative mouthpiece Pat Buchanan has grudgingly addressed the problem with the drug war .
The local paper, The Record Courier , published an article that mentioned the stance taken by The Economist and just yesterday The Plain Dealer ran an article it pulled from The Miami Herald bringing the question of legalization up for discussion yet again.
Its beginning to look as though the journalistic establishment is actively clamoring for a change in global drug policy. There are a growing number of organizations that are citing the wastefulness of The Drug War, and several ranking individuals are coming out and questioning the effectiveness of our drug policy.
Plenty of organizations have websites dedicated to providing information on current drug policy, as well as their organizational goals with regard to drug law reform. Listed below are a few of these websites:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition--http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Students for Sensible Drug Policy--http://ssdp.org/index.php
Already, many nations have adopted more tolerant positions on marijuana, and Portugal, since 2001, has decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs, even so-called “hard-drugs” like cocaine and heroin.
I think that we are starting to realize on a global scale that drug laws need to be changed, and I believe that an end to prohibition will also show a decrease in drug-related violence, a lower rate of incarceration, lower rates of drug use, and better treatment options for addicts.
While a lot of folks have documented Ron Paul's stance on national drug policy, I stumbled on this judge's take on current drug policy, and I think it is well thought out and presented.
Tough topic. One thing I think though, is that well see an end to the war on drugs in the next 20 years, and probably legalization before I die. I just don't necessarily like the ramifications of allowing it. Just like alcohol and cigarettes, you can get addicted so easily. Sure some people have different tolerances for addiction and whatnot.
I dont know, I'm the wrong guy to ask. Personally, I don't care one way or another, I just know that I wont be trying any. Nothing against it, but I wouldn't do it for the same reasons I hate getting drunk, feeling "different" makes me uncomfortable. So whatever the majority decides is fine with me because I literally have no stake in it.
As much as I don't want to see drugs like Heroin, crack or cocain of any type become legal, I understand that it may be that a reasonable argument could be raised in defense of our right to use them.. I'm sure that if I were on the panel to decide, I'd still vote NO,, but I recognize that not everyone will agree.
I just get this overwhelming feeling that the way to stop drug trafficing is NOT to make it legal as some would argue..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Well, and that's to say that making drugs legal would stop the drug trade. You really think that the drug cartels in Mexico and South America would just sit back and let the US government run things?
Hey, it's legal to own guns in this country, yet there are a lot of people who do it illegally still. Who says drugs wouldn't be the same way?
The government legalizes drugs and they're sold for, say, $50. But, there are dealers out there who can get it to you illegally for $25. What are these people going to do? Pay the $50. Yeah, right. So, what problem have we solved?
I don't do drugs, I never have, and I never will. It has nothing to do with the illegality of it, but that I just don't want to. I am friends with a number of guys who were very heavy into that stuff in college when it was pretty accessible and cheap. So, it isn't like the opportunities weren't there. I just didn't want to do it.
They all talked about how drugs should be legal, how it would cut down on crime, how the government could make a lot of money. But, I seriously doubt that these guys would buy the "legal" stuff if it was made legal.
IMO, the proper way to do things is to get people to not NEED to use drugs. Eliminate the demand and a lot of the problems go away.
Quote: I just don't necessarily like the ramifications of allowing it. Just like alcohol and cigarettes, you can get addicted so easily. Sure some people have different tolerances for addiction and whatnot.
Compared to alcohol, I think you would BARELY notice the ramifications. And I'm not even talking about health issues, I'm talking about the threat already posed to society by irresponsible drinkers.
The fact that alcohol is as legal and accessible as it is and certain drugs are not is ridiculous, in my opinion.
One question though. What would that do to drug testing and job applications?
People get defensive if a company says they don't want to hire smokers. What if drugs were legalized, but a company doesn't want to hire drug users. Heroin may be legal, but I don't want some junkie running million dollar machinery and endangering the lives of other workers, because he can't get his fix before quitting time.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Every time I get into one of these debates I am stunned at the way people view drug users. They act as though if you use drugs you are a criminal; dangerous, unaccountable, and irresponsible---but this is not the case.
Many people who use drugs work a job, and put their job and responsibilities first.
You can tell me a Meth or Heroine user can use and still go to work just fine?
I understand a pot smoker can smoke at home, then get up for work no issue, even a coc user could do a line after dinner, and show up to work the next day no problem. But we aren't really talking about those, we are talking about the very addictive drugs.
If they legalize them, would they pick and choose which ones are legalized, or make a sweeping legalization?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: They act as though if you use drugs you are a criminal; dangerous, unaccountable, and irresponsible---but this is not the case.
I won't get into the dangerous and unaccountable part...but if you do drugs then you are a criminal and irresponsible to boot. Last I checked, it's illegal to do drugs - be it pot, crack, coke or otherwise. It is irresponsible to have a flagrant disregard for the law (and I would include speeding as irresponsible too).
Quote: They act as though if you use drugs you are a criminal
Well, isn't that the case?
Fact: Being in possession of drugs is against the law. Fact: In order to use drugs, you must be in possession of them. Fact: Therefore, if you are using drugs, you are violating the law.
Now, what's the word for someone who breaks the law.... It's right on the tip of my tongue.....
Dangerous, unaccountable and irresponsible.
Some drug users are dangerous, some are not. I agree.
Unaccountable: Do you know a lot of drug users who say "yes, I'm breaking the law and if I get caught, I will confess and do my time." No, what I hear is "Yes, I'm breaking the law, but I think it's an unjust law, so it's the government's fault I'm breaking the law, not mine."
Irresponsible: I'm not sure I can think of many more things which are more irresponsible than breaking the law.
Debate whether it should be legal all you want, but don't say that people who are breaking the law aren't criminals.
Quote: but if you do drugs then you are a criminal and irresponsible to boot.
100% percent wrong. This is the type of garbage that I am talking about. It is ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance.
It is not ignorant. Give me RATIONAL explanation of why it's not criminal to do drugs. Last I looked, it was...maybe there have been laws passed in Ohio to decrimilatize that I'm not aware of. I doubt it though. You cannot agrue that it's not criminal to do drugs when it very much IS. Just because YOU feel that it shouldn't be criminal does not make it a truth.
And no matter the law, it's irresponsible to break it, and I break the speeding one everytime I get behind the wheel. If I get caught, it's my damn fault and I pay for it. If I got caught blazing one, then it's my own damn fault for flagrantly breaking the law and I must pay the consequences.
If it was decriminilized, no big deal as I don't care either way. I don't use drugs and rarely even touch alcohol.
Quote: Now, what's the word for someone who breaks the law.... It's right on the tip of my tongue.....
Dangerous, unaccountable and irresponsible.
This is something that would come straight from the mouth of a totalitarian government. It's so black-and-white with an inferred notion that the government knows best and is always right.
What was the infraction? What was the law broken? Under what circumstances did it take place?
Smoking a joint?
Oh, man, lock them up. Take whatever tax dollars from my pocket that you need, but just make sure that this dangerous, unaccountable and irresponsible Phish fan is off the streets!
100% percent wrong. This is the type of garbage that I am talking about. It is ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance.
It is not ignorant. Give me RATIONAL explanation.
I think that's a reach Babe, he's not provided anything rational that I've read yet. Just an "I want it therefore everyone who doesn't is wrong" argument.
No system is perfect. I bet people that don't use "drugs" have caused accidents because of prescriptions. The only way to prevent what you are talking about is everyone taking a test before they are allowed to work.
You are right, no system is perfect. Including the current system.
All I'm saying is before we just open the flood gates on legalized drugs, we look at and understand what we are legalizing, and just like alcohol and cigarettes, have rules in place for abusive consumption.
What people do in their own house is their business, but when their usage affect others, such as driving under the influence, or abusing their children under a drug induced rage.
The consequences for abuse and mis-use must be determined and properly thought out.
Do we want to legalize ALL drugs? Do we want to have age limitations? Do we want to legalize consumption, but not production and/or sale, so our focus would be on dealers and not users in the fight, removing a tons of cases from the court system, not to mention the prison system.
Let's not just open the gates on Hoover Dam and then say "oops, didn't realize we would wash out half a dozen small towns down stream."
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: This is something that would come straight from the mouth of a totalitarian government. It's so black-and-white with an inferred notion that the government knows best and is always right.
Not to interject on 79's behalf.. but he goes on to say....
Quote: Debate whether it should be legal all you want, but don't say that people who are breaking the law aren't criminals.
Nobody is saying the government is always right or that the topic should not be debated or possibly changed... but breaking a law just because you don't agree with it, still makes you a criminal. The definition of the word "criminal" doesn't hinge on your agreement with the law.
I never said it wasn't a 'criminal' act. It most certainly is.
However, he goes on to attach the terms 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' to someone committing a criminal act...and that's where that line of thinking borders on being in line with totalitarianism.
By that standard, the men who founded our country are 'dangerous'.
I know I will get ripped for this, and see it's illogical nature on the surface, but...committing a criminal act does not make a criminal.
If you smoke a joint, or jaywalk, or speed on your way home...I'm sorry, you're not a criminal to me. You're engaging in a criminal act, but I don't find you to be all that irrational or dangerous.
Quote: If you smoke a joint, or jaywalk, or speed on your way home...I'm sorry, you're not a criminal to me. You're engaging in a criminal act, but I don't find you to be all that irrational or dangerous.
See, "criminal" is a fairly black and white term based on what the law says... "irrational and dangerous" are fairly subjective terms.
If you are going 70 in a 65 on your way home in light traffic, you are technically a criminal... but I would be hard pressed to say your are irrational or dangerous... if you are going 70 in a 35 school zone at 3:30 as school is letting out, then you are a criminal and you are irrational and you are dangerous and you are stupid.
I could make a similar drug analogy, but I think you get the point.
Definitely agree that drugs should be legalized...I think businesses will have the right to dissuade employees from using drugs (similar to cigarettes), and that will keep low the number of people who actually use such drugs. (Also, just like with alcohol and cigarettes, most people don't abuse them, despite their legal nature)
The US government spends $60 billion a year on the corrections system in the United States, and almost half of that on drug offenses. Moreover, the War on Drugs promotes urban gang warfare, by giving them an extremely lucrative drug terrain to battle over (and high profits to fund their battles). Similar to alcohol prohibition, the country became much less dangerous when alcohol production was shifted back to legal authorities.
As to the argument that drugs will still be imported illegally. When you count in the cost of transport, the cost of movement through customs, the cost of street distribution networks, and the cost of keeping terrain in inner cities...the illegal method of producing drugs will never economically compete with what a legal company operating inside of the united states could do. Even with the high taxes on cigarettes, you don't see drug wars erupting over their sale. Even if illegal cigarettes could be produced cheaper, maintaining the illegal distribution network simply isn't worth it.
When we factor in the studies that some drugs like marijuana and even cocaine, are less addictive and consciousness killing than alcohol and cigarettes. When we factor in the studies that the war on drugs doesn't prevent use. When we factor in that it creates a culture of addiction, pushing addicts to surround themselves only by other addicts without the help of greater society. When you factor in that a lot of the deaths and emergency situations involving overdose only occur because the potency of illegal drugs cannot be standardized. When we factor in the right of individuals to decide what they want to inject into their bodies. Then ending the War on drugs becomes an obvious choice.
Quote: but if you do drugs then you are a criminal and irresponsible to boot.
100% percent wrong. This is the type of garbage that I am talking about. It is ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance.
It is more "100% wrong" to call people ignorant for being law-abiding citzens. This is just my opinion, but I believe you "legalize drug lords" are in the minority of our populace. I would love to see this issue on the ballot,..it might pass on the basis of "individual rights," but most of us will continue to abstain on a moral or common sense basis. And hopefully the insurance and health care lobbies would put up a big fight.
Quote: As to the argument that drugs will still be imported illegally. When you count in the cost of transport, the cost of movement through customs, the cost of street distribution networks, and the cost of keeping terrain in inner cities...the illegal method of producing drugs will never economically compete with what a legal company operating inside of the united states could do. Even with the high taxes on cigarettes, you don't see drug wars erupting over their sale. Even if illegal cigarettes could be produced cheaper, maintaining the illegal distribution network simply isn't worth it.
That is very logical. After thinking about it, I think is probably a more likely scenario. Although it's assuming that such drugs become as mass produced as, say, cigarettes.
That is very logical. After thinking about it, I think is probably a more likely scenario. Although it's assuming that such drugs become as mass produced as, say, cigarettes.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. There are more than enough drug users out there to support mass production. I mean, they mass produce Ben Wallace bobblehead dolls (note: that might not actually be true), this has to have a larger audience.
Quote: As to the argument that drugs will still be imported illegally. When you count in the cost of transport, the cost of movement through customs, the cost of street distribution networks, and the cost of keeping terrain in inner cities...the illegal method of producing drugs will never economically compete with what a legal company operating inside of the united states could do. Even with the high taxes on cigarettes, you don't see drug wars erupting over their sale. Even if illegal cigarettes could be produced cheaper, maintaining the illegal distribution network simply isn't worth it.
That is very logical. After thinking about it, I think is probably a more likely scenario. Although it's assuming that such drugs become as mass produced as, say, cigarettes.
Well take Meth for example.. The price is going up, why? because it's becoming more and more harder and dangerous to make and less is being put into the market. Now reduce the restrictions and the price will drop because there's more supply. Now lets say companies are allowed to create meth for users.. You will see less shady people creating this drug and it would really not entice people to become drug pushers because as price goes down, so does there profit. and with more reputable businesses creating the drugs it would be harder for people to make it on the street even if it was cheaper which once again will cut into their profit making it not worth blowing yourself up.
You can also make an example of marijuana which anyone could grow relatively easily... The bottomline is that if you take the production aspects of drugs away from the cartels, then in the end it will reduce their power or will force them into other crimes or just die out.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
It gets tiresome reading your junk.![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg)
