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

[Kelly Antilles]

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.

But wouldn't legalizing it cause prices to go up? I mean, the government would hopefully be smart enough to make it legal WITH A PRESCRIPTION ONLY. Let's let the FDA be in charge of it. $200 a joint. How's that sound?

[Durandal]

But wouldn't legalizing it cause prices to go up? I mean, the government would hopefully be smart enough to make it legal WITH A PRESCRIPTION ONLY. Let's let the FDA be in charge of it. $200 a joint. How's that sound?

That would do nothing to solve the problem. The whole point of legitimizing the drug industry is to cut out the dealers who prosper by inflating the prices of drugs because drugs cannot be obtained legally. Making drugs legal and preposterously expensive is the same as making them illegal to a drug dealer. He'll still get business by charging less than the government does, but still maintain the current inflated drug prices.

If drugs suddenly become cheap (which would be the case even if the price was double their cost of production), people start buying from the government for three reasons.

1. The product is much cheaper.
2. Whatever your opinion on dealing with the government is, it's better than dealing with a scumbag drug dealer.
3. The product is much safer. The government can guarantee that its drugs are not laced with anything you don't want. One of my friends once got weed that was laced with acid, and she thought she was going to die. If this scenario could be eliminated, it would cut back severely on the number of drug-related deaths from simple usage. If you buy drugs from a private corporation that are bad, you can sue those responsible. This gets rid of the flow of tainted drugs, which is a good thing.

[Kelly Antilles]

Just so you know, I am NOT condoning the use of barbituates and the like.

[RedImperator]

Just so you know, I am NOT condoning the use of barbituates and the like.

You don't have to condone their use. That's a common strawman applied to legalization proponents. I think heroin use should be legal, but I definitely don't condone it. I don't condone skateboarding down railings either, but I don't want to ban extreme sports. All proponents of legalization are asking the general public to do is 1) recognize that people have the right to do as they wish to their own bodies, and 2) prohibition costs billions, ruins lives, and hasn't done what it's designed to do anyway.

[Galvatron]

But wouldn't legalizing it cause prices to go up? I mean, the government would hopefully be smart enough to make it legal WITH A PRESCRIPTION ONLY. Let's let the FDA be in charge of it. $200 a joint. How's that sound?

$200 a joint?! For medical use only? That's outrageous!

I want full legalization of affordable drugs for purely recreational use, whether it offends anyone or not. If I can slam a bottle of Bacardi 151 in a public bar, I should damn well be able to take a bong rip in the privacy of my own home without having to worry about our overbloated government of opportunistic career politicians sending me to jail because it's "immoral."

[Zoink]

Are you a fucking retard?

Listen you fucking idiotic pisssnob, people can a have a civilized discussion without the fucking name calling.

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.

There is no fucking contradiction. You fucking can't force people to accept fucking harm (see how civilized this sounds now, I'll stop). People *can* accept harm on themselves. There is no contradiction. Your personal freedoms end when they start harming me.

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

Which doesn't change the fact that legal alcohol consumption causes harm. You are again attempting to dictate to me what harm I should accept. Stop violating my rights.

That's too fucking bad. The majority's opinion is irrelevant when it is one which violates civil rights.

Yes but what is your point. Legal crack use is not a civil right. You have a right to do what you want unless that thing affects me, at which point I *mysteriously* have a say.

Oh yes, silly me. I forgot that only drug addicts expect the law to be consistent with itself. 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.

There is no contradiction in law. Alcohol is legal, drugs are not.

You don't have a right to harm me. Being a crack-head harms me. I have a legal right to protect myself from the harm done to me by crack heads. ie. You can't legally be a crack-head.

The alcoholic living next door to my parents is also harming me. I pay for his welfare and medical costs. Unfortunately, there is no laws against being an alcoholic because the majority doesn't support this law. This is a problem with the laws controlling alcohol. This still doesn't give crack heads the right to legally harm me also.

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.

No "prohibition causes crime" is a false cause fallacy (just because the two are often related doesn't mean the A causes B) My real world example of a prohibition area without gang violence, etc, is an example where A didn't cause B, which is evidence that there are other causes. I presented it as nothing more than this.

Your suggestion for education programs is good (I'd support tax money on that) and should help reduce the negative impact of illegal drugs.

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.

Huh? Being black doesn't harm me. Being a crack-head does. Blacks aren't African citizens either.

This is about respecting the rights of others to do what they please with their own bodies.

Which you can do without my interference until such time as YOU interfere with myself.

don't go running to the government telling them that they should be spending tax-payer money to illegalize everything you don't like.

I illegalize stuff that causes me harm. As a citizen of my country I have the right to tell my gov't to what extent tax money should be spent to solve problems I don't want to solve myself. I don't pave the highways myself either, sorry.

Welcome to a fucking free society.

I think you are confused. The country I am in now has laws against illegal drug use. Why should I move to China? At exactly what point is crack going to become legal?

[RedImperator]

But wouldn't legalizing it cause prices to go up? I mean, the government would hopefully be smart enough to make it legal WITH A PRESCRIPTION ONLY. Let's let the FDA be in charge of it. $200 a joint. How's that sound?

That's no better than Uranium's "enormous fines" proposal. It won't do a thing to reduce illegal drug trafficing. The only way to put the dealers out of business is to undercut their prices. You could sell marijuana legally out of a state store (the way Pennsylvania sells liquor) at three times the price it costs to producuce, process, and distribute it and still sell for cheaper than a bag of Delaware ditch weed on the streets of Camden, and the buyers would know there was a certain minimum level of quality to expect and nobody would have laced it with anything. Frankly, I don't think the government ought to be in the business of satisfying people's vices (which is why I'm against state lotteries), but if someone said to me, "You can now buy marijuana legally, but only at a state-owned store," I'd be too busy celebrating the end of the biggest civil rights disaster since segregation ended to complain about government intrusion into the private sector.

[RedImperator]

Listen you fucking idiotic pisssnob, people can a have a civilized discussion without the fucking name calling.

You've been on SD.net since July 4 and you haven't figured out that when people repeatedly refuse to understand an argument, the flames start coming out?

There is no fucking contradiction. You fucking can't force people to accept fucking harm (see how civilized this sounds now, I'll stop). People *can* accept harm on themselves. There is no contradiction. Your personal freedoms end when they start harming me.

Both Durandal and I have asked you now to prove how you've been DIRECTLY, VERIFIABLY harmed by a crack head in a way that can't be traced to drug prohibition. You've yet to do so. A vague, "They cost me money" doesn't count, because one of the prices you pay for the benefits of living in a free society is paying for other people's stupidity.

Which doesn't change the fact that legal alcohol consumption causes harm. You are again attempting to dictate to me what harm I should accept. Stop violating my rights.

"Stop violating my rights!" Jesus, I hope you were trying to be ironic there. You're not taking any harm that justifies taking away someone else's freedom when people drink, and you're not taking any when people take drugs. I challenged you to prove how my taking drugs LAST NIGHT harmed you. You've yet to do that, either.

That's too fucking bad. The majority's opinion is irrelevant when it is one which violates civil rights.

Yes but what is your point. Legal crack use is not a civil right. You have a right to do what you want unless that thing affects me, at which point I *mysteriously* have a say.

Not being thrown into prison for putting a substance the majority disapproves of in your body IS a civil right, whether or not you care to accept it, and you've given me yet another chance to point out you've proven NO demonstrable harm done you. Your offended puritanism does not constitute harm.

There is no contradiction in law. Alcohol is legal, drugs are not.

You don't have a right to harm me. Being a crack-head harms me. I have a legal right to protect myself from the harm done to me by crack heads. ie. You can't legally be a crack-head.

Ahem. A quote from you:

Which doesn't change the fact that legal alcohol consumption causes harm.

Alcohol use causes harm. Drug use causes harm. Alcohol is legal. Drugs aren't legal. The only justification you have is, "Well the majority accepts it," which is a fallacious appeal to popularity and completely unacceptable in anything remotely resembling a free society. The laws are contradictory by your own admission.

Concession accepted.

The alcoholic living next door to my parents is also harming me. I pay for his welfare and medical costs. Unfortunately, there is no laws against being an alcoholic because the majority doesn't support this law. This is a problem with the laws controlling alcohol. This still doesn't give crack heads the right to legally harm me also.

Piss or get off the pot. Either alcohol should be illegal, drugs should be legal, or you accept a contradiction in the law.

No "prohibition causes crime" is a false cause fallacy (just because the two are often related doesn't mean the A causes B) My real world example of a prohibition area without gang violence, etc, is an example where A didn't cause B, which is evidence that there are other causes. I presented it as nothing more than this.

Your suggestion for education programs is good (I'd support tax money on that) and should help reduce the negative impact of illegal drugs.

Has it occured to you at all that the reason YOUR neighborhood is sparkling clean and low crime because the drug users are going into high crime areas to get them? The majority of drug users are middle class, white, and from the suburbs, while the majority of drug crime is committed in the inner cities. Your argument for prohibtion has now devolved to, "Well, MY neighborhood is clean and low crime, so prohibition must be working," utterly ignoring the fact that entire cities have been ruined by the drug trade, supplying drugs to white users while their neighbors argue that prohibition is just dandy because, golly, it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone they know. That's pure elitist bullshit. Either end prohibition so suburban users can buy from legitimate businessmen in their own neighborhood, or accept REAL enforcement in your own neighborhood (I wonder how many of these soccer moms who want the government to protect them from big, bad drug users would feel about prohibition when their kids start getting hauled off to jail instead of slapped on the wrist and sent to counseling).

Huh? Being black doesn't harm me. Being a crack-head does. Blacks aren't African citizens either.

And you've still failed to prove that my being a drug users harms you, either, yet if you'd had your way, I'd have gone to jail numerous times already. Durandal's analogy, by your logic, is perfectly reasonable. That Durandal's analogy seems ridiculous to you speaks volumes about your logic.

Which you can do without my interference until such time as YOU interfere with myself.

As you've not proven said harm, concession accepted.

I illegalize stuff that causes me harm. As a citizen of my country I have the right to tell my gov't to what extent tax money should be spent to solve problems I don't want to solve myself. I don't pave the highways myself either, sorry.

You don't have the right to tell people what they can and can't do to their own bodies no matter how much you disapprove unless they're causing you direct harm, which, though I might be beating a dead horse here, you haven't done and frankly you CAN'T do.

I think you are confused. The country I am in now has laws against illegal drug use. Why should I move to China? At exactly what point is crack going to become legal?

You're fine and dandy with people having their lives ruined by a state that in a free society is supposed to be of them, by them, and for them, because they chose to partake in something you disapprove of, and you justify it with bullshit claims of harm and appeals to popularity. Why DON'T you approve of China, which only has a longer list of things they'll throw you in jail for and harsher punishments.

[Durandal]

Listen you fucking idiotic pisssnob, people can a have a civilized discussion without the fucking name calling.

Aw ... did I hurt your poor widduw feelings? I'll try being nicer when you try being smarter, asshat. Mindlessly repeating your "drugs users cause me harm" mantra is not a good way to get me to give you respect.

There is no fucking contradiction. You fucking can't force people to accept fucking harm (see how civilized this sounds now, I'll stop). People *can* accept harm on themselves. There is no contradiction. Your personal freedoms end when they start harming me.

Stop repeating your mindless fucking mantra and explain how a junkie on the street shooting heroin into his arm directly, demonstrably hurts you in any way. I'm growing extremely tired of repeating myself. Your bullshit about having to pay for their injuries is simply part of dealing with a free society. Are you going to outlaw American football and rugby because you have to pay for kids who play them, fully aware of how physical and harmful they can be?

Which doesn't change the fact that legal alcohol consumption causes harm. You are again attempting to dictate to me what harm I should accept. Stop violating my rights.

ROTFLMAO! Listen, clownfucker, you live in a fucking free society, so you expose yourself to harm by default. The people have no such right to "decide what harm they should accept." None. Your bullshit argument about having the right to decide what harm to accept can be directly applied toward justifying the removal of blacks from the continent, illegalizing alcohol, cigarettes and sporting events.

Yes but what is your point. Legal crack use is not a civil right.

Yes, it is. Doing what you wish with your own body, which includes injecting, snorting, smoking or eating anything you damn well please is a basic civil right of any individual in a free society.

You have a right to do what you want unless that thing affects me, at which point I *mysteriously* have a say.

Precisely. You must prove that something I do harms you, because that's how the onus of proof works. You can't run around loudly proclaiming that something hurts you and then scoff at the people that demand to know exactly how.

There is no contradiction in law. Alcohol is legal, drugs are not.

You want to know why I'm flaming you? It's because you're a fucking moron and just repeat things over and over, hiding behind your wall of ignorance. Do I have to fucking spell it out for you? It's a double standard.

You don't have a right to harm me. Being a crack-head harms me. I have a legal right to protect myself from the harm done to me by crack heads. ie. You can't legally be a crack-head.

For the last fucking time.

EXPLAIN HOW A CRACK-HEAD DIRECTLY, DEMONSTRABLY HARMS YOU BY USING CRACK.

The alcoholic living next door to my parents is also harming me. I pay for his welfare and medical costs. Unfortunately, there is no laws against being an alcoholic because the majority doesn't support this law. This is a problem with the laws controlling alcohol. This still doesn't give crack heads the right to legally harm me also.

Welcome to a free society. You also pay for sports-related injuries, cigarette smoke-related diseases and any other number of injuries sustained because of people's stupidity. The majority opinion is utterly irrelevant if it violates civil rights, and it is a civil right to do what you wish with your own body.

No "prohibition causes crime" is a false cause fallacy (just because the two are often related doesn't mean the A causes B) My real world example of a prohibition area without gang violence, etc, is an example where A didn't cause B, which is evidence that there are other causes. I presented it as nothing more than this.

Prohibition causes crime simply through its existence, by making victimless recreational activities illegal. RedImperator and I have both gone to painful lengths to explain to you how prohibition causes crime. Don't throw around the names of logical fallacies like they're buzzwords. I know what they mean; you do not.

Your suggestion for education programs is good (I'd support tax money on that) and should help reduce the negative impact of illegal drugs.

I would support such programs as well, and if they are well-managed and work well, it won't matter if drugs are legal or not. Regardless, it is not your prerogative to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies just because they're harming you six degrees away. I could probably turn almost any innocuous activity into a crime by playing the "I have to pay their welfare" or "I have to pay for it" card. That's why I asked for a direct example of a crack-head harming you.

Huh? Being black doesn't harm me. Being a crack-head does.

And again with your mindless little mantra. Keep repeating it to yourself. According to your logic, anything which can elevate the potential for causing harm to you should be illegal. Well, statistically, black people are involved in more violent crimes than white people. Statistically, crack-heads are involved in more violent crimes than straight people. Ergo, since crack-heads have to go, so do blacks.

Blacks aren't African citizens either.

That's a very nice nitpick.

Which you can do without my interference until such time as YOU interfere with myself.

And that point does not exist when someone shoots heroin into his veins. I'm tired of asking you for an example of a crack-head harming you directly every time he uses crack.

I illegalize stuff that causes me harm. As a citizen of my country I have the right to tell my gov't to what extent tax money should be spent to solve problems I don't want to solve myself. I don't pave the highways myself either, sorry.

And as citizens of the government, crack-heads have the right to do what they wish with their own bodies. I'm rapidly losing patience with your wall of ignorance.

I think you are confused. The country I am in now has laws against illegal drug use. Why should I move to China? At exactly what point is crack going to become legal?

Congratulations on completely missing the fucking point.

[Zoink]

Both Durandal and I have asked you now to prove how you've been DIRECTLY, VERIFIABLY harmed by a crack head in a way that can't be traced to drug prohibition. You've yet to do so. A vague, "They cost me money" doesn't count, because one of the prices you pay for the benefits of living in a free society is paying for other people's stupidity.

Crack-heads are on welfare and cost me money. A crack-head next door who is legally allowed to be there is a security risk because he is usually in a state where he can't determine right from wrong. Costing me money does count. If you do something that makes me pay money you are causing me harm. As a member of society I am obligated to help the unfortunate, not legalize their right to cause me harm.

As a member of society you are also obligated to not cause harm to others, especially by placing yourself in a situation where you are unable to determine right from wrong. This sometimes reduces you own liberties (eg. public intoxication laws).

Again stop trying to dictate what harm I have to accept (eg. welfare to crack-heads).

I challenged you to prove how my taking drugs LAST NIGHT harmed you. You've yet to do that, either.

You are attempting to legalize all drugs including being a crack-head. I don't have to validate harm caused by other drugs, only crack.

In an orgasmic flurry of self-contradiction, you" Which doesn't change the fact that legal alcohol consumption causes harm.

What's the contradiction? I didn't ever say legal alcohol consumption doesn't cause harm. I've been repeating this over and over again.

Alcohol use causes harm. Drug use causes harm. Alcohol is legal. Drugs aren't legal. The only justification you have is, "Well the majority accepts it," which is a fallacious appeal to popularity and completely unacceptable in anything remotely resembling a free society.

I know, that's why it should be illegal to cause harm through alcohol as well as drugs. It should be illegal to be an alcoholic. And again I'll say that this is a problem with alcohol laws, not crack laws.

The reason this law is not in place is because majority rules (unfortunatly in some cases).

The laws are contradictory by your own admission. Piss or get off the pot. Either alcohol should be illegal, drugs should be legal, or you accept a contradiction in the law.

What two laws are being contradicted? Do you know what a law is? These are contradictory laws (#1) "Pot is legal for 18+ year olds" (#2) "Pot is always illegal". That's contradictory.

Either end prohibition so suburban users can buy from legitimate businessmen in their own neighborhood, or accept REAL enforcement in your own neighborhood (I wonder how many of these soccer moms who want the government to protect them from big, bad drug users would feel about prohibition when their kids start getting hauled off to jail instead of slapped on the wrist and sent to counseling).

Accept real enforcement in my own neighborhood. OK, accepted. I never said I was against equal application of a particular law. But again this isn't a major problem because the cost of hard drugs has made their presence less, as this area is generally low income.


------------------

In any case I am beginning to repeat myself, over and over, thus I shall end participation in this thread to avoid simply encouraging flames and such. The point where "f--- you" starts coming out is the point where the need for the last word suddenly loses interest (this is *not* directed to you Red I.), as I participate in such discussions for the entertainment of debate . Please respond as necessary, I will continue to read them.

[RedImperator]

Crack-heads are on welfare and cost me money. A crack-head next door who is legally allowed to be there is a security risk because he is usually in a state where he can't determine right from wrong. Costing me money does count. If you do something that makes me pay money you are causing me harm. As a member of society I am obligated to help the unfortunate, not legalize their right to cause me harm.

No, costing you money is NOT direct verifiable harm. Stealing or damaging your property, harming or killing you, THAT'S direct and verifiable. By your standards of harm, anything that's dangerous should be illegal because it could, concievably, cost you tax dollars.

As a member of society you are also obligated to not cause harm to others, especially by placing yourself in a situation where you are unable to determine right from wrong. This sometimes reduces you own liberties (eg. public intoxication laws).

Of course I'm obligated not to harm other people. The problem is, you haven't yet explained how I harm you when I smoke marijuana or swallow E, yet your reasoning says I should go to jail for doing that. And frankly as for public drunkeness, public intoxication laws are stupid moralistic bullshit, too, and a tool for police departments to use to arrest people they don't care for when they don't have anything else to go on. Technically, I'm violating public drunkeness statues every time I walk home from the bar because I'm too drunk to drive.

Again stop trying to dictate what harm I have to accept (eg. welfare to crack-heads).

Strawman

Definition: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

I never said you had to pay them welfare. I just said you should stop throwing them in prison (which ironically enough, costs more than paying them welfare). If your government choses to give free money to drug addicts, that's a matter for you and your elected representatives to deal with. Elect whatever Canada's equivilant to a Libertarian is if you don't like shelling out for health care and welfare for addicts, which still ends up cheaper, in lives and treasure, than enforcing prohibition anyway.

You are attempting to legalize all drugs including being a crack-head. I don't have to validate harm caused by other drugs, only crack.

Bullshit. Your argument this whole time has been that ALL illegal drugs should stay illegal and they all cause harm. Now you're desparately backpeadling to "I was only talking about crack" because you have NO WAY to prove that I, a drug user, directly harmed you last night when I took drugs. This is not surprising, because I DIDN'T directly harm you.

Concession accepted.

What's the contradiction? I didn't ever say legal alcohol consumption doesn't cause harm. I've been repeating this over and over again.

You've also been saying that it's okay for alcohol to be legal because the majority wills it. Durandal and I both have said, repeatedly and seemingly endlessly, that the will of the majority has no bearing on matters of civil rights. That leaves you with arguing for legal alcohol while drugs are illegal basically just because you say so.

I know, that's why it should be illegal to cause harm through alcohol as well as drugs. It should be illegal to be an alcoholic. And again I'll say that this is a problem with alcohol laws, not crack laws.

The reason this law is not in place is because majority rules (unfortunatly in some cases).

Well, you've neatly solved your contradiction. Unfortunately, you've done that by retreating to an even more absurd position. You're now directly ignoring the results of a ten year social experiment called Prohibition (capital P from the name of the movement) as well as the easily observed results of 40 years of lower-case "p" drug prohibition. You still think you can change human nature, evidence, cost, and unnecessary human misery be damned.

What two laws are being contradicted? Do you know what a law is? These are contradictory laws (#1) "Pot is legal for 18+ year olds" (#2) "Pot is always illegal". That's contradictory.

No. Please tell this fourth-year polisci major what a law is.

Prohibition is prohibition. Your position is "THIS dangerous, addictive, drug should be legal, while these dangerous, addictive drugs shouldn't be." THAT is completely contradictory, and since you've hanged yourself by taking the "all illegal drugs should stay illegal" position rather than the slightly more reasonable "soft drugs like pot and E should be legalized, but hard ones like herion and cocaine shouldn't), I'll point out that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana (THC has no established fatal dose, for starters).

Accept real enforcement in my own neighborhood. OK, accepted. I never said I was against equal application of a particular law. But again this isn't a major problem because the cost of hard drugs has made their presence less, as this area is generally low income.

You're deluding yourself. My hometown is largely lower middle class, in a country with a less extensive state support apparatus, and anyone there could get any drug they liked in less than half an hour, and a whole fuck of a lot of people I knew did. The extent to which drugs are absent in your community is a reflection on the individual values of the people within it, not the price or availability of illegal drugs.


------------------

In any case I am beginning to repeat myself, over and over, thus I shall end participation in this thread to avoid simply encouraging flames and such. The point where "f--- you" starts coming out is the point where the need for the last word suddenly loses interest (this is *not* directed to you Red I.), as I participate in such discussions for the entertainment of debate . Please respond as necessary, I will continue to read them.

Durandal is probably going to have a much nastier response to this than I, but it's not going to make him any less right. You've been repeating yourself because you refuse to accept anyone's arguments except your own, and you seem to think if you just repeat your mantra long enough, everyone else will have an epiphany and see things your way. You've come up with ZERO proof that drug users cause you harm by the mere act of taking drugs, which you need to prove first or else your entire argument falls apart (never mind proving that drugs cause you more harm than prohibition unjustly causes harm to others). Because you've been utterly incapable of doing this, your argument has been shredded and no amount of indignant smokescreening about the F-word is going to change that, and nor will it convince anyone observing this argument that you haven't been beaten.

Durandal's debate style may be more abrasive than mine--call it the ASVS Way or the Wong Principle, or call it being an asshole if you wish--but the fact of the matter is, being mean doesn't make someone wrong. If you want out of this argument, admit you've been beaten and move on. Don't tell everyone a sob story about how rude your opponents are. If either one of us was flaming you without providing evidence, that would invalidate what we were saying, but we're not doing that. Being polite has absolutely nothing to do with being right.

[Durandal]

Durandal is probably going to have a much nastier response to this than I ...

No, I'm tired of bashing my skull against his Wall of Ignorance, so I'm not even going to bother if he's just going to keep repeating his "me paying welfare for them (which is somehow different from paying their prison costs) is them hurting me" mantra and piss and moan about what a mean poopie-head I am, I'm just going to stop. You've been civil with him, and it's gotten you nowhere, so there's no point in me trying to tone down my derision of him.

By the way, if crack-heads could buy drugs legally, they'd be paying taxes on them, so they would, in theory, be paying their own welfare. Guess Zoink will just have to go back to his, "they're infringing on my rights" argument ... After that fails, maybe he'll just start crying like the whiny little bitch he is.

[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.

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.

The problem is there would be a lot more crack heads! Or did you miss that part of making drugs legal?

[Galvatron]

The problem is there would be a lot more crack heads! Or did you miss that part of making drugs legal?

How do you figure that? Do you seriously think that anyone who wasn't already inclined to smoke crack would suddenly decide to take up the habit if it were decriminalized?

[Durandal]

The problem is there would be a lot more crack heads! Or did you miss that part of making drugs legal?

No, there would be a lot more people who use or have used crack but are not necessarily crack-heads. Not every crack-user is worthless to society, just look at Hollywood. Aside from that, making crack legal means that it's taxable, so crack-heads would be contributing every time they bought crack. They won't be totally worthless anymore.

At the same time, we could use the money we save on not busting junkies to expand our drug-awareness programs (not to mention lowering taxes). Drugs shouldn't be illegal, but that doesn't make them a good idea, and I'm fully in support of communities which try to educate their children, both at the personal and communal level, about the consequences of drug use, rather than beating into them the idea that they'll be arrested and treated like a murderer or rapist if they're ever caught using drugs. From my understanding, cigarette awareness programs are working quite well, and cigarettes aren't illegal.

Part of the lure of drugs is that they're illegal (I don't think it's illegal to smoke if you're under 18, just to buy). Take that away, and you can just give kids the straight dope (no pun intended) about what happens when you use crack, cocaine or heroin, and that the only people they are accountable to are themselves. If they don't step up to the responsibility of dealing with drugs, they become addicts and will die in a gutter or spend their lives in rehab programs, just like alcoholics, and the government won't give a flying fuck as long as they pay their taxes on time and don't hurt anyone else. It's not there to babysit.

[Durandal]

How do you figure that? Do you seriously think that anyone who wasn't already inclined to smoke crack would suddenly decide to take up the habit if it were decriminalized?

He's probably basing this on Prohibition. While a lot of people like to talk about the fact that alcohol was a hot black market item, the fact is that most people are law-abiding citizens, and when Prohibition came into effect, most stopped drinking. There's wasn't a bathtub liquor factory under every house.

Once Prohibition was repealed, all those people went back to drinking again. Ergo, legalize crack, and you'll get a bunch more crack-heads. The problem is that crack hasn't really been legal. The current crack-using population of the United States pretty much represents what it will be for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether crack is legal or not. For instance, I'll admit a curiosity with harder drugs, like heroin and cocaine, but I won't try them because they are known for royally fucking up your health. If I was inclined to try cocaine, I could do so, regardless of its legal status.

[Galvatron]

Part of the lure of drugs is that they're illegal (I don't think it's illegal to smoke if you're under 18, just to buy). Take that away, and you can just give kids the straight dope (no pun intended) about what happens when you use crack, cocaine or heroin, and that the only people they are accountable to are themselves.

I think the free advertising that drugs like crack and heroin get from the government, law enforcement, and the media is also a major contributing factor to that. Quit demonizing these drugs, downplay their mystique, and just maybe you'll reduce drug-use because you've stopped encouraging rebellious teenagers to experiment with them.

[Stormbringer]

The problem is there would be a lot more crack heads! Or did you miss that part of making drugs legal?

No, there would be a lot more people who use or have used crack but are not necessarily crack-heads. Not every crack-user is worthless to society, just look at Hollywood. Aside from that, making crack legal means that it's taxable, so crack-heads would be contributing every time they bought crack. They won't be totally worthless anymore.

One of the big problem with hard drugs is they are more addictive than pot. Not everyone that tries them does get hooked but too many do. The fact is that more users will mean more addicts. Hard drugs get people hooked quickly.

And while some might contribute the vast majority won't. There are damn few people that would contribute while on hard drugs. Hollywood is a tiny segment of the population and operates under different rules. Without a job a drug user couldn't contribute so any crack tax becomes a moot point.

And yes I'm basing that off the deterent value of the law. Durandal, you're a lot smarter than most. A lot of people are detered from using drugs by the penalties.

[Durandal]

One of the big problem with hard drugs is they are more addictive than pot. Not everyone that tries them does get hooked but too many do. The fact is that more users will mean more addicts. Hard drugs get people hooked quickly.

Pot isn't physically addictive. Aside from that, I see no reason why legalizing drugs and using some of the billions saved to educate the populace about drug use. This country was founded on freedom and responsibility.

And while some might contribute the vast majority won't. There are damn few people that would contribute while on hard drugs. Hollywood is a tiny segment of the population and operates under different rules. Without a job a drug user couldn't contribute so any crack tax becomes a moot point.

So he'll either die in a gutter or rob a store to pay for his addiction. In the case of the former, fine. In the case of the latter, we arrest and lock him up as a violent offender.

Aside from that, drugs distributed by the government would be far cheaper, and junkies wouldn't need prestigious jobs to support their habit; a burger-flipping joint could conceivably give them the required cash. But this point is largely immaterial. "More crack-heads" isn't really a good defense against legalizing drugs, because the government has no place telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies in the first place.

And yes I'm basing that off the deterent value of the law. Durandal, you're a lot smarter than most. A lot of people are detered from using drugs by the penalties.

I don't think you're hanging around with the people I am. I haven't known a single person willing to try cocaine or marijuana who was deterred by its legal status, and I've never seen any statistics to prove that the majority of people are.

[Stormbringer]

Pot isn't physically addictive. Aside from that, I see no reason why legalizing drugs and using some of the billions saved to educate the populace about drug use. This country was founded on freedom and responsibility.

I'm for legalizing lesser drugs. The effects aren't harmful enough to warrant banning them. Hard drugs on the other hand are.

So he'll either die in a gutter or rob a store to pay for his addiction. In the case of the former, fine. In the case of the latter, we arrest and lock him up as a violent offender.

Duh. But why should we have to have that repeated time and time again so some burn out idiot can get his fix? It's not simply one case but the scale of it.

Aside from that, drugs distributed by the government would be far cheaper, and junkies wouldn't need prestigious jobs to support their habit; a burger-flipping joint could conceivably give them the required cash. But this point is largely immaterial. "More crack-heads" isn't really a good defense against legalizing drugs, because the government has no place telling people what they can and can't put in their own bodies in the first place.

A real drug addict isn't likely to be able to hold down that much of a job. Hard core drug addicts are not really employable. How many businesses are going to hire people that regularly abuse hard core drugs?

I don't think you're hanging around with the people I am. I haven't known a single person willing to try cocaine or marijuana who was deterred by its legal status, and I've never seen any statistics to prove that the majority of people are.

That's nice. But how does disregard for the law mean the law shouldn't be enforced? Most serial killers aren't deterred by the law does that mean murder should be legal?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Umm guys... Please calm this down or I'll kindly ask for this thread to be HoSed. I don't want a Flamewar started over something I said.

[Durandal]

I'm for legalizing lesser drugs. The effects aren't harmful enough to warrant banning them. Hard drugs on the other hand are.

Yet again, you are not the one who decides what someone puts into his body.

Duh. But why should we have to have that repeated time and time again so some burn out idiot can get his fix? It's not simply one case but the scale of it.

Because of this little thing called civil rights. That's part of living in a free society.

A real drug addict isn't likely to be able to hold down that much of a job. Hard core drug addicts are not really employable. How many businesses are going to hire people that regularly abuse hard core drugs?

Hard-core drug addicts will turn to crime or prostitution to support themselves, exactly the way they do now. The legality of drugs has no effect on this. I simply can't make this clearer for you.

That's nice. But how does disregard for the law mean the law shouldn't be enforced? Most serial killers aren't deterred by the law does that mean murder should be legal?

False analogy. Murder is not a victimless crime.

[Stormbringer]

Umm guys... Please calm this down or I'll kindly ask for this thread to be HoSed. I don't want a Flamewar started over something I said.

A) This is civilized debate. Stop saying everything should be Hall of Shamed. That's a mod's call.

B) Stop telling the mod's what to do! Seriously, shut the fuck up with that.

[Durandal]

Umm guys... Please calm this down or I'll kindly ask for this thread to be HoSed. I don't want a Flamewar started over something I said.

You'll do nothing of the sort. Stormbringer and I (we're both mods, in case you haven't noticed, and this is my forum) are managing to have a reasonable discussion, and I've given up on Zoink's dumb ass.

[Durandal]

B) Stop telling the mod's what to do! Seriously, shut the fuck up with that.

Stop telling the mod what to do ... in his own forum.