U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:26 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,852,715 times
Reputation: 1298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
prove it lets see it...
Look in the mirror...

Look at your co-workers (if you have a job)
Go to the supermarket
Go to the beach
Go to any tanning salon


Your arguments all contradict logic.

Did the repeal of alcohol prohibition increase or decrease crime?
That's the only logical argument.
My smoking of a marijuana joint wont hurt anyone (barely even myself, aside from the damage to my lungs because I didn't vaporize or eat the marijuana) and you can't claim that it'll cause accidents because it simply hasn't. I was in two car accidents in my life, one caused by the fact I was a 15 year old who couldn't control the car well enough, and the other because I fell asleep at the wheel as a 19-year old. Both times I was clean and sober. Since, I have smoked marijuana many times before and during long drives and have yet to have so much as a scratch on my car in 7 years. Alcohol, Cell Phones and inattentiveness cause more accidents than marijuana.

You're trying to argue opinion against logic, so you'll never win and you'll never change your mind. You don't listen to logic, so how can we take anything you say seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,852,715 times
Reputation: 1298
And crime is high in areas with a high % of drug use because the people in those areas are poor, less educated and desperate. Hence, the reason why they turn to hard drugs like Crack and PCP.

The main question is, would you rather see those people spend their money on drugs produced and pushed by criminals, or would you rather see them spend their money on drugs produced and pushed by tax-paying corporations? You'll never stop drugs in the US, if you think you can, you are delusional. If you thought the drug war was working, you're fooling yourself. Even at the lowest point of drug use in American History had millions on drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,645,816 times
Reputation: 390
Hmmm . . . I guess you don't want to say what the point of the first picture post was supposed to be.

Are you Carolyn C. Gargaro, by the way, or are you just plagiarizing from that site?

I'll respond to the first section anyway just for gits n' shiggles though as I have my afternoon snack & coffee .

Maybe if you actually contribute something substantive rather than posting pictures, links and copied and pasted websites, and you're interested, I'll answer some of the other sections. It's just too long to spend the rest of my afternoon doing it when it's probably primarily a typing exercise for me anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
. . . that individuals have the right to do as they see fit, as long as they do not harm anyone else.
I sure do not frame anything that way, because it's far too vague. "Harm" is subjective and ambiguous, and framing it in that way mentions nothing about consent. You should be able to harm someone else in whatever way the involved parties desire as long as it's consensual. I rather specify what nonconsensual harms I'd disallow in terms of objective observables.
Quote:
First, we don't have the right to do anything we want with our body.
The argument isn't based on a notion that you can presently do everything else, so long as it is consensual, except for drugs. The idea is that you SHOULD be able to anything consensual, and drugs are just one aspect of that.
Quote:
Can I walk down the street naked?
You should be able to do that.
Quote:
Can I say what I want anywhere I want? (if you said "yes" to the last question, try yelling "hijack" on a plane and get back to me.)
You should have complete freedom of speech, except for a very narrow class of speech that is demonstrably causal to the kind of harm I specify in objective terms as being prohibited if nonconsensual. (A quick example would be a device designed to explode a bomb that would harm others nonconsensually at the utterance of a particular word.)
Quote:
Which is more harmful - me walking around with no shirt or me shooting up with crack?
Neither is harmful in any way that would be prohibited.
Quote:
. . . drugs do NOT just hurt the person who chooses to use them.
Again, because I do not frame anything in terms of an unqualified "harm", this doesn't work. Drug use does not harm anyone in any way that I would legislatively prohibit.
Quote:
Is that person going to have a flashback while sitting at home - or while driving? Or while operating machinery? If that person has a flashback while driving the bus and an accident results, will people be so quick to say that the bus driver's "choice" to take LSD didn't hurt anyone else?
Negligent harm of that type, including negligent homicide, is not at all limited to drug use. Legislative repercussions would be in place for negligent harms of the type that would be prohibited whether the cause is daydreaming, trying to find a particular radio station, having sex in the car, drug use, or whatever. That you can be the cause of negligent homicide doesn't suggest that we try to outlaw every possible source of that--such as making radios illegal in vehicles. The general legislative repercussions are sufficient. And I believe that it's wrong to legislate against potentialities anyway. It's only just to legislate against harms of the type I would prohibit (non-consensual, with particular objective properties), and the negligence and the harm that results are not identical to the factors that led to the negligence, which is what we want to discourage.
Quote:
For instance, according to a 1994 Newsweek report on child abuse, "Drugs now suffuse 80 percent of the caseload; sexual and physical assaults that once taxed the imagination are now common."
Avoiding other problems there (such as correlation versus causation), this issue is similar to negligent harm.
Quote:
It is also estimated that 100,000 babies a year are born addicted to cocaine. I don't think these babies chose to take these drugs.
I also do not think that they stay addicted for very long. They can't choose to do the drug, either, and the parent isn't forcing it on them. That's referring to babies being born of mothers who did cocaine while they were pregnant. The same things hold here, though. A general proscription against nonconsensual harms of the type prohibited is sufficient, whatever the cause of the harm in the kid.
Quote:
Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he was high on PCP.
No one wants to do away with a proscription against rape. That's the crime there, whatever the cause (and there's no way to show that particular things were a cause there anyway).
Quote:
Tell that to the taxpayers who will be paying out the wazoo for higher insurance rates, more taxes for drug rehabilitation programs, and more money for court cases due to the increased number of drug related offenses.
Presumably conservatives and libertarians who are in favor of drug legalization would not be in favor of large-scale public programs funded by taxes, so that argument wouldn't work with them either.
Quote:
Please don't tell me that drugs hurt only the person who chooses to use them - that's not true.
Please do not tell me that drugs and rape are identical, or drugs and negligent homicide, etc. They're different things.
Quote:
In addition, if taking heroin or cocaine is an individual's "choice", then isn't also their "choice" to take any other drug they wish?
Of course.
Quote:
With this in mind, what are we going to do about all the drugs that are available by prescription only?
I'm against drugs being prohibited in that way.
Quote:
. . . this drug has now been removed from the market due to dangerous side effects.
When dangerous properties are known, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to disclose that information. Beyond that, it is the consumer's choice whether to take that drug or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,684,231 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Look in the mirror...

Look at your co-workers (if you have a job)
Go to the supermarket
Go to the beach
Go to any tanning salon


Your arguments all contradict logic.

Did the repeal of alcohol prohibition increase or decrease crime?
That's the only logical argument.
My smoking of a marijuana joint wont hurt anyone (barely even myself, aside from the damage to my lungs because I didn't vaporize or eat the marijuana) and you can't claim that it'll cause accidents because it simply hasn't. I was in two car accidents in my life, one caused by the fact I was a 15 year old who couldn't control the car well enough, and the other because I fell asleep at the wheel as a 19-year old. Both times I was clean and sober. Since, I have smoked marijuana many times before and during long drives and have yet to have so much as a scratch on my car in 7 years. Alcohol, Cell Phones and inattentiveness cause more accidents than marijuana.

You're trying to argue opinion against logic, so you'll never win and you'll never change your mind. You don't listen to logic, so how can we take anything you say seriously?
LOL so in the supermarket i will see normal human beings who have gotten themselves so messed up on drugs they look like the walking dead I think not but you are a danger on the road even if you don't care about the live of orhers.... Driving and marijuana do not mix; that's the bottom line," said Dr. Stephen J. Heishman, a research psychologist in the Clinical Pharmacology Branch of NIDA's Division of Intramural Research. Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted. However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.
In a laboratory study at NIDA's Addiction Research Center in Baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, Dr. Heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.
The data from these laboratory studies show that marijuana impairs balance and coordination - functional components important to driving - in a dose-related way, said Dr. Heishman. These effects may be related to reported marijuana-induced impairment of automobile driving, he stated.
Highway and urban driving studies conducted in the Netherlands show less impact on actual driving. However, these driving studies used very low doses of marijuana for safety reasons, Dr. Heishman said. Future research using appropriate safety measures should test the effect of higher doses of marijuana on driving as well as the combined effect of marijuana and alcohol on driving, he concluded
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Does it matter?
117 posts, read 148,098 times
Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLangben View Post
Basically, drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves.

The only reason why drugs remain illegal is due to the Religious influence of our laws (which I believe violates separation of church in state), and also corporate influence of pharmaceutical companies as well as alcohol and tobacco.
I don't understand why a lot of situations are blamed on religion. Do you have nothing else to blame? Blaming religion for the fact that drugs are illegal is about as bad as blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shootings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
Would your argument be that you do not believe that people should be able to decide what they'd like with their own bodies, or? Force them to remain attractive-looking to you?
This has nothing to do with how attractive they are. Drugs actually have an extreme negative impact on the body.

Quote:
Ecstasy has rapidly become a favorite drug among young party goers in the U.S. and Europe, and it is now being used within the mainstream as well. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Ecstasy use tripled among Americans between 1998 and 2001. Many people believe, incorrectly, that this synthetic drug is safer than cocaine and heroin. In fact, the drug is addictive and can be deadly. The drug often results in severe dehydration and heat stroke in the user, since it has the effect of “short-circuiting” the body’s temperature signals to the brain. Ecstasy can heat your body up to temperatures as high as 117 degrees. Ecstasy can cause hypothermia, muscle breakdown, seizures, stroke, kidney and cardiovascular system failure, as well as permanent brain damage during repetitive use, and sometimes death. The psychological effects of Ecstasy include confusion, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, drug craving, and paranoia.

Physical effects of cocaine use include constricted blood vessels and increased temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure. Users may also experience feelings of restlessness, irritability, and anxiety. Cocaine-related deaths are often the result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest. Cocaine continues to be the most frequently mentioned illicit substance in U.S. emergency departments, present in 30 percent of the emergency department drug episodes during 2001.

Drug legalization advocates in the United States single out marijuana as a different kind of drug, unlike cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. They say it’s less dangerous. Several European countries have lowered the classification of marijuana. However, as many people are realizing, marijuana is not as harmless as some would have them believe. Marijuana is far more powerful than it used to be. In 2000, there were six times as many emergency room mentions of marijuana use as there were in 1990, despite the fact that the number of people using marijuana is roughly the same. In 1999, a record 225,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana dependence, second only to heroin—and not by much.

At a time of great public pressure to curtail tobacco because of its effects on health, advocates of legalization are promoting the use of marijuana. Yet, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.” Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including the most harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. For example, smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.

Those are the long-term effects of marijuana. The short-term effects are also harmful. They include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety. Marijuana impacts young people’s mental development, their ability to concentrate in school, and their motivation and initiative to reach goals. And marijuana affects people of all ages: Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.

Medical marijuana already exists. It’s called Marinol.

In the year 2000, drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion. More important were the concrete losses that are imperfectly symbolized by those billions of dollars—the destruction of lives, the damage of addiction, fatalities from car accidents, illness, and lost opportunities and dreams.

Drug abuse drives some of America’s most costly social problems—including domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of AIDS, and homelessness. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and treatment of the consequences of family violence burden our already strapped health care system. In 2000, there were more than 600,000 hospital emergency department drug episodes in the United States. Health care costs for drug abuse alone were about $15 billion.
Quote:
In 1998, Americans spent $67 billion for illegal drugs, a sum of money greater than the amount spent that year to finance public higher education in the United States. If the money spent on illegal drugs were devoted instead to public higher education, for example, public colleges would have the financial ability to accommodate twice as many students as they already do.
Oh wow, what?

Quote:
Advocates also argue that legalization will lower prices. But that raises a dilemma: If the price of drugs is low, many more people will be able to afford them and the demand for drugs will explode. For example, the cost of cocaine production is now as low as $3 per gram. At a market price of, say, $10 a gram, cocaine could retail for as little as ten cents a hit. That means a young person could buy six hits of cocaine for the price of a candy bar. On the other hand, if legal drugs are priced too high, through excise taxes, for example, illegal traffickers will be able to undercut it.

The claim that money allegedly saved from giving up on the drug problem could be better spent on education and social problems is readily disputed. When compared to the amount of funding that is spent on other national priorities, federal drug control spending is minimal. For example, in 2002, the amount of money spent by the federal government on drug control was less than $19 billion in its entirety. And unlike critics of American drug policy would have you believe, all of those funds did not go to enforcement policy only. Those funds were used for treatment, education and prevention, as well as enforcement. Within that budget, the amount of money Congress appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration was roughly $1.6 billion, a sum that the Defense Department runs through about every day-and-a-half or two days.

In FY 2002, the total federal drug budget was $11.5 billion.

By contrast, our country spent about $650 billion, in total, in 2000 on our nation’s educational system. And most of us would agree that it was money well spent, even if our educational system isn’t perfect. Education is a long-term social concern, with new problems that arise with every new generation. The same can be said of drug abuse and addiction. Yet nobody suggests that we should give up on our children’s education. Why, then, would we give up on helping to keep them off drugs and out of addiction?

Legalizers also fail to mention that, unless drugs are made available to children, law enforcement will still be needed to deal with the sale of drugs to minors. In other words, a vast black market will still exist. Since young people are often the primary target of pushers, many of the criminal organizations that now profit from illegal drugs would continue to do so.

Criminal justice costs would likely increase if drugs were legalized. It is quite likely that violent crime would significantly increase with greater accessibility to dangerous drugs — whether the drugs themselves are legal or not. According to a 1991 Justice Department study, six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. More taxes would have to be raised to pay for additional personnel in law enforcement, which is already overburdened by crimes and traffic fatalities associated with alcohol. Law enforcement is already challenged by significant alcohol-related crimes. More users would probably result in the commission of additional crimes, causing incarceration costs to increase as well.
I know it's a lot to read, but you should seriously take the time to read those things. It's not ALL of what was posted, just tidbits from here and there. I find it rather interesting and, if you still want to legalize drugs, you're just greedy and looking for an excuse to make your behavior legal...

Drug Enforcement Administration Home (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/index.htm - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,684,231 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
And crime is high in areas with a high % of drug use because the people in those areas are poor, less educated and desperate. Hence, the reason why they turn to hard drugs like Crack and PCP.

The main question is, would you rather see those people spend their money on drugs produced and pushed by criminals, or would you rather see them spend their money on drugs produced and pushed by tax-paying corporations? You'll never stop drugs in the US, if you think you can, you are delusional. If you thought the drug war was working, you're fooling yourself. Even at the lowest point of drug use in American History had millions on drugs.
what about the middle class kids and the kids from"good " familys who are addicts http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0022.gif (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,684,231 times
Reputation: 388
Addicts rationally choose their poison despite knowing that it is habit-forming and dangerous, and they do so because they expect the highs to outweigh the lows,” explain two economists, Gary Becker and Kevin M. Murphy, in a report on addiction from the University of Chicago. Addiction is an difficult topic for economists to undertake and measure, but because of the estimated $590 billion dollar price tag that addiction costs America each year, economists can’t help but take notice.


In addition, according to estimates from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a combined $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care, lost productivity, premature death, crime and auto accidents relating to alcohol and drug abuse. Roughly 75 percent of all that money was paid for by public sources, which means American taxpayers are footing three quarters of the bill. With 117 million taxpayers in the U.S., this means that the average amount paid by each individual taxpayers amounted to approximately $1,800. That pretty much negates that nice Economic Stimulus Check you received this year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:56 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,034,631 times
Reputation: 1335
I cringe at the notion of siding with the lefties here, but drug prohibition is futile and thus illogical in every way. Hell, most of the Founding Fathers were drug addicts to some extent. And they were not into just drinking like what we would now consider mad men either. Opium is just one of the many "hard" socially acceptable drugs of the time. People like Franklin spent much of their lives in a drunken stupor. Yeah, he was eccentric, whatever.

The fact is that many people do very violent and stupid things when you turn a rather benign activity into a very lucrative criminal act. I am not saying anything new, I know, but it can not be emphasized enough. If you are dumb enough to poison yourself all of the time you should be allowed to without government intervention.

The only problem with drug usage that I have is because of our social policies that force me to pay for the results of its usage. The prohibition costs too much no matter how you look at it. It is far cheaper to legalize it for idiots to use drugs. I don't mind if they all poison themselves to death as long as I don't have to pay for their medical bills or jail cells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,645,816 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
Argument 1: "But taking drugs is an individual's choice...." . . .
It's interesting, by the way, that all of Gargaro's arguments seem to be predicated on the assumption that, aside from wanting to legalize drugs, her opponent is going to support the status quo on everything else.

I suppose doing it that way has practical value, though, as it's certainly easier for Gargaro, and if she were debating someone as politically radical as I am, she can just paint you as a wacko, proportionate to just how far you deviate from otherwise accepting the status quo, and that would attend to work in her favor on an emotional level for most of the folks listening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,684,231 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
I cringe at the notion of siding with the lefties here, but drug prohibition is futile and thus illogical in every way. Hell, most of the Founding Fathers were drug addicts to some extent. And they were not into just drinking like what we would now consider mad men either. Opium is just one of the many "hard" socially acceptable drugs of the time. People like Franklin spent much of their lives in a drunken stupor. Yeah, he was eccentric, whatever.

The fact is that many people do very violent and stupid things when you turn a rather benign activity into a very lucrative criminal act. I am not saying anything new, I know, but it can not be emphasized enough. If you are dumb enough to poison yourself all of the time you should be allowed to without government intervention.

The only problem with drug usage that I have is because of our social policies that force me to pay for the results of its usage. The prohibition costs too much no matter how you look at it. It is far cheaper to legalize it for idiots to use drugs. I don't mind if they all poison themselves to death as long as I don't have to pay for their medical bills or jail cells.
But you will
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top