The drug war at our doorstep

[h0lmes]

There is a simple and obvious solution to this mess, drug legalization. We went through this during prohibition. Alcohol was illegal so a huge network of violent gangs sprang up to supply people with alcohol. Now, a wide range of drugs are illegal so a huge and very complex network of violent cartels exist to supply people with drugs. No amount of money will be enough to stop these people, they will always be one step ahead. Legalize drugs and the violence stops.

[Kerrath]

Drug trade with mexico screws with the economy too. People complain about illegals earning money here which gets sent to mexico and doesn't stay in our economy. Same shit with drugs. Legalizing drugs is an ok idea, but even though I'm ok with them for the most part, I wouldn't be a proponent of the legalization of heroin which is what was said is the issue with mexico. Or maybe legalizing other drugs would make the demand for heroin drop, I dunno. I'd have to guess that's what h0lmes is getting at by posting this.

Edit: I didn't see page two before posting this. h0lmes, I read your mind.

[der affe]

death penalty for all those caught trafficing or using illegal drugs. problem solved, no appeals process, just death.
problem solved

[Money$hit]

We have nukes for this type of problem

[h0lmes]

Drug trade with mexico screws with the economy too. People complain about illegals earning money here which gets sent to mexico and doesn't stay in our economy. Same shit with drugs. Legalizing drugs is an ok idea, but even though I'm ok with them for the most part, I wouldn't be a proponent of the legalization of heroin which is what was said is the issue with mexico. Or maybe legalizing other drugs would make the demand for heroin drop, I dunno. I'd have to guess that's what h0lmes is getting at by posting this.

Edit: I didn't see page two before posting this. h0lmes, I read your mind.

Actually, I would decriminalize all drugs. It is not the governments right to dictate to people what they can and can't put into their bodies. Now, don't take this as an argument in support of heroin, because it's not. Heroin is an ugly trap to fall into and few people are strong enough to get out of it. I would instead opt for more intensive, fact based education about drugs starting at an early age. I'm not talking about that DARE indoctrination crap, but education based on hard evidence. Maybe even entire class periods devoted to the topic through middle school and high school. After that, it is the individuals decision and their own damn fault if they fuck their life up.

As far as the topic at hand, decriminalization will have a large and overall good effect. Gang activity will drop significantly if not cease altogether, billions of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on combating these gangs could be utilized elsewhere, and I wouldn't have too worry about hiding my weed under my shift boot (oops!).

The only argument in opposition to decriminalization is "drugs are bad, mmkay" which turns out to be a really weak argument when you consider libertarianism and my views on drug education. Decriminalization is the answer.

[der affe]

Actually, I would decriminalize all drugs. It is not the governments right to dictate to people what they can and can't put into their bodies. Now, don't take this as an argument in support of heroin, because it's not. Heroin is an ugly trap to fall into and few people are strong enough to get out of it. I would instead opt for more intensive, fact based education about drugs starting at an early age. I'm not talking about that DARE indoctrination crap, but education based on hard evidence. Maybe even entire class periods devoted to the topic through middle school and high school. After that, it is the individuals decision and their own damn fault if they fuck their life up.

As far as the topic at hand, decriminalization will have a large and overall good effect. Gang activity will drop significantly if not cease altogether, billions of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on combating these gangs could be utilized elsewhere, and I wouldn't have too worry about hiding my weed under my shift boot (oops!).

The only argument in opposition to decriminalization is "drugs are bad, mmkay" which turns out to be a really weak argument when you consider libertarianism and my views on drug education. Decriminalization is the answer.

ok, then no gov funded health care or rehab for those that get hooked on drugs. if i don't do them, why should my tax dollars go to help them for their poor choices.

[Money$hit]

Actually, I would decriminalize all drugs. It is not the governments right to dictate to people what they can and can't put into their bodies. Now, don't take this as an argument in support of heroin, because it's not. Heroin is an ugly trap to fall into and few people are strong enough to get out of it. I would instead opt for more intensive, fact based education about drugs starting at an early age. I'm not talking about that DARE indoctrination crap, but education based on hard evidence. Maybe even entire class periods devoted to the topic through middle school and high school. After that, it is the individuals decision and their own damn fault if they fuck their life up.

As far as the topic at hand, decriminalization will have a large and overall good effect. Gang activity will drop significantly if not cease altogether, billions of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on combating these gangs could be utilized elsewhere, and I wouldn't have too worry about hiding my weed under my shift boot (oops!).

The only argument in opposition to decriminalization is "drugs are bad, mmkay" which turns out to be a really weak argument when you consider libertarianism and my views on drug education. Decriminalization is the answer.

I agree w/ you. I want government out of my life. I would have voted for Bob Barr if anyone would ever give the libertarian party a shot.

[Money$hit]

ok, then no gov funded health care or rehab for those that get hooked on drugs. if i don't do them, why should my tax dollars go to help them for their poor choices.

I support zero tax dollars aiding drug addicts out of their problem.

[h0lmes]

ok, then no gov funded health care or rehab for those that get hooked on drugs. if i don't do them, why should my tax dollars go to help them for their poor choices.

Well for one, if they are functional drug users and they work and pay taxes like the rest of us, then hell yes they should still get health care. Insurance already covers all sorts of diseases that may or may not arise from things such as smoking, alcohol and obesity. It isn't any different.

Second, we already pay for a lot of health care related expenses for addicts. For example, if someone overdoses and goes to the emergency room, doctors are required by law to treat them, even if they don't have insurance. Also, if the court deems that a drug offender must go to rehab, which is common sentence, the government fits the bill for that too. The prison related expenses for non-violent drug offenders are immense as well, but that's another topic.

Third, I believe that if you educate people they will make smart decisions. So if the government implements the fact based drug education that I was talking about, I think that less people will turn to drugs.

Unfortunately, a small minority will still turn into hopeless addicts and there is no practical way of weeding them out of a social healthcare system. It will just be a fact of life really, no different than paying for Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

[h0lmes]

I agree w/ you. I want government out of my life. I would have voted for Bob Barr if anyone would ever give the libertarian party a shot.

Maybe if the Libertarian party was worth a damn. I supported Ron Paul in the past but then I realized that if the American Libertarian party got their way it wouldn't be the government in control, it would be Wal-Mart and General Motors, which is much worse.

If you are interested in true Libertarianism, then you should do some research on Libertarian Socialism, i.e. Anarchism. Anarchism was using the term Libertarian long before the American Libertarian party even existed.

[der affe]

Well for one, if they are functional drug users and they work and pay taxes like the rest of us, then hell yes they should still get health care. Insurance already covers all sorts of diseases that may or may not arise from things such as smoking, alcohol and obesity. It isn't any different.

Second, we already pay for a lot of health care related expenses for addicts. For example, if someone overdoses and goes to the emergency room, doctors are required by law to treat them, even if they don't have insurance. Also, if the court deems that a drug offender must go to rehab, which is common sentence, the government fits the bill for that too. The prison related expenses for non-violent drug offenders are immense as well, but that's another topic.

Third, I believe that if you educate people they will make smart decisions. So if the government implements the fact based drug education that I was talking about, I think that less people will turn to drugs.

Unfortunately, a small minority will still turn into hopeless addicts and there is no practical way of weeding them out of a social healthcare system. It will just be a fact of life really, no different than paying for Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

what i am saying is that if you make the choice to use drugs, you make the choice to forefit your "soon to be here" socialist health care. smokeing is a choice, health care costs more if you do it, but that is legal. it is bad for you, but currently legal.

the big hole in your arguement is that 15-20 years ago this idea COULD have worked. society was a way different place. unfortunately NOW a couple of generations later, young people and "youth" are raised in a culture that does not promote taking personal responsability.
if you were to legalize drugs across the board tomarrow, there would be a world of shit! it would be out of control. EVENTUALLY there it would come under control after YEARS of drug education as the children are raised in a system like you suggested. society as a whole is not ready to accept the responsability of legalized drugs across the board.

your arguement comes from the point of view of someone who USES drugs, admittedly on your part, on a regular basis. this makes your points loose validity, because your intent is to legalize drugs for your own personal convenience, not for the good of society.

[h0lmes]

what i am saying is that if you make the choice to use drugs, you make the choice to forefit your "soon to be here" socialist health care. smokeing is a choice, health care costs more if you do it, but that is legal. it is bad for you, but currently legal.

the big hole in your arguement is that 15-20 years ago this idea COULD have worked. society was a way different place. unfortunately NOW a couple of generations later, young people and "youth" are raised in a culture that does not promote taking personal responsability.
if you were to legalize drugs across the board tomarrow, there would be a world of shit! it would be out of control. EVENTUALLY there it would come under control after YEARS of drug education as the children are raised in a system like you suggested. society as a whole is not ready to accept the responsability of legalized drugs across the board.

your arguement comes from the point of view of someone who USES drugs admittedly on your part, on a regular basis. this makes your points loose validity, because your intent is to legalize drugs for your own personal convenience, not for the good of society.

Fine, then start the fact based education now and then legalize in 10-15 years, that solves your problem and my arguments still hold up. Also, don't make personal claims about me. By making that claim you are guilty of one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book, ad hominem. Instead of attacking my argument, you attack me, which is a fallacy. Regardless of my intentions, my arguments still hold up. And lastly, you don't have any idea what validity means do you?

[Kerrath]

Actually, I would decriminalize all drugs.

Oh, I didn't mean that you wouldn't. I just meant that I support the decriminalization of drugs to a point. Heroin is just too iffy for me. But if it were to be decriminalized, there could be commercially available heroin instead of as the news typically claims is tainted. Most drugs would be that way, and would be less risky and higher quality. A lot of people I talk to who are drug opponents say "You don't know what you're smoking if you buy weed from somebody. There could be pesticides or anything on it, or formaldehyde and you wouldn't know." That being their primary reason since they aren't aware of its effects, I tell them "and if it were legalized and commercially available, that wouldn't be a risk, now would it?"

what i am saying is that if you make the choice to use drugs, you make the choice to forefit your "soon to be here" socialist health care. smokeing is a choice, health care costs more if you do it, but that is legal. it is bad for you, but currently legal.

I'm curious. Do you mean that people who smoke tobacco, or also for that matter consume alcohol should be denied access to health care too? I don't really want to contest you on that, I'm just curious what you really mean.

I agree with you that society at the moment is not ready to accept responsibility for the use of drugs, but until that is taught/expected of people, what should happen until then? People who DO accept responsibility, as well as the consequences get punished for it? It's quite unfair, but then again, nobody ever said it should be.

One reason I am a proponent of drug (some) legalization is because like tobacco and alcohol, the government can tax the fuck out of it, instead of spending money on people arrested on drug charges. Hell, enough people do drugs, maybe the boost in cashflow can fix the crappy economy.

[Kerrath]

Fine, then start the fact based education now and then legalize in 10-15 years, that solves your problem and my arguments still hold up. Also, don't make personal claims about me. By making that claim you are guilty of one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. And lastly, you don't have any idea what validity means do you?

I think not knowing how to spell 'lose' would've been a better argument against him than questioning his knowledge of validity. Assuming he does not means you're committing a fallacy as well. ;)

[der affe]

Fine, then start the fact based education now and then legalize in 10-15 years, that solves your problem and my arguments still hold up. Also, don't make personal claims about me. By making that claim you are guilty of one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book.

i would be fine with that.

you have made it know that you use drugs (pot) in your legalize pot thread and in your inference to "hiding it under the shift boot". are you not wanting to be branded as a "drug user" because you smoke pot?