WebFire;1309469 wrote:Can't say I agree about all drugs being legal.

That's fine.

WebFire;1309469 wrote:Can't say I agree about all drugs being legal.

That's fine as weed would at least be a start.

But I do have to ask, what do you feel is the reason we currently/should ban drugs? I'm talking about the most basic reasoning.

I Wear Pants;1309475 wrote:But I do have to ask, what do you feel is the reason we currently/should ban drugs? I'm talking about the most basic reasoning.

I'll give you one anecdotal story, but it's an all-too common one:

2 or 3 nights ago in Columbus, a 20-something year girl old took a weapon to her grandmother's head and killed her. Why? Her granma caught her stealing her money so that she could buy more drugs to feed her habit. No side effects from drugs? Making them legal would not make them cheap. As you know, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of narcotics, that are dangerously addictive. While alcoholism affects hundreds of thousands, alcoholics don't whack granny with a tire iron to go get a 6-pack of Bud Light. To deny the strength and power of deadly drugs is to be ignorant of their power.

I Wear Pants;1309475 wrote:That's fine as weed would at least be a start.

But I do have to ask, what do you feel is the reason we currently/should ban drugs? I'm talking about the most basic reasoning.

I am for legalizing marijuana. I think it is mostly harmless and non addicting, much like alcohol. Like others have said, it really doesn't bother anyone for someone to use it. And of course it has many medical uses that make it beneficial to society.

Other drugs though, don't have these properties. My biggest concern is that legalizing all drugs would make the bad stuff too easy for young people to get. Once addicted, they do affect others with an increase in crime, due to the addiction needing fed. They will steal to get money for the next fix. They also do very bad things while under the influence. So there are protection issues, and one of the roles of the federal government is protection of its citizens.

That is the basic reasoning.

BGFalcons82;1309492 wrote:I'll give you one anecdotal story, but it's an all-too common one:

2 or 3 nights ago in Columbus, a 20-something year girl old took a weapon to her grandmother's head and killed her. Why? Her granma caught her stealing her money so that she could buy more drugs to feed her habit. No side effects from drugs? Making them legal would not make them cheap. As you know, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of narcotics, that are dangerously addictive. While alcoholism affects hundreds of thousands, alcoholics don't whack granny with a tire iron to go get a 6-pack of Bud Light. To deny the strength and power of deadly drugs is to be ignorant of their power.

Pretty much what he said.

WebFire;1309496 wrote:I am for legalizing marijuana. I think it is mostly harmless and non addicting, much like alcohol. Like others have said, it really doesn't bother anyone for someone to use it. And of course it has many medical uses that make it beneficial to society.

Other drugs though, don't have these properties. My biggest concern is that legalizing all drugs would make the bad stuff too easy for young people to get. Once addicted, they do affect others with an increase in crime, due to the addiction needing fed. They will steal to get money for the next fix. They also do very bad things while under the influence. So there are protection issues, and one of the roles of the federal government is protection of its citizens.

That is the basic reasoning.

How many times has a criminal drug dealer asked for ID from a kid?

Have you not seen the criminal data that's coming out of places that have either legalized and regulated drugs or at least placed the emphasis on treating abuse as a medical issue rather than a criminal one? Violence and crime related to drugs plummets when you take those actions.

BGFalcons82;1309492 wrote:I'll give you one anecdotal story, but it's an all-too common one:

2 or 3 nights ago in Columbus, a 20-something year girl old took a weapon to her grandmother's head and killed her. Why? Her granma caught her stealing her money so that she could buy more drugs to feed her habit. No side effects from drugs? Making them legal would not make them cheap. As you know, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of narcotics, that are dangerously addictive. While alcoholism affects hundreds of thousands, alcoholics don't whack granny with a tire iron to go get a 6-pack of Bud Light. To deny the strength and power of deadly drugs is to be ignorant of their power.

Making them legal would allow the government to restrict their supply and chemical makeup as well as who it's sold to. It would take the power away from the violent cartels.

How many alcohol related deaths are there each year?

Also, this:

I Wear Pants;1309503 wrote:How many times has a criminal drug dealer asked for ID from a kid?

Have you not seen the criminal data that's coming out of places that have either legalized and regulated drugs or at least placed the emphasis on treating abuse as a medical issue rather than a criminal one? Violence and crime related to drugs plummets when you take those actions.

It was ridiculously easy for me to get weed when I was in high school. Easier than buying alcohol or cigarettes because the dealers don't ID.

Not sure what IDs have to do with anything. Making it legal would make it easier to get, period. I'm concerned with the younger people getting it because that's where the addictions start. MOST adults (post-college) are unlikely to start up a drug addiction without prior use.

WebFire;1309517 wrote:Not sure what IDs have to do with anything. Making it legal would make it easier to get, period. I'm concerned with the younger people getting it because that's where the addictions start. MOST adults (post-college) are unlikely to start up a drug addiction without prior use.

I entirely disagree. I can get any number of illicit drugs far more easily than I can get regulated drugs.

I Wear Pants;1309503 wrote:How many times has a criminal drug dealer asked for ID from a kid?

Have you not seen the criminal data that's coming out of places that have either legalized and regulated drugs or at least placed the emphasis on treating abuse as a medical issue rather than a criminal one? Violence and crime related to drugs plummets when you take those actions.

No, I haven't seen the data. I am sure it works with marijuana, but I have a hard time with the hard drugs. I am willing to look at the data though.

WebFire;1309521 wrote:No, I haven't seen the data. I am sure it works with marijuana, but I have a hard time with the hard drugs. I am willing to look at the data though.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

I Wear Pants;1309520 wrote:I entirely disagree.

Depends on how you make it legally available. With marijuana, there are legal benefits were it can be regulated and offered as prescriptions. It could also be produced for personal consumption without being legal to sell, much like beer. Though liquor is still illegal even for personal consumption (which it shouldn't be).

So how do you regulate the hard stuff that has 0 benefits? Who gets to make and sell it, and why?

I Wear Pants;1309522 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

That's decriminalizing, not legalizing.

I Wear Pants;1309506 wrote:Making them legal would allow the government to restrict their supply and chemical makeup as well as who it's sold to. It would take the power away from the violent cartels.

I respectfully, completely disagree.

Restricting supply does what? It INCREASES the illegal sale of them. For a current example, non-stamped cigarette trafficking (a wholly-regulated industry with major restictions) are a multi-million dollar industry in the Northeast. Making them legal and regulating them has the effect of making non-regulated versions highly attractive. I would argue the cartels would maintain their strength in selling today's non-regulated drugs to minors, those with records, and those looking to save some money.

Government's attempt to regulate sales of today's legal drugs, alcohol, and cigs/tobacco have not curtailed the illegal markets for these products. The same scenarios would apply for dangerous narcotics.

On another level, who would use them? Employers are already testing employees for nicotene, drugs, and excessive alcohol. Who could go on a crack-bender and show up for work without being subject to a drug screening? Even if the USA declares them legal, employers can legally discriminate against their use as it affects a companys ability to survive. For a local example, Scotts fires people on the spot if they have legal nicotine in their blood.

BGFalcons82;1309492 wrote:I'll give you one anecdotal story, but it's an all-too common one:

2 or 3 nights ago in Columbus, a 20-something year girl old took a weapon to her grandmother's head and killed her. Why? Her granma caught her stealing her money so that she could buy more drugs to feed her habit. No side effects from drugs? Making them legal would not make them cheap. As you know, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of narcotics, that are dangerously addictive. While alcoholism affects hundreds of thousands, alcoholics don't whack granny with a tire iron to go get a 6-pack of Bud Light. To deny the strength and power of deadly drugs is to be ignorant of their power.

I mean you tell this story but how many more assaults, deaths, drunk driving deaths, etc. are caused by alcohol? Way more. I am a regular consumer of alcohol but it has a lot of negative effects on society, period. Plenty of deaths, domestic violence, etc. involve alcohol.

And, if we had a justice system that helped people with drug problems more so than punished them...there's the option that a person who would shoot grandma for a rock might get some help. Clearly the drugs being illegal didn't stop her from capping grandma no?

BGFalcons82;1309532 wrote:I respectfully, completely disagree.

Restricting supply does what? It INCREASES the illegal sale of them. For a current example, non-stamped cigarette trafficking (a wholly-regulated industry with major restictions) are a multi-million dollar industry in the Northeast. Making them legal and regulating them has the effect of making non-regulated versions highly attractive. I would argue the cartels would maintain their strength in selling today's non-regulated drugs to minors, those with records, and those looking to save some money.

Government's attempt to regulate sales of today's legal drugs, alcohol, and cigs/tobacco have not curtailed the illegal markets for these products. The same scenarios would apply for dangerous narcotics.

On another level, who would use them? Employers are already testing employees for nicotene, drugs, and excessive alcohol. Who could go on a crack-bender and show up for work without being subject to a drug screening? Even if the USA declares them legal, employers can legally discriminate against their use as it affects a companys ability to survive. For a local example, Scotts fires people on the spot if they have legal nicotine in their blood.

The illegal cigarette market is curbed substantially by the legal, regulated market.

BGFalcons82;1309532 wrote:I respectfully, completely disagree.

Restricting supply does what? It INCREASES the illegal sale of them. For a current example, non-stamped cigarette trafficking (a wholly-regulated industry with major restictions) are a multi-million dollar industry in the Northeast. Making them legal and regulating them has the effect of making non-regulated versions highly attractive. I would argue the cartels would maintain their strength in selling today's non-regulated drugs to minors, those with records, and those looking to save some money.

Government's attempt to regulate sales of today's legal drugs, alcohol, and cigs/tobacco have not curtailed the illegal markets for these products. The same scenarios would apply for dangerous narcotics.

On another level, who would use them? Employers are already testing employees for nicotene, drugs, and excessive alcohol. Who could go on a crack-bender and show up for work without being subject to a drug screening? Even if the USA declares them legal, employers can legally discriminate against their use as it affects a companys ability to survive. For a local example, Scotts fires people on the spot if they have legal nicotine in their blood.

Why did it not go that way with alcohol? Alcohol had the exact same problems that currently illicit drugs have during prohibition. Cartels, violence, rampant abuse. And all of those (save perhaps abuse since I've never seen data on that one comparing during/after prohibition) are essentially nonexistent now as far as the alcohol trade goes.

If you aren't for either legalization or decriminalization then what is your alternative? Because if it's to continue to use the policies we've been using for the past 50 years I question either your sincerity in wanting to lesson violence and health issues related to these drugs or your sanity.

Furthermore, look at how far the Tea Partier in this thread will go to argue against freedom from government intrusion ITT with spurious evidence at best and further how little he will be upset by private, unjustifiable coercion by employers, etc.

BoatShoes;1309541 wrote:I mean you tell this story but how many more assaults, deaths, drunk driving deaths, etc. are caused by alcohol? Way more. I am a regular consumer of alcohol but it has a lot of negative effects on society, period. Plenty of deaths, domestic violence, etc. involve alcohol.

And, if we had a justice system that helped people with drug problems more so than punished them...there's the option that a person who would shoot grandma for a rock might get some help. Clearly the drugs being illegal didn't stop her from capping grandma no?

We're getting way too far into the weeds.

My original point is that Libertarians rigid stance on making hard narcotics legal is defeating their chances to becoming a national player in politics. We can go tit-for-tat on this message board about this story and that, but the truth is that dangerous hard narcotics are deleterious to a culture. Americans know this and will not support a political party that claims illegal drugs don't hurt anyone but the user. It is a falsehood. Do you think you can get hundreds of millions of Americans to agree with legalizing heroin, crack and meth? You can argue with me and win debate points, but the simple truth is that it's holding, if not defeating, Libertarians.

Compromise your stance or face eternal head banging and failure to be signficant. It's your choice, Libertarians.

I Wear Pants;1309546 wrote:If you aren't for either legalization or decriminalization then what is your alternative? Because if it's to continue to use the policies we've been using for the past 50 years I question either your sincerity in wanting to lesson violence and health issues related to these drugs or your sanity.

We were having a decent conversation with viewpoints each of us disagrees with and you have to swerve into a personal view on my sanity? Dammit, man. :mad:

If I had the answer, then I'd be king. Clearly, the "War on Drugs" isn't working. Clearly, having dangerous hard narcotics available at the Walgreen's isn't a viable alternative for a country that claims to be the best place in the world. I think a hard internal look at why drugs are so popular, why they are needed so rampantly, and why they are so readily available would be a fantastic place to start. Like firefighters do, reduce the source and the fire disappears. Constantly pouring water on an endless fire only prolongs the length and doesn't solve what's causing it.

BoatShoes;1309549 wrote:Furthermore, look at how far the Tea Partier in this thread will go to argue against freedom from government intrusion ITT with spurious evidence at best and further how little he will be upset by private, unjustifiable coercion by employers, etc.

Huh?

What is "ITT"?
Spurious evidence? People killing and stealing money for drug use isn't rampant, eh? Whatever you want to believe, I guess.

BGFalcons82;1309561 wrote:We were having a decent conversation with viewpoints each of us disagrees with and you have to swerve into a personal view on my sanity? Dammit, man. :mad:

If I had the answer, then I'd be king. Clearly, the "War on Drugs" isn't working. Clearly, having dangerous hard narcotics available at the Walgreen's isn't a viable alternative for a country that claims to be the best place in the world. I think a hard internal look at why drugs are so popular, why they are needed so rampantly, and why they are so readily available would be a fantastic place to start. Like firefighters do, reduce the source and the fire disappears. Constantly pouring water on an endless fire only prolongs the length and doesn't solve what's causing it.

I didn't question your sanity because of the bolded. I said if you were espousing that the current policies which we've been using for the past 50 years (War on Drugs) are the right way to go about things then I question your sanity.

Drugs are popular because of the same reasons that smoking or drinking are popular. People either use them socially for fun, as an escape, or because they're addicted. They're so readily available because of the policies we've taken.

Would you agree that it is not possible to eliminate the demand or supply of drugs? If so why would you prefer drugs continue to be sold by criminal individuals in back alleys rather than by professionals in lighted, licensed dispensaries? It's similar to abortions in that regard really, because even if your opinion is that people shouldn't get abortions you should recognize that people do get abortions regardless of the legality and that it's better to have a women go to a licensed medical doctor in a professional facility then to have her go to some seedy underground establishment.


Edit: ITT means "in this thread" usually. That or he was talking about a tech school.

Legalize drugs. Benefits far outweigh the risks. But it won't happen. It's just another government cash cow. If it weren't for the Fed, there would be no "war on drugs". There wouldn't be needless wars in foreign lands either...for the same "cash cow" reasons either. But that's been covered in previous threads.

BGFalcons82;1309569 wrote:Huh?

What is "ITT"?
Spurious evidence? People killing and stealing money for drug use isn't rampant, eh? Whatever you want to believe, I guess.

I highly doubt people are stealing money or killing people to get marijuana. I don't smoke, but I know people who do and mostly they just hang around and eat food all day. I don't see that as being a problem; at least no different than alcohol.