Fucking Drug War, Fucking DEA, DIE NAZI PIGS!!!

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

[Montcalm]

Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

And what about the one who made these laws,they admit having smoked pot or taken drugs like cocaine,and they want to send people in jail for doing the same damn thing.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Doesn't matter.

EDIT: Then again, I really don't give a shit about California and their incompotent systems.

[Stormbringer]

Explain how a heroin addict hurts people, and don't say, "Because he'll resort to crime to get his fix." People resort to crime to buy things that are perfectly legal all the time.

Because they are in most cases useless member of society and very likely to resort to crime. The fact that any sort of long term use does major health problems that require major long term care which they will be in no condition to pay for.

They are only dangerous to the user. Gasoline, as salm said, is a dangerous substance, as well. So is hydrochloric acid. Yet, these substances are not outrightly banned. If cigarettes are legal but tightly regulated, I don't see why marijuana, cocaine and heroin can't enjoy similar status. Junkies should be in rehab programs, not prisons. The Drug War is a waste of money.

Gasoline doesn't cause major health problems including death when used properly. Drugs will.

I think that marijuana and some other lighter drugs should be legalized. They aren't so harmful as to justify outlawing them though using them is still incredibly stupid.

[Joe]

Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

Not if the law sucks.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

A law is a law until it's changed.

Whether it "sucks" is of no concern except to those who break it.

[Stormbringer]

Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

Not if the law sucks.

You still know the law and the consequences. If you don't want to risk the punishment don't do it. Try and change the law instead.

[nechronius]

And dont give bullshit like "emotional suffering" or "he could die" because people can have life insurance so their families are safe from financial issues.

lol... Name one life insurance company that will insure a heroin junkie if they realized what he/she was. Ok, maybe they will insure at a 1000% premium increase. (some sarcasm intended)

My property insurance policy stipulates that I keep a smoke detector in every bedroom of my house. I could lie and tell them I do, but do you think they will have any mercy on me when someone dies in the house because I just lied about having them in there?

I'm all for legalizing drug use for moderate use. After all, I'm pretty libertarian and think there are quite a few senseless laws in the books. I have a couple of buddies who spark up a bud now and then but due to my position I have to distance myself from them when they do. But heck, I'm cool with having it be legal.

As long as I can legally blow away drug addicts who burglarize my home looking for something to steal to support the habit.

[Xenophobe3691]

A law is a law until it's changed.

Whether it "sucks" is of no concern except to those who break it.
~~~~~
Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

My Mom's black, and my Dad's white. If they lived in Alabama, for instance, they could not have gotten a civil marriage, as they married in 1984. Just because laws exist, doesn't mean they're correct.

Because they are in most cases useless member of society and very likely to resort to crime. The fact that any sort of long term use does major health problems that require major long term care which they will be in no condition to pay for.

Interestingly enough, all but two of the drug users I have ever known have been rich, WHITE, middle class people that you wouldn't be able to tell from a regular Joe walking down the street. The only reasons you see those useless members so much is because they start having to resort to crime to pay for their habits. The rich just pay for it with all the money they have!

[Durandal]

Because they are in most cases useless member of society and very likely to resort to crime. The fact that any sort of long term use does major health problems that require major long term care which they will be in no condition to pay for.

See cigarette smoking. Heroin carries insanely high premiums because it's illegal. That's how the black market works. Insurance companies can develop their own policies to deal with drug addicts, either outrightly rejecting coverage or simply charging huge premiums, like they do with smokers.

If we had free health care like Canada, then you might have a point, but even then, the government could deny coverage to an addict or conditions caused by drug use, as well. But health care coverage is privatized, and companies can make up whatever policies they wish. The government can't force them to cover drug addicts or conditions brought about by drug use.

Gasoline doesn't cause major health problems including death when used properly. Drugs will.

Only if used for extended periods of time. Aside from that, please inform me again of why the government can tell me what I can and can't do to my own body? If I'm allowed to pollute my lungs with cigarette smoke, why can't I fuck my brain up with cocaine or heroin? If a woman is allowed to get an abortion because she gets to decide what happens to her body, why doesn't everyone have that same right?

[RedImperator]

Alright, a challenge to the prohibitionists:

Drugs are harmful. Fine. Wonderful. Point conceeded. Now prove that they're more harmful than drug prohibition has been. This would be the known bad effects of drug use on individuals, families, businesses (lost porductivity and safety problems caused by intoxicated employees) and communities (junkies are social parasites, even if recreational users are not) balanced against all the problems that can be directly attributed to prohibition. We'll start off with tens of thousands of law enforcement officers killed worldwide enforcing prohibition. Then, take into account the cost of enforcement (hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 40 years), and don't neglect damage to the economy from productive recreational users (especially of softer drugs like marijuana) who lose their jobs thanks to drug tests which test for breakdown products, not actual intoxication. Oh, and don't forget the billions in revenue lost that could be collected by legitimate businesses and farmers selling recreational drugs legally (can't forget the taxes, either!). And please justify sacrificing the cores of our cities to host open-air drug markets (where legalization would move most distribution out into the suburbs where drugs are consumed and into liscensed legitimate business, where distribution could be controlled and monitered). You'll also have to justify the God-knows how many victims of gang warfare in the inner cities (to make it easy on you, you can disregard the actual gangstas and just take into account the innocent bystanders hit thanks to the typically lousy aim of most gang members). And then we're back into economics, because gang warfare drives legitimate business out of the inner cities, worsening the entire situation (see large swaths of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, all of Detroit, most of D.C., about half of Buffalo...you get my point). And how could we forget corruption? Drug dealing is such a lucrative business there's plenty of greenbacks to grease the palms of local, state, and national politicians and law enforcement officers. Try to balance that against the effects on a community that the existance of the junkies themselves has. Oh, and crime--junkies have to steal to support their habit because prohibition, with its mandatory minimum sentences and shooting and whatnot, has driven the cost of drugs far beyond their actual production and raw distribution costs (marijuana, in some areas, costs more per ounce than gold, for the product of a plant that can be grown in a utility closet with some good potting soil and grow lights). And of course, explain why drugs are so harmful that non-violent offenders ought to be sitting in prison learning how to be hardcore criminals on the taxpayer dime (lots and lots of taxpayer dimes, actually). Explain how minority communities aren't badly impacted by thousands of young men getting carted off to the hoosgow for providing dumb suburban whites with a desired product. Then, when you've taken all this into the balance, prove that they're so harmful they necessitate unprecedented intrusions on the civil liberties of individual citizens to eliminate.

If you can come up with a reasonable argument claiming ALL THESE THINGS COMBINED cause less damage than legal drug use would, and you'll have gone a long way towards having a position that makes sense, rather than a knee-jerk "um, drugs are bad, mmm-kay" argument. Demonstrate on top of that that prohibition has had any demonstrable, statistically verifiable effect on the actual rates of drug consumption, and I'll happily abandon my long-held position and become a passionate anti-drug crusader. Good luck.

[2000AD]

Break laws and you deserve to be punished.

Not if the law sucks.

To quote The Simpsons:

"Now hold on there Missy, it's not up to us to choose which laws we obey. If it was, i'd kill everyone that looked at me cockeyed!"

[Stormbringer]

See cigarette smoking. Heroin carries insanely high premiums because it's illegal. That's how the black market works. Insurance companies can develop their own policies to deal with drug addicts, either outrightly rejecting coverage or simply charging huge premiums, like they do with smokers.

If we had free health care like Canada, then you might have a point, but even then, the government could deny coverage to an addict or conditions caused by drug use, as well. But health care coverage is privatized, and companies can make up whatever policies they wish. The government can't force them to cover drug addicts or conditions brought about by drug use.

If addicts are barred from ever taking advantage of any public assistance at all then that makes sense. That means they are effectively cut off and if they die in the streets then so be it.

And if they ever commit a serious crime (either to support there habit or because of it) I expect them to be either put in jail or given the death penalty. Because the fact is drug addicts are more likely to become criminals.

That doesn't change the fact that drug addicts are more likely to commit crimes and become a serious, life long burden on society. Those reasons alone, for me, justify keeping hard drugs illegal.

Only if used for extended periods of time. Aside from that, please inform me again of why the government can tell me what I can and can't do to my own body? If I'm allowed to pollute my lungs with cigarette smoke, why can't I fuck my brain up with cocaine or heroin? If a woman is allowed to get an abortion because she gets to decide what happens to her body, why doesn't everyone have that same right?

And how many 18 years olds will be able to give up heroin if its legal? How many 21 year olds would give up cocaine?

The problem is, as I said, that drug addicts tend to be worthless, parasites on the rest of society and hard drugs tend to produce frightening rates of addiction. The problem isn't so much the problem of the effect the drugs have on the user, but the problems of the user on society at large.

[RedImperator]

If addicts are barred from ever taking advantage of any public assistance at all then that makes sense. That means they are effectively cut off and if they die in the streets then so be it.

And if they ever commit a serious crime (either to support there habit or because of it) I expect them to be either put in jail or given the death penalty. Because the fact is drug addicts are more likely to become criminals.

That doesn't change the fact that drug addicts are more likely to commit crimes and become a serious, life long burden on society. Those reasons alone, for me, justify keeping hard drugs illegal.

Did you not read the incredibly long list of horrible problems caused DIRECTLY by prohibition I put up two posts back? Yes, addicts are parasites. They were parasites in the 19th century, too, but we didn't have a nationwide crime spree and massive social disruption then. Strangely enough, hard drugs (never mind soft ones like marijuana) were legal then.

[Durandal]

If addicts are barred from ever taking advantage of any public assistance at all then that makes sense. That means they are effectively cut off and if they die in the streets then so be it.

It's a free country, and everyone is free to live with the consequences of their choices. It's better than wasting money trying to forcibly rehabilitate them or let them rot in a jail cell while a rapist gets out because of overcrowded prisons.

And if they ever commit a serious crime (either to support there habit or because of it) I expect them to be either put in jail or given the death penalty. Because the fact is drug addicts are more likely to become criminals.

Well duh. Drug addicts by definition are criminals. You can't use current statistics to assert that, since 100% of all drug addicts are criminals, that they'll all be violent criminals. Many take to prostitution to support their habits.

That doesn't change the fact that drug addicts are more likely to commit crimes and become a serious, life long burden on society. Those reasons alone, for me, justify keeping hard drugs illegal.

Illegalizing drugs has done absolutely jackshit to reduce the number of addicts. All it's done is increase the money we spend on them. Whereas in a society with legalized drug sales, junkies give the government money, in a society where drugs are illegal, the government spends money on arresting, charging, convicting, incarcerating and rehabilitating them. It's not the government's fucking job to waste money on these people.

And how many 18 years olds will be able to give up heroin if its legal? How many 21 year olds would give up cocaine?

I seriously doubt that 18 and 21 year-olds have been waiting for the day for heroin to be legalized to try it. If they want to try it, they will. Period. I wasn't waiting around for marijuana to become legal before I gave it a go. Am I going to shoot up on heroin? Fuck no.

By that age, most people have made up their minds as to what drugs they try. And if they're stupid enough to get addicted to heroin or cocaine, why is that the government's concern?

The problem is, as I said, that drug addicts tend to be worthless, parasites on the rest of society and hard drugs tend to produce frightening rates of addiction. The problem isn't so much the problem of the effect the drugs have on the user, but the problems of the user on society at large.

You haven't shown how any of these problems are solved by wasting time, effort and money on arresting, prosecuting and punishing these people. How many resources does your average police force dedicate to busting a crack house when it finds one? All of them. How much time does it waste getting a search warrant? Why is busting a bunch of fucking junkies so goddamn important that it demands the suspension of all other activities?

[weemadando]

Its still damn stupid to create legislation that blocks someone with a possession offense and not Rapists, Murderers etc.

How about anyone with a felony offense in ineligable?

Or how about anyone who isn't a republican party member and southern baptists good 'ole boy. (I'm sure this is what they are aiming for).

[HemlockGrey]

You know, every Thursday during Study Hall we get a visit from a police officer as part of the DARE program- you know, 'Drug Awareness and Resistance Education', aka 'Drugs are bad. dab era sgurd. You will obey'

I was waiting patiently for the officer to get on the topic of drug so I could leap in with all these pro-legalization arguments and possibly get suspended in the bargain- in sixth grade we had whole sermons on why drugs were bad, worksheets to fill out, etc. Now, he's only come twice, and hasn't yet actually touched on 'drugs'. I'm crushed.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just as an alcoholic hurts nobody when he downs a bottle of Jack Daniels? Sure he may not look like he's harming anybody, but when he goes into the hospital because his liver's turned to pate and the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for his treatment, that seems like a drain on society to me. And what happens if this theoretical alcoholic gets drunk, and then gets behind the wheel of his car and kills a family with three kids? Somebody definitely is getting hurt by somebody's habits there.

Yes.

Morons addicted to anything so in that it impairs their ability to act as a competent, independent being and is a threat to others, need to be in rehab, no prision.

Gasoline doesn't cause major health problems including death when used properly. Drugs will.

I beg to differ in Los Angeles and other major smog-infested cities.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A law is a law until it's changed.

Whether it "sucks" is of no concern except to those who break it.

That silly Schindler! It's a fucking LAW regardless if the Nazis make it!

[Joe]

Not to mention MLK. What was he thinking, trying to change shitty, racist laws by breaking them?

[Vertigo1]

(if this has already been said, I apologize)

The problem I see with this is what if the kid goes clean? They still can't get any financial aid because of past convictions. Kinda kills any kind off any kind of incentive doesn't it?

[Keevan_Colton]

Lets think about this a bit....

Alcohol and ciggarettes are ok....despite liver damage, lung cancer and lots of other fun things that come with them.....its peoples choice....

During the prohibition 100% of people who drank were criminals......they were seen as parasites on society, drinking was considered to be terrible

So lets see....laws are really meant to be a contracted entered into between the people and the government, the power descends from the people.....why should people be allowed to harm themselves in one way and not in another similar way?

Its really rather insane isnt it?

[Zoink]

Drugs are harmful. Fine. Wonderful. Point conceeded....

Yes, drugs are harmful, to the user and to the community. That's why I gladly pay taxes to enforce prohibition.

If you can come up with a reasonable argument claiming ALL THESE THINGS COMBINED

Murder/theft/corruption is illegal whether drugs are legal or not. Just because prohibition might be the excuse some people use to commit these acts, doesn't pass the responsibility for these crimes from the drug users to the prohibitionist.

The negative things you list are the result of people committing crimes to do drugs, ie. to cause themselves and myself harm (remember the point you conceded). What you are implying is that I must allow someone the right to cause me harm. Sorry that's not going to happen.

Additionally, why must I show that drugs are worse than the entirety of those things combined, when you fail to show that legalizing drugs will solve all these problems.

What evidence do you have that gang violence, corruption, police killings will stop if drugs are legalized. Why are out-of-work crack-heads going to suddenly stop needing money? Why are city officials going to suddenly say "no" to easy money. Here in Canada, we'd also have to support that crack-head, medical, welfare, security.

When you can prove to me that crack-heads cause me no harm what-so-ever then I will gladly let anyone be a crack-head legally.

[Keevan_Colton]

You are missing the point....

Murder, rape, theft are all illegal......yes, but a lot of this can be traced to the act of prohibition.....

You want an example....lets look at....oh, I dont know.....say....THE PROHIBITION.....
When something is illegal, there is profit in it for criminals....if it is legal then it can be regulated, prices go down, there is no profit for the violent criminals, the "crack-heads" dont need as much money since they arent paying the huge premium of the criminals......market force take over and the price becomes that which the consumers can affored.....

You want to see this in action....look at alcohol earlier in the last century....

[Zoink]

You are missing the point....

Murder, rape, theft are all illegal......yes, but a lot of this can be traced to the act of prohibition.....

And prohibition can be traced to living and breathing, so let's blame that. Just because you can "trace" something doesn't mean the responsibility goes with it.

Each member of society is bound to follow the laws, like not murdering, raping, or stealing. Ie. not causing me or others harm.

A crack-head causes me harm. Its my right as a citizen to support a law that outlaws crack.

If at anytime you decide to commit murder, rape, theft... the buck stops there. You chose to commit this crime, or chose to place yourself in a position where you are unable to see right from wrong.

Just because you are doing this criminal act to get something you want (eg crack), this doesn't justify that criminal act. I am responsible for you not having access to crack, I am not responsible for you killing someone to get it.

the "crack-heads" dont need as much money since they arent paying the huge premium of the criminals

How is a crack-head going to have a legal income?