You're arguing against the American revolution now. Brilliant stuff. Please carry on.
Does anyone still support the drug war?
- Thread starter mattlock25
- Start date
Reagan created our current policies, declaring them "the war on drugs." Naturally the term "drug war" gets derived from that. If you have a problem with such propaganda, you can blame the Reagan administration.
This argument assumes that murder is equal to drug use. However, the difference between the two is that murder effects others, as opposed to drug use where the only persons involved are those who are using. Comparing the act of taking someones life to the act of getting high is a stretch, its like comparing someone who operates a ponzi scheme to someone who buys stock. One involves fucking with other people, the other involves a personal choice.
The real hangup here is that you think drug use harms other people besides the person who's using. The way I see it, someone who decides to smoke a joint in the privacy of his own home isn't effecting anyone. Now I'm sure at some point you'll make the argument that "if someone drives a car high and gets in an accident, they're effecting others," well ya, your right. But marijuana legalization won't allow people to drive while stoned, the same way those who are intoxicated can't drive while drunk.
I don't believe the government should have the authority to tell people what to put into their bodies. People who smoke weed know the "risks" associated with it, why should the government be able to determine how to take care of myself?
Because despite Hellblazer ranting unintelligibly about the evils of Obama, at heart, HB is a collectivist, a socialist, and a hypocrite.
That's the one truth about political action. It's a battle between different factions of control freaks. It has nothing to do with ideology.
and the four star general who gets black ops funding to free colored people.
Some time in my late teens I had this gradual realization that a boatload of the 'all grown up adults' throughout society, many of whom had preached the evils of drugs while my friends and I were sideways every weekend, were indulging themselves and had wonderfully checkered pasts of their own. Get to know people well and you'll realize that half of them either drink, smoke, puff, blow lines or pop pharmies. Plumbers, lawyers, personal trainers, etc.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTFlE-Vzucc]Rainy day women - YouTube[/ame]
Okay, okay, I agree with you. So if somebody jumps me and shoves a joint into my mouth and lights it up and pushes on my lungs to take a toke, then by all means throw him in jail.
But when I am ninety years old and dying of cancer and chewing down pot brownies as to lessen the nauseating effect of chemo, as a small-government right winger, I would like the various authorities basically stay the fuck out of my face.
For the love of God, conflating murder and drug use. You make me wish for the days of Pewep when you write shit like that.
And how can you call yourself a right winger in favour of small government when there a so many laws out that the local authorities could prosecute a ham sandwich if they wanted?
Fuck, I am getting upset. I am leaving my desk to pour myself some soothing rye whisky.
Fuck, I am getting upset. I am leaving my desk to pour myself some soothing rye whisky.
It's not hypocritical at all. If they wanted to make it legal I wouldn't care provided they prevented all users from reproducing, had even stricter punishments for clandestine labs, and refused to give users state assistance. I've yet to see a person that uses meth recreationally not turn into a full blown addict.
People dependent on a meth addict are in a very rough situation. The kids born to these people often go without so their parent(s) can have their dope. In almost every situation they depend on the state to take care of their basic needs (clothes, shelter, and food). Why should I, you, or anyone have money stolen from us to provide for them?
It's a proven fact that clandestine labs ruin property and endgage the lives of anyone who lives around them. They make the property uninhabitable. You basically have to tear down the structure to make it safe to live in again. Yes, make it legal would prevent a lot of this, but you'd still have clandestine labs which is why the punishment should be strict.
If you're not stealing from myself or others to support your habit I don't really care what you ingest, but in our society that's not the case. Everyday the government steals from us in order to support these people and because of that I do have a right to say don't ingest something that will cause even more to be stolen. There's no difference between the government taking my money and using it to buy them food, housing, etc and them breaking into my house and taking my television.
Well, it is because you're not interested in the principle that what people put in their bodies is their business.
You're concerned (and rightfully so) that people may harm you, yours or your family.
But you're using that concern to put limitations on the freedoms of others, which may or MAY NOT lead to harm to you.
The problem is the harm to you, not the drug.
Just like the problem with guns are the people who use them for bad, not the actual mechanical device.
Drug addicts, like alcoholics are people who are sick. Putting them in jail is like locking a mentally retarded child in a closet.
Should be, you, your family or your property.
Trying to type and eat and chat = posting fail.
Hang on. (Sorry if I'm sounding condescending here, I don't mean to be, just I find it makes things easier if you cover each small point of an argument to see where you disagree, rather than debating it, then finding out you agreed from the start)
You're still going to have meth addicts, whatever you do, agreed?
And signs point to the fact that prohibition increases consumption of the goods prohibited, agreed?
The goods in question no longer being prohibited are going to make them cheaper, agreed?
Because of lowered costs and easy availability, there becomes a far lower incentive to run a clandestine lab, agreed?
And making Meth legal would make more addicts willing to seek help, since they know they won't get in trouble with the police for it, agreed?
So, with all that considered, why would you not want to legalise all drugs? It seems to me that your main issue isn't actually with the legalisation of drugs, but more with the benefits system, which is probably something for another thread (not that I don't agree with you). I think we can all agree that Meth sucks, and affects a lot of people negatively. However, (I'll skip the Libertarian angle, since that one's just my personal view, and you may or may not agree with it, whatever) from a utilitarian point of view, the lowered number of users that would come from ending prohibition can surely only be seen as a positive? (Except from the dealers/producers/smugglers points of view)
No. Not even a question anymore, the only people supporting it are big brother, the government, corrupt politics, hidden room wealthy people, corporations and companies, etc. The real American people don't.
Smokers Cost Taxpayers $10 Billion
CDC: Binge drinking cost the U.S. $224 billion in 2006 - CBS Atlanta 46
"about $94.2 billion of the total economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption were borne by federal, state, and local governments"
Ban cigarettes and alcohol?
If heroin or meth were legalized, they would tax the hell out of it more aggressively than they do with cigarettes. In theory, this would mean that less stuff would have to be taken from you because the users would be the ones more directly paying for the costs of the programs.
@Crackpot
On top of the points already made, you're currently paying for an army of police who only exist to investigate and prosecute drug offenders.
You're paying to imprison millions of non-violent offenders.
I think meth is a horrible drug, I don't recommend that anyone pick up the habit. But I don't think it should be illegal.
If you're looking at it from a pure "why should I pay for their problem" perspective, you're already paying to track them down and keep them in prison. I guarantee that you'd be paying a lot less if you didn't have to support a police state and a massive prison complex.
On top of the points already made, you're currently paying for an army of police who only exist to investigate and prosecute drug offenders.
You're paying to imprison millions of non-violent offenders.
I think meth is a horrible drug, I don't recommend that anyone pick up the habit. But I don't think it should be illegal.
If you're looking at it from a pure "why should I pay for their problem" perspective, you're already paying to track them down and keep them in prison. I guarantee that you'd be paying a lot less if you didn't have to support a police state and a massive prison complex.
What does it say about the pro-drug crowd that they have to resort to strawmen arguments like this?
This is like the people who cry "racist" when you oppose Obama, or "homophobe" when you oppose gay marriage, or "xenophobe" when you oppose illegal immigration.
Except in this case, the slur is "collectivist".
These people prove my point every single day that there is virtually no difference between them and hardcore leftists.
They're both fundamentally dishonest and don't really know why they possess the beliefs they do.
Wait, let me get this right. Because I don't have any issues with drugs being legalized, but yet don't want to destroy all government institutions worldwide, means I'm a hypocrite? How the fuck does that work?
And I love people who view the world as a simplistic, two dimensional place.
You're nothing but a little brainwashed bitch who knows how to scream "COLLECTIVIST!!!" instead of countering my points.
And you're doing it again, btw.