Does anyone still support the drug war?

hellblazer said:
Which is why I wrote:



And what party does Obama belong to? Huh...that's a weird coincidence.
Click to expand...

No, it's a PR move because society views the "war on drugs" in a bad light. And Obama has expanded drug laws, not reduced them.



You're arguing that drug laws shouldn't exist because they are misused, not because they are morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Everything I listed is morally wrong. Extortion, erosion of rights, murder, theft, money laundering, slavery... WTF?

Would you be fine with drugs if 30% of hardcore users became violent criminals? 20%? 10%?

What's the number of victims you're willing to accept?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I'm fine with, it's not up to me.

You've been linked to proven studies that decriminalization in other parts of the world have lead to dramatically reduced drug use. Not to mention countless other points you're ducking.

What's the number of proven facts that contradict your argument that you're willing to accept before you realize that every argument you're making is based on irrational emotion?

Start a "ban religion" thread then. It's a completely different topic.
Click to expand...

It is the same thing. But I don't care what other people do in private as long as they don't hurt me. It's not my business.
 


scottspfd82 said:
I'm proposing new legislation based on your arguments:

1. Nuke Canada. They're a threat, they could start a land war at anytime. They have a standing army who may use force against us.

2. Immediately castrate and imprison all members of (insert religion here). They have extremists who are proven to incite violence.
Click to expand...

This is a drug thread.

I've stated that drugs should be illegal because:

a) They affect the genetics of your children.

b) They cause impairment, which could harm innocents.

c) Their longterm use can lead to psychosis and potential force against others.

If you want to nuke Canada or castrate religious people, start a different thread.
 
As people have said, it's really just a matter of time before marijuana becomes legal federally. At 23 years old, the VAST majority of my peers either smoke at least occasionally. It's a lot more rare to find someone who doesn't at all, and even more rare to find someone who doesn't at all and actually has a problem with people who do.

Even my own parents and, from what I've noticed, a large portion of people in their age range (45 - 55 or so) either smoke occasionally as well or don't have any problem with people who do.

With all of the states with current medical marijuana laws and now Colorado and Washington, I give it 10 - 15 years at most. At the very least I would expect around half of the states to pass similar legalization laws.. My own state (Michigan) made medical marijuana legal here in 2008, and even since then I've noticed an explosion on TV of very pro marijuana documentaries and television shows on channels like national geographic, history, discovery, travel channel, etc. which only helps those who might feel like they need to hide it (older people like my parents) realize that everyone else does it too.
 
hellblazer said:
This is a drug thread.

a) They *can* affect the genetics of your children.

b) They cause impairment, which could harm innocents.

c) Their longterm use can lead to psychosis and potential force against others.
Click to expand...

You can't just terrorize people and call it risk management.
 
scottspfd82 said:
Extortion, erosion of rights, murder, theft, money laundering, slavery..
Click to expand...

Most of what you're listing has to do with how the drug laws are being exploited.

I've already said that the government could shut down all entry points for drugs tomorrow if they wanted. Why they don't is another story.

That has nothing to do with whether a particular substance should be illegal or not.

scottspfd82 said:
decriminalization in other parts of the world has lead to dramatically reduced drug use...
Click to expand...

You're back to the original argument that drug laws "don't work".

It's not about whether drug laws "work" or not, it's about whether they're morally right.

scottspfd82 said:
I don't care what other people do in private as long as they don't hurt me...
Click to expand...

If a crazed drug addict invaded your house and killed you because he needed drug money, that would hurt you.

zdmyn said:
You can't just terrorize people and call it risk management.
Click to expand...

If it was your life at risk, you would be begging for the government to "terrorize" people by denying them harmful intoxicants.
 
hellblazer said:
Most of what you're listing has to do with how the drug laws are being exploited.
Click to expand...

They exist to be exploited.

You're back to the original argument that drug laws "don't work".

It's not about whether drug laws "work" or not, it's about whether they're morally right.
Click to expand...

They're morally bankrupt - for many reasons I and others have already stated.

And you completely passed over (again) the point that decriminalization has proven to reduce drug abuse. If that's what you care about, then why support the laws?

If a crazed drug addict invaded your house and killed you because he needed drug money, that would hurt you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would. I'm prepared to deal with that. Just like I'm prepared to deal with a psychopath, a religious extremist or anyone else who may try to harm me.

And I'm out, no more time for this thread.
 
hellblazer said:
If it was your life at risk, you would be begging for the government to "terrorize" people by denying them harmful intoxicants.
Click to expand...

You're using words like "if" and "would". Are people not currently doing drugs? Am I not presently in danger of a drug addict breaking into my home?
 
scottspfd82 said:
you completely passed over (again) the point that decriminalization has proven to reduce drug abuse...
Click to expand...

I don't want to "reduce" drug use. I want to eliminate it.

Proper enforcement would accomplish that.

You complain about corruption among the government and banks, which has nothing to do with the law itself, but the people executing the law.

Enforce the law properly and there's no problems.

And there is a world of difference between a quantifiable chemical change induced by drugs and a psychological change induced by doctrine, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two.

zdmyn said:
You're using words like "if" and "would". Are people not currently doing drugs? Am I not presently in danger of a drug addict breaking into my home?
Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical. If a crazed junkie was holding a knife to your throat in a dark alley, you would be wishing the government had done all they could to deny him the drugs that led him down that road. You would be wishing that he had grown up to become a productive member of society, instead of cravenly robbing you for his next fix.

That happens all across the world. Don't those victims deserve justice?

Don't they deserve protection from the evil use of force?

Anyways, I'm out.
 
-joe- said:
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)
Click to expand...

Most there I agree with but I highly doubt that a lot more people will seek help with their addiction if it becomes legel, I think when I wen to rehab so was i main drunks in the section I was in. The number was 85%(in that area cant remember) was forced there by their job, since alcoholism is a decease according to WHO so can you not fire someone in Sweden for being sick you have to offer options like treatment. What I'm trying to say that the few people who comes to their sense and are lucky enough to believe that there is hope for them seeks out help even if the substance they use is illegal.

-M
 
I got 30 grams of really good Hashish sitting in my sunglasses case.
I did buy it so I'm sure I'm in some way, a supporter of the drug war.
Do I get a free keychain or a t shirt?
 
onkelmicha said:
Most there I agree with but I highly doubt that a lot more people will seek help with their addiction if it becomes legel, I think when I wen to rehab so was i main drunks in the section I was in. The number was 85%(in that area cant remember) was forced there by their job, since alcoholism is a decease according to WHO so can you not fire someone in Sweden for being sick you have to offer options like treatment. What I'm trying to say that the few people who comes to their sense and are lucky enough to believe that there is hope for them seeks out help even if the substance they use is illegal.

-M
Click to expand...
Yeah, with that point, I think that it wouldn't be a huge number more, but there would be a slight change imo. However that's definitely not the base of my argument, just a small bonus.

Edit: In fact, sorry, obvious thing just occurred to me - legalisation of all drugs would mean anyone could run a rehab centre, which means massively increased competition in the marketplace, and prices would come crashing down with quality going up.
 
hellblazer said:
I don't want to "reduce" drug use. I want to eliminate it.

Proper enforcement would accomplish that.

You complain about corruption among the government and banks, which has nothing to do with the law itself, but the people executing the law.

Enforce the law properly and there's no problems.

And there is a world of difference between a quantifiable chemical change induced by drugs and a psychological change induced by doctrine, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two.



It's a hypothetical. If a crazed junkie was holding a knife to your throat in a dark alley, you would be wishing the government had done all they could to deny him the drugs that led him down that road. You would be wishing that he had grown up to become a productive member of society, instead of cravenly robbing you for his next fix.

That happens all across the world. Don't those victims deserve justice?

Don't they deserve protection from the evil use of force?

Anyways, I'm out.
Click to expand...


Drug use won't ever be eliminated. People will always use drugs, no matter how hard you try to force them not to.

I'm not sure how many people on here have been to music festivals of some kind, but those events are known to basically be safe havens for sale and consumption of drugs. Obviously they have security there to make sure nobody becomes violent, but you can basically walk around trippin your balls off and smoking pot without anyone saying anything. I've been to a bunch of different festivals that hosted anywhere from 5,000 - 80,000 people, and guess what? No one ever killed anyone, everyone got along just fine. Maybe 3 or 4 people died of overdose or heat exhaustion, but that's the risk you run when you shoot up heroin for a weekend, and drug users (abusers in this case) know that drugs do that when not used properly.

Actually, I know of only one case where someone was murdered in the six different festivals I went too. The person was part of the nitrous mafia, and he got killed over a turf dispute with other drug dealers. That wouldn't have happened if it was legal...

Anyone who's actually used drugs or been around with those who use drugs know that the only dangers are the ones users impose on themselves. Use doesn't hurt outside parties.

You keep talking about hurting unborn children too, but honestly thats more drug specific and not drugs in general. Majority of drugs have no effect on that part of the body.
 
mattlock25 said:
Drug use won't ever be eliminated. People will always use drugs, no matter how hard you try to force them not to.
Click to expand...
You're right, but you're also wrong.

To the mind of a control freak, there is nothing that the power of violence can't help them accomplish. They can implement their own arbitrary puritan agenda, and if you don't like it, they will take your house, your kids and smash your body, and they will do it all with the justification that it was for the good of everyone, including the person being destroyed.

You're not dealing with someone who is rational. You can't rationalize with animals who reject the universality of ethics.
 
Hellblazer, you never said if you want to include alcohol in your ban. Alcohol is the leading cause of birth defects, it can induce aggression, countless lives have been ruined due to its abuse, etc.


Lips-that-touch-liquor.jpg
 
guerilla said:
control freak...

there is nothing that the power of violence can't help them accomplish...

their own arbitrary puritan agenda...

they will take your house, your kids and smash your body...

irrational animal...
Click to expand...

Just another pro-drug fanatic throwing out a variation of the "collectivist" slur again, only this time sounding slightly more hysterical.

They follow the same pattern: a couple shitty reasons, followed by slurs(collectivist, control freak, animal), followed by deflection.

Except in this case, this particular pro-drug individual decided to skip the shitty reasons and go back to the slurs.

And it works: look at all the zombies flock in to diligently register their "likes".

It just shows you how mindless this entire movement is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back