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

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Alright.....let me be more clear.....

No drug prohibition > No profit in trafficing for organised criminals > No need for DEA agents chasing after them > No DEA agents getting killed.....


There you go......a logical explination as to why this would stop the murders related to the drug prohibition. You are also forgetting that the "crack head" is only one example of a drug user....a rather ugly steryotype....would you advocate throwing everyone in a particular area in jail because crime there is high?

Also, even if drugs were legal, those that steal to pay for them are still breaking another (much more sensible law) and actually harming others....this is totally seperate from the legality of the drugs themselves...as has been mentioned, not every theft is to pay for drugs.....

Regulation -> Taxation -> Extra government money + the money saved from no longer enforcing the prohibition -> more money for education, welfare, health....etc.....this is not a bad thing.

Tell me how someone getting high directly impacts your life?
Not the possibility they might commit ANOTHER crime but the "crime" of taking drugs itself?
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Zoink wrote: A crack-head causes me harm. Its my right as a citizen to support a law that outlaws crack.
Why?
This is the classic tyranny of the majority....government exists to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority.
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.
So, because you might commit another crime, something else you do is now a crime.....by default making you a criminal......wonderful logic.....
How is a crack-head going to have a legal income?
Plenty of people that do drugs recreationally have a legal income.....hence my quotation marks around this persostant use of the term "crack-head".....
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Zoink
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2170
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:15pm
Location: Fluidic Space

Post by Zoink »

Keevan_Colton wrote:Alright.....let me be more clear.....

No drug prohibition > No profit in trafficing for organised criminals > No need for DEA agents chasing after them > No DEA agents getting killed.....
No criminals > no crime. You are passing the responsability of the DEA agent getting killed to the prohibitionist, instead of the criminal. The "act" that causes the DEA agent getting killed is criminal who's basic morals are messed up. These criminals need to be removed from the general society.

You are also forgetting that the "crack head" is only one example of a drug user
Because the original poster advocated legalizing *all* drugs. The original poster suggested legalizing crack. If you want to justify legalizing all drugs you have to justify crack legalization.

would you advocate throwing everyone in a particular area in jail because crime there is high?
If said persons were in a state where incapable of determining right from wrong, yes.

Also, even if drugs were legal, those that steal to pay for them are still breaking another (much more sensible law) and actually harming others....this is totally seperate from the legality of the drugs themselves...as has been mentioned, not every theft is to pay for drugs.....
A crack-head is incapable of income. Chosing to be a crack-head is chosing to harm me. Crack is like thermonuclear bombs, there is absolutely no good from everyone having access to them.

Regulation -> Taxation -> Extra government money
A crack-head can't spend legal money because he doesn't have a job.

+ the money saved from no longer enforcing the prohibition -> more money for education, welfare, health....etc.....this is not a bad thing.
I'm still being harmed by the crack-head, that's not good.

Tell me how someone getting high directly impacts your life?
Anyone in a state where they can't determine right from wrong is a danger to my life and well-being. Add insurance costs, welfare costs, medical costs, rehabilitation costs. That's how a crack-head affects my life.
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Alright then, so we will be outlawing alcohol then as it impares judgment...and causes health issues.....as well as cigarettes......excellent.


As for the logic.....you seem to think prohibition is solving problems....

If there is no profit to be made in illegal activites, those activities cease.....I'm all for nailing those in organised crime, which seems to be what you are ranting about....stopping the income they gain (at huge profits since the product is illegal) by regulation and legalization would hurt such people far more than prohibition does.....do gangsters still run the alcohol trade? No? They no longer make money from it so are no longer involved in it....simple logic....


As for the arguments that they are causing you harm.....
A person who drinks, could get in a car, and run someone over......what's the crime there, drinking or then driving?

By your arguments earlier, its the drinking that he should be arrested for, rather than driving while intoxicated.......so even if he didnt drive and therefore didnt knock anyone down its still a crime in that sense....

You seem to assume everyone would become criminals.....that isnt the case, there are those who are now labelled criminals for committing no more crime than getting high/stoned/wasted etc.....these others would still be arrested for theft/murder etc without these assanine drugs laws.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Zoink
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2170
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:15pm
Location: Fluidic Space

Post by Zoink »

Keevan_Colton wrote: This is the classic tyranny of the majority....government exists to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority.
Laws exist to protect myself and society from harm, I support such laws. The minority or majority has no right to harm me.

So, because you might commit another crime, something else you do is now a crime.....by default making you a criminal......wonderful logic.....
I have no idea what you are talking about.

People that commit murder are responsable for commiting that murder. I am not.

People who are unable to tell right from wrong are a danger to society. They are responsable for the crimes they committ while intoxicated. And yes, public intoxication is a crime because of this danger.

Plenty of people that do drugs recreationally have a legal income.....hence my quotation marks around this persostant use of the term "crack-head".....
You didn't answer the question. You suggest legalizing crack. Are you trying to legalize crack on the basis of something else like marijuana?
User avatar
Zoink
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2170
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:15pm
Location: Fluidic Space

Post by Zoink »

Keevan_Colton wrote:Alright then, so we will be outlawing alcohol then as it impares judgment...and causes health issues.....as well as cigarettes......excellent.
Actually we won't. The majority of the population is willing to accept the harm from legalized alcohol. I personally would like to see tougher alcohol, laws that would make it harder for alcoholics to continue their habit. For example, I fully support laws that forbid alcohol sale to intoxicated individuals (ie a level of prohibition).

As for the logic.....you seem to think prohibition is solving problems....
Yes, its reducing the number of heavy drug users, prevents a legal crack-head from living next door. In general there is less drug use in my own area and the overall quality of life is better IMHO with the ban on drugs. Those that use drugs use them sparingly because the will go to prison/fined if they do. There are few people in the area dependant on the gov't because of a drug addiction, with the exception of a few alcoholics (which suggests problems with alcohol, not a reason to legalize more drugs).

If you can name areas with heavy crime and such, I would suggest more police enforcement, more community programs, education in *that* area.

If there is no profit to be made in illegal activites, those activities cease....
But the legal crack-head next door causes me harm.

As for the arguments that they are causing you harm.....
A person who drinks, could get in a car, and run someone over......what's the crime there, drinking or then driving?
Drinking *and* driving, that's the law.

By your arguments earlier, its the drinking that he should be arrested for, rather than driving while intoxicated..
No, because the majority of the population has decided that alcohol consumption is an acceptable risk to their own well being. The laws reflect this. You keep wanting me to treat alcohol, smoking, marijuana, and crack the same. Can I tack on thermonuclear bombs?

I am willing to consider marijuana differently from crack. But I'm not going to agree to legalized crack, heroine, PCP,.. or any number of obviously harmful drugs on the basis of whether alcohol/smoking/marijuna should be legal.
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Zoink wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Yes, drugs are harmful, to the user and to the community. That's why I gladly pay taxes to enforce prohibition.
How are drugs harmful to a community? And don't say, "Drug addicts hurt their families" or other such bullshit. Drugs are no more a harm to community than alcohol.
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.
No one's suggesting letting drug addicts off for crimes they may commit. Legalizing drugs is not equivalent to legalizing any crimes committed as a result of their use. Nice strawman, though.
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.
Then you should never drive again. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're allowing a drunk driver the right to cause you harm. Every one of your dumbass arguments can be applied to alcohol. The number of deaths related to drunk driving was roughly equivalent to the number of deaths related to narcotics felony.
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.
None of those things will stop, but what has drug prohibition brought us aside from the criminalization of victimless "crimes"? It's flooded jails with non-violent offenders and ruined lives by creating a criminal record for people who were arrested for drug use. There is utterly no reason to arrest these people. Let a crack-head die of an overdose in the street. I couldn't give two shits about him. I start giving two shits when my tax dollars are forced to punish him for something that has hurt no one but himself.
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.
When was the last time a crackhead personally harmed you? Crackheads have caused me no injury whatsoever.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

One of the OT mods please move this to the Politics forum.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Dalton
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
For Those About to Rock We Salute You
Posts: 22637
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:16pm
Location: New York, the Fuck You State
Contact:

Post by Dalton »

Done.
Image
Image
To Absent Friends
Dalton | Admin Smash | Knight of the Order of SDN

"y = mx + bro" - Surlethe
"You try THAT shit again, kid, and I will mod you. I will
mod you so hard, you'll wish I were Dalton." - Lagmonster

May the way of the Hero lead to the Triforce.
User avatar
Zoink
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2170
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:15pm
Location: Fluidic Space

Post by Zoink »

Durandal wrote: How are drugs harmful to a community?
I've stated the harmfull effects, I'm not going to repeat myself.

Drugs are no more a harm to community than alcohol.
So do drugs cause harm to the community or not? Alcohol causes harm. You do realize that's its possible to legalize one potential harm (because the majority are willing to accept it) while outlawing another harm (because they don't want to accept that particular harm).

No one's suggesting letting drug addicts off for crimes they may commit. Legalizing drugs is not equivalent to legalizing any crimes committed as a result of their use. Nice strawman, though.
I never implied this. The point I was making is that the "act" of prohibition (and those that suport it) is not what is responsible for a particular crime. Don't strawman me into a strawman.

Then you should never drive again. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're allowing a drunk driver the right to cause you harm.
*sigh* I have to drive because I wouldn't make money and would starve and die. Are you really suggesting I give up driving so that I am safer against drunk drivers, while at the same time causing myself immediate and unavoidable harm by not driving? Talk about dumbass arguments...

Every one of your dumbass arguments can be applied to alcohol.
Which would suggest a problem with alcohol, not a reason to legalize more harmfull drugs.

The number of deaths related to drunk driving was roughly equivalent to the number of deaths related to narcotics felony.
Which would suggest a problem with alcohol, not a reason to legalize more harmfull drugs.

him for something that has hurt no one but himself.

When was the last time a crackhead personally harmed you? Crackheads have caused me no injury whatsoever.
The harm from crack-heads is very small and non-immediate for myself, because there are few crack-heads in my area, primarly due to the difficulty in importing the drug to this area (its illegal), and resulting high price. Thank you prohibition against crack.

Other hard drugs are present, like cocaine, but in very small amounts, with regular users being very uncommon, again because of price/availability. I base this on statements from friends/accociates who have a more liberal attitude towards drug use.

Those crack-heads that do exist drain funding from welfare, insurance, medicare, and various rehabilitation clinics.... causing me harm.

On the other hand, alcohol is readily available and has caused a noticable amount of harm to my own family. I see no reason to increase the amount of drug users.
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Zoink wrote:I've stated the harmfull effects, I'm not going to repeat myself.
No, you ranted about how they were harmful to communities, then you said they should be illegal because they could potentially lead to crime. Other substances which can lead to crime are perfectly legal. Stop trying to dance around this inconsistency.
So do drugs cause harm to the community or not? Alcohol causes harm. You do realize that's its possible to legalize one potential harm (because the majority are willing to accept it) while outlawing another harm (because they don't want to accept that particular harm).


Of course it's possible; that's not the question. The fact is that it's inconsistent. There is no difference in the harm alcohol does a community as compared to what harm drugs do.
I never implied this. The point I was making is that the "act" of prohibition (and those that suport it) is not what is responsible for a particular crime. Don't strawman me into a strawman.
Yes, I misread. Here's what you said.
You wrote: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.
It is when victimless "crimes" are the things being prohibited. Prohibition isn't an excuse; it is a cause. You want drug-related crime to go down? Decriminalize drugs. You won't have any more scumbag dealers who will kill people who owe them money, and you won't have any more dealer turf wars. Prohibition ruins the lives of people who do no harm to society by making them criminals for simply injecting whatever substances they wish into their bodies. If they happen to commit crimes while under the influence of those substances, then they can be punished for those crimes. This is the exact same system we have for dealing with alcohol.
*sigh* I have to drive because I wouldn't make money and would starve and die. Are you really suggesting I give up driving so that I am safer against drunk drivers, while at the same time causing myself immediate and unavoidable harm by not driving? Talk about dumbass arguments...
Then perhaps you should never let anyone into your house again, either. It's only a dumbass scenario because it's the logical extension of your dumbass argument. Rights aren't granted by Zoink; they are given by default. You have the right to do whatever you wish because you're a free person, but you also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Which would suggest a problem with alcohol, not a reason to legalize more harmfull drugs.
Irrelevant. Alcohol is legal because people have the right to do what they wish to themselves. Drugs are no different, therefore the law is inconsistent and should be changed to respect individuals' rights.
The harm from crack-heads is very small and non-immediate for myself, because there are few crack-heads in my area, primarly due to the difficulty in importing the drug to this area (its illegal), and resulting high price. Thank you prohibition against crack.
You said crack-heads were harmful to you, which has nothing to do with the legality of crack. So again, what harm would crack-heads do to you if they moved into your community?
Other hard drugs are present, like cocaine, but in very small amounts, with regular users being very uncommon, again because of price/availability. I base this on statements from friends/accociates who have a more liberal attitude towards drug use.
Okay, so what harm are the coke-heads doing you?
Those crack-heads that do exist drain funding from welfare, insurance, medicare, and various rehabilitation clinics.... causing me harm.
So deny health coverage and government assistance to drug addicts, like we've been saying all along. Did you even read the thread before you started on your tirade?
On the other hand, alcohol is readily available and has caused a noticable amount of harm to my own family. I see no reason to increase the amount of drug users.
The correlation between a drug's legality and the number of people who use it is nonexistent. If people want to use a certain illegal drug, they will find a way to get a hold of it. It's illegal for me to drink alcohol, but I do anyway. It's illegal for me to smoke marijuana, but I do anyway. No one is sitting around, waiting for marijuana to become legal before trying it. Making those drugs legal will allow the government to cut out the drug lords, tax the sale of drugs, save billions spent on pointless junkie-busting and clean out the industry. If you don't like drugs, then don't buy them or try them, and raise your children so that they won't fall in with them. Don't run around pretending that you have the right to tell others what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Post by Uraniun235 »

salm wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:I have no sympathy for those nailed for using marijuana.

Mainly because I don't use and don't find it appealing.
so you don´t give a damn that they rot in prison even though you don´t think that they did something wrong?

i don´t like choclate. but if someone was imprisoned for eating a mars bar i´´d be pretty upset even though i don´t use mars bars and don´t find them appealing.

you´ve got a weird sence of justice.
Hey, why not? After all, you can spend more time in jail for violating copyright laws a few times than if, say, you raped a girl. And seriously, a chunk of a million dollars per copyright infraction? That's bullshit too.

And you'll notice (though, you conveniently didn't quote that part) that I don't like the fact they're being put in jail. It's a waste of jail space better put towards violent criminals. I say fine the unholy shit out of drug offenders and maybe offset the cost of the "war on drugs" by some infinitessimal percentage.

We've all got our axe to grind, but frankly, if the public really didn't like the "War on Drugs", there'd be more momentum to stop it. I don't see that momentum happening, and I'd rather see the copyright laws reworked first before we start letting people get stoned legally. One battle at a time. And, if you'd like to ban alcohol/tobacco in the interim, be my guest; I don't use either, I hate the latter and the former doesn't really appeal to me.

Ideally, the "war on drugs" would be scrapped in favor of a more cost-effective, less morality-enforcement system, but I deal in reality; for now, the drug laws are here to stay (especially with the "drugs = terrist" bullshit), and anyone stupid enough to get caught knew what they were doing and knew the potential consequences beforehand, hence I don't have any sympathy for them because it's their own damn fault they went to jail. Is it fair that the government can tell you what you can put in your body? No (to an extent; I'd really hate to have to deal with PCP users... ever...). Does whining about it change the fact that getting caught puts you in jail? No.
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

Zoink wrote: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.
Congratulations on utterly missing the fucking point. All of these crimes are a DIRECT RESULT of drugs being illegal. They're committed by addicts because prohibition drives up the price of drugs to the point they need to steal to support it--and don't give me bullshit about "they'd do it anyway", because alcohol and nicotine cause powerful addictions too, and nobody's breaking into anyone's house for beer and cigarette money, because they're cheap and don't require risking jail or personal harm to acquire. Dealers kill rival dealers, cops, and anyone else who gets in their way because prohibition has driven the prices to the point it's worth being a ruthless motherfucker to get rich selling it. Distributors and cartels buy off politicians and cops and murder the ones that won't be bought because they can afford it and there's too much money involved. There's an entire Goddamn civil war being funded by a product that should be cheaper than coffee. And on top of all this, every level of government is spending billions of dollars enforcing prohibition--which hasn't worked, by the way--and losing billions more that could be made in taxes. Yes, every one of these people are assholes and are breaking the law, but the fact of the matter is, anything that can cause pleasure in the human brain without that person needing to work at it is going to be consumed by humans. This isn't Star Trek--people aren't going to "evolve" beyond their desire to take drugs, and they're damn well not going to be coerced into doing so. My solution is to accept this, take an extremely lucrative industry away from shitheads like drug dealers, stop throwing people in jail for victimless crimes, and maybe make a few bucks for the government along the way. Yours is to pretend you can overcome human nature if you only spend enough money and ruin enough people's lives.
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.
Nice strawman, cockhat. Drug addicts harm their communities by being unproductive social parasites, which I stated directly. That's not direct harm to you by any objectively verifiable means. You don't get to take away people's freedom because you don't care for their lifestyle or they're costing you tax dollars by abusing the national health care system. When an addict sticks a gun in your ribs and runs away with your waller, that's direct harm, but as you've yet to refute, without prohibition, he wouldn't have needed to rob you to support his habit. None of this, by the way, applies to recreational users, and hysterical anti-drug ads aside, not everyone who takes a toke or pops a pill once in a while is a half-starved, half-lunatic crackhead who'd kill you to sell your bone marrow for rock, but you advocate treating them exactly the same as hardcore addicts who rip off liquor stores to support their habit.
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.
I've got a great big fat piece of historical evidence to back me up in the form of alcohol prohibition, which produced the exact same problems drug prohibtion has, problems which disappeared as soon as legitimate businessmen could sell alcohol again. You don't hear about the Gambini family's moonshine running operations, do you? Nobody goes blind drinking wood alcohol in a speakeasy anymore, do they? And to the extent that today's problems are worse, I remind you that 1) alcohol prohibition lasted ten years and was often laxly enforced compared to the 40 years of strictly enforced prohibition we have now, and 2) nobody could fit a million dollars worth of bathtub liquor in a truck or a boat. The stakes are much higher now. And, unfortunately for your argument, marijuana, opium, heroin, and cocaine were legal in the 19th century, and the tremendous problems attributed by prohibitionists to drugs and anti-prohibitionists to prohibition didn't exist. You know what doctors did when someone was addicted to cocaine and couldn't kick the habit? They prescribed controlled doses of cocaine to keep their cravings in check, so they could carry on productive lives. Your solution: lock them up and throw away the key. What a shining success story that's been.
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.
Another strawman. I never said if we legalized drugs we'd be living in a utopia where murder, corruption, and police killings never happened. I said the murder, corruption, and police killings DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO PROHIBITION, which I would venture are greater in extent than those NOT attributable to prohibition, would stop. Do you think out-of-work alcoholics don't need money? Out of work tobacco addicts? Yet they're not robbing people to support their habit. Where's this easy money going to come from if marijuana is cheaper than tobacco and cocaine costs the same as Folgers, and it's being sold at the local liquor store that doesn't want its liscense revoked anyway?

As for Canada's health care system, that's your problem. Elect politicians with a spine to throw crack heads off if that's what tickles your pickle. Or accept that the price of living in a free society is accepting that other people have the right to be stupid, and since you as a Canadian have decided that everyone's health care ought to be paid for by the taxpayer, you get to pay for someone else's stupidity, just like you pay when some retard on a skateboard cracks his head open pretending he's Tony Hawk.
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.
So it's up to me to prove a negative, huh? Nice try, asshole. Prove to me you've been harmed by a crack head in some way that's objectively verifiable and isn't in some way related to prohibition. Shit, I'll do you one better--I took E tonight. I rolled in the woods behind the barn for two hours. Prove how this caused you direct, verifiable harm.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

Uraniun235 wrote:We've all got our axe to grind, but frankly, if the public really didn't like the "War on Drugs", there'd be more momentum to stop it. I don't see that momentum happening, and I'd rather see the copyright laws reworked first before we start letting people get stoned legally. One battle at a time. And, if you'd like to ban alcohol/tobacco in the interim, be my guest; I don't use either, I hate the latter and the former doesn't really appeal to me.
In other words, it's okay if the government merrily tramples on a fellow human being's right to do as he wishes with his own body on his own time, as long as it doesn't personally effect you. Nice. Then since I don't violate copyright laws, I should be perfectly happy if the government condemns you to poverty forever for violating them.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
Sriad
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3028
Joined: 2002-12-02 09:59pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Sriad »

Uraniun235 wrote: Is it fair that the government can tell you what you can put in your body? No (to an extent; I'd really hate to have to deal with PCP users... ever...). Does whining about it change the fact that getting caught puts you in jail? No.
America is (alledgedly) supposed to be about what's fair. If you think pointing out bullshit = whining, I don't think that you're worth talking to.
Obviously there should be regulations on how drugs can be used acceptably; not doing so would just be dumb. But any regulations that we'd need would be a lot simpler (not to mention fairer) than the pork barrel DEA.

PS, Possibly this isn't the case here, but I've generally found that "dealing in reality" is a euphamism for "they've convinced me I'm impotent."
User avatar
desertjedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 386
Joined: 2002-11-10 05:06am
Location: Alpine, CA
Contact:

Post by desertjedi »

I think that businesses would be forced to implement zero tolernace programs just so they can have insurance. Hell, Health insurance companies give BIG discounts to businesses that have zero tolerance and random drug testing now. If drugs were legal, they would probably state that any business not implementing drug policies will not be covered. I mean from an insurance company's POV, I would rather insure the business with the zero tolerance rather than another business that has no such policies, in the end it would be safer for me as a insurer anyways.
That would limit a drug users ability to have legal income, even if drugs were legalized, forcing them to find cash in other ways.
It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart ass. - The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

desertjedi wrote:I think that businesses would be forced to implement zero tolernace programs just so they can have insurance. Hell, Health insurance companies give BIG discounts to businesses that have zero tolerance and random drug testing now. If drugs were legal, they would probably state that any business not implementing drug policies will not be covered. I mean from an insurance company's POV, I would rather insure the business with the zero tolerance rather than another business that has no such policies, in the end it would be safer for me as a insurer anyways.
That would limit a drug users ability to have legal income, even if drugs were legalized, forcing them to find cash in other ways.
Why? There are computerized coordination tests which can detect intoxication in about five minutes, on site, without having to pay a lab to do it and as a bonus can also catch people who are sick, distracted, tired, or on perscription drugs. Chemical drug tests don't test for intoxication the way breathalyzer tests do--in the case of urine testing and marijuana, they only test for breakdown products of THC which can persist in the bloodstream for weeks. Hair tests can pick up traces of cocaine months after use. What zero tolerance policies do today is essentially make private companies enforcers of drug law--safety is just an excuse. Insurance companies like this because the drug war has cost them shitloads of money just like everyone else, companies like it because it's a relatively cheap and reliable way to find out if their empolyees break the law, and of course the government likes it because there's some pesky old yellow piece of paper called the Constitution which prevents them from stopping people in the street and random and piss testing them, but there's nothing to prevent a private employer from doing so. But if drugs were legal, what company is going to pay thousands of dollars to find out if someone got blazed up last weekend? Test coordination this morning, and if they're good to go, then it's nobody's business what they did on their own time.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
desertjedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 386
Joined: 2002-11-10 05:06am
Location: Alpine, CA
Contact:

Post by desertjedi »

There are some fields where the employee can't have any distractions inclulding illness, fatigue, hangover, or even a slight buzz from someone who sparked it up last night. So I don't see how "safety" is just and excuse. Even in a public relations way, as a customer, I don't want some tweaked out junkie trying to interact with me.
As an insurance company you don't want to take the chance that an employee that is feeling the effects of some drug having an accident and hurting or even killing someone around them. And to help encourage businesses from risking having to use that insurance, give out discounts on those that have random testing and even larger discounts that have zero tolerance programs in affect.
I'm not talking about a breathalyzer unless they think the employee is intoxicated, but Urine Analysis and hair follicle tests as well. As for the government liking private businesses testing it's employees, why? I have worked for three different companies that have zero tolerance policies and anyone who was caught in a test was not turned in to the government or the police, nor were they fired either. Each company placed that employee in rehab if the employee wanted to keep the job.
On a personal note I was a big time pot-head during my university days, but I stopped once I left. When I started work in the gaming (casino) industry I was clean and have been clean ever since. So I am not comletely anti-drug or pro-war on drugs, but there are real reasons to have such policies, even if it means saving money for the company.
It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart ass. - The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

desertjedi wrote:There are some fields where the employee can't have any distractions inclulding illness, fatigue, hangover, or even a slight buzz from someone who sparked it up last night. So I don't see how "safety" is just and excuse. Even in a public relations way, as a customer, I don't want some tweaked out junkie trying to interact with me.
Did you not read what I said? How does finding out that someone took drugs days, weeks, or even months ago have any impact on their job performance now? Urine tests are an especially sick joke. If I smoke a blunt right now, I'll be fucked way up but I'll be able to pass a urine test for the next few hours because the breakdown products won't have entered my bloodstream yet, so explain to me how urinalysis has anything to do with safety. It is just an excuse because these tests aren't testing for intoxication, they're testing to see if employess use drugs ever, when a five minute coordination test is all you need to tell if somebody is unfit to work.
As an insurance company you don't want to take the chance that an employee that is feeling the effects of some drug having an accident and hurting or even killing someone around them. And to help encourage businesses from risking having to use that insurance, give out discounts on those that have random testing and even larger discounts that have zero tolerance programs in affect.
Those tests are designed to test if someone is breaking the law, not if employees are intoxicated on the job. Legalize drugs, and nobody gives a shit.
I'm not talking about a breathalyzer unless they think the employee is intoxicated, but Urine Analysis and hair follicle tests as well.
Urinalysis and follicle tests don't test for intoxication. I could be fucked up out of my mind and pass either one of those tests if I've been clean for the last month.
As for the government liking private businesses testing it's employees, why? I have worked for three different companies that have zero tolerance policies and anyone who was caught in a test was not turned in to the government or the police, nor were they fired either. Each company placed that employee in rehab if the employee wanted to keep the job.
The government likes it because instead of spending money enforcing their laws, the private sector can waste millions of dollars testing citizens and threatening them with unemployment to discourage drug use.
On a personal note I was a big time pot-head during my university days, but I stopped once I left. When I started work in the gaming (casino) industry I was clean and have been clean ever since. So I am not comletely anti-drug or pro-war on drugs, but there are real reasons to have such policies, even if it means saving money for the company.
While it's understandable that casinos would want employees who respected the law and came to work sober, that doesn't make drug tests a good idea. For a business the size of a casino, testing costs millions of dollars just to find out if people have been breaking laws that are shit to begin with. And the money they "save" comes from insurance companies raising premiums to cover the artificial risks created by drug prohibition.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

The problem with addicts of hard core drug users is they are virtually unemployable. No one is going to hire or trust a crack addict and they'll be a major drag on the community for that if nothing else. Add addiction to poverty and you get a criminal that's willing to do dangerous shit to get their fix. Not to mention addicts are more likely to be violent and dangerous.

I don't think that all drugs should be illegal but hard drugs should remain illegal. The way there are enforced certainly needs to be cleaned up. The whole things is riddled with stupidty and inefficieny.
Image
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

The problem with addicts of hard core drug users is they are virtually unemployable. No one is going to hire or trust a crack addict and they'll be a major drag on the community for that if nothing else. Add addiction to poverty and you get a criminal that's willing to do dangerous shit to get their fix. Not to mention addicts are more likely to be violent and dangerous.
Which is exactly what's going on now. This is the exact same situation as the one that we have now, except it's costing the gov't billions.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Zoink
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2170
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:15pm
Location: Fluidic Space

Post by Zoink »

Durandal wrote: Other substances which can lead to crime are perfectly legal. Stop trying to dance around this inconsistency.
.....
Of course it's possible; that's not the question. The fact is that it's inconsistent. There is no difference in the harm alcohol does a community as compared to what harm drugs do.
You are creating a false dilemna be trying to say that alcohol and drug legalization are linked. There is no link. It is not immoral to be inconsistant.

The majority of people accept the harm that comes with alcohol legalization (increased insurance cost, medical costs, welfare costs, security/safety risks/costs). You can label such people stupid if you want (I don't think you do since you think it should be legal). Let's say this causes harm amount 'X'

The majority of people don't want to accept the type of harm that comes with drug legalization (for simplicity let's say the harm from legaliation of *all* drugs is the same and equal to alcohol legalization, so label this amount of harm 'X' also)

The majority of people are willing to accept harm X. You are saying that because they are willing to accept alcohol (harm X) that they should be "consistant" and be willing to accept harm amount 2X. You are asking me to accept more harm on the basis that I am willing to accept a little harm. Maybe this is how drug addicts think? I don't.

The fact is, in my area there is no gang violence, very few violent murders, corrupt drug officials, overdoses, police deaths, etc. There is also prohibition against these drugs here. This would suggest there are many other factors that "can be traced" to drug related crime. You would have me focus on prohibition (which IMHO is providing benefits in my community), rather than the immorality of the criminals and the reasons for this lack thereof (lack of education, sense of community, social programs, law enforcement, etc, whatever)

I would rather spend money to bring whatever ever social constraints and programs that allow "good" communities exist to those that lack them, rather then putting crack on store shelves here. Based on my own negative experiences with hard-core users here (and alcoholics), I don't want the amount of such people to increase. You will have a lot of convincing for me to accept that "5 cent crack/heroine/PCP hits" at every corner store will improve my own community.

Perhaps we should take a few target communities (those that have all the negative things you list) and see if complete legalization suddenly increases their standard of living to that of my own.
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

HemlockGrey wrote:Which is exactly what's going on now. This is the exact same situation as the one that we have now, except it's costing the gov't billions.
Legalization would add tons of people to that problem. Enforcement keeps those numbers down. The problem is when it's easy to get and legal there will be a lot more. Especially if the prices come down.
Image
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Zoink wrote:You are creating a false dilemna be trying to say that alcohol and drug legalization are linked. There is no link. It is not immoral to be inconsistant.
Are you a fucking retard? It is not a false dilemma to point out that a direct contradiction in the law should be rectified! Stop trying to dance around the simple fact that you are not the one who decides what people get to do with their own bodies.
The majority of people accept the harm that comes with alcohol legalization (increased insurance cost, medical costs, welfare costs, security/safety risks/costs). You can label such people stupid if you want (I don't think you do since you think it should be legal). Let's say this causes harm amount 'X'
Don't be absurd. These costs are nothing next to the cost of arresting, booking, charging, prosecuting and jailing people who produce alcohol if it's illegal (incidentally, prohibition did not outlaw the consumption of alcohol, just the manufacture and sale and possession of it).
The majority of people don't want to accept the type of harm that comes with drug legalization (for simplicity let's say the harm from legaliation of *all* drugs is the same and equal to alcohol legalization, so label this amount of harm 'X' also)
That's too fucking bad. The majority's opinion is irrelevant when it is one which violates civil rights.
The majority of people are willing to accept harm X. You are saying that because they are willing to accept alcohol (harm X) that they should be "consistant" and be willing to accept harm amount 2X. You are asking me to accept more harm on the basis that I am willing to accept a little harm. Maybe this is how drug addicts think? I don't.
Oh yes, silly me. I forgot that only drug addicts expect the law to be consistent with itself. :roll: Stop being a fucking idiot. The law must apply equally in order to work correctly and fairly, and inconsistency is a road-block to this end, so inconsistencies should not exist. I can't fucking believe I have to explain this to you.
The fact is, in my area there is no gang violence, very few violent murders, corrupt drug officials, overdoses, police deaths, etc. There is also prohibition against these drugs here. This would suggest there are many other factors that "can be traced" to drug related crime. You would have me focus on prohibition (which IMHO is providing benefits in my community), rather than the immorality of the criminals and the reasons for this lack thereof (lack of education, sense of community, social programs, law enforcement, etc, whatever)
False cause fallacy. There were low-crime neighborhoods in America when drugs were legal. If you don't want drugs in your neighborhood, start education programs to inform children of the consequences of their use. Don't think that it's the government's job to waste time and money to illegalize everything you don't like.
I would rather spend money to bring whatever ever social constraints and programs that allow "good" communities exist to those that lack them, rather then putting crack on store shelves here. Based on my own negative experiences with hard-core users here (and alcoholics), I don't want the amount of such people to increase. You will have a lot of convincing for me to accept that "5 cent crack/heroine/PCP hits" at every corner store will improve my own community.
Red herring. This isn't about improving your community, so stop trying to pretend that it is. If that was the case, then I could argue that we should send all blacks back to Africa because a significant percentage of violent offenders are black. Like it or not, getting rid of all black people would reduce the crime rate. But it would be violating their civil rights and simply be morally atrocious.

This is about respecting the rights of others to do what they please with their own bodies. If you don't want people you know to become drug addicts, then take an active, personal role to stop that from happening. If you're too lazy to do that, don't go running to the government telling them that they should be spending tax-payer money to illegalize everything you don't like. Welcome to a fucking free society. Don't like it? Then run over to a communist nation like China and see how much you really like the government telling you what you can and can't do.

It is not the government's job to do it for you or to spend time and money worrying about people's personal lives. The government's job is to protect you from foreign invaders, from direct, physical harm and to punish those who violate others' rights, not to run around policing personal lives.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
User avatar
Durandal
Bile-Driven Hate Machine
Posts: 17927
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:26pm
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by Durandal »

Stormbringer wrote:The problem with addicts of hard core drug users is they are virtually unemployable. No one is going to hire or trust a crack addict and they'll be a major drag on the community for that if nothing else. Add addiction to poverty and you get a criminal that's willing to do dangerous shit to get their fix. Not to mention addicts are more likely to be violent and dangerous.
Explain how the legality of drugs has any bearing on an addict's ability to be employed or likelihood of him being violent or dangerous.

That's right; it doesn't. Illegalizing drugs doesn't change the fact that a crack-head is worthless or more prone to violent crime. So why run around busting every crack-head just for doing crack? Bust the ones who actually do commit violent crimes for committing violent crimes. Wow! What a novel concept! Arresting and punishing people for things they've actually done.
Damien Sorresso

"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Post Reply