U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
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, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,504,893 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
I cringe at the notion of siding with the lefties here,
I'm actually more of a libertarian, especially on these kinds of issues. However, I no longer consider myself strictly a capital "L" Libertarian of the US Libertarian party flavor, as otherwise I'm in favor of a pretty radical reconstruction of some of the basic functions of society--and someone here even recently mistook it for garden variety Marxism (which it certainly isn't) . . . but that's another thread and a long discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:13 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,630 posts, read 2,696,158 times
Reputation: 1282
That sounds like a good thread to me. Libertarians are the only semi-sane political group in amerika today. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on what type of "radical reconstruction" you espouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Does it matter?
117 posts, read 141,536 times
Reputation: 49
I think it's ridiculous to even suggest that drugs, like the ones I mentioned in my previous post, should even be CONSIDERED to be legalized. It won't happen and never will. Those drugs DO NOT have a positive impact on lives.

Go back and read my post! Don't skip it because it intimidates you by its length. I know there are smart people here who can read -_-

Then make the argument that the spending on drugs will decrease, because it WONT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,504,893 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreAristotle View Post
I think it's ridiculous to even suggest that drugs, like the ones I mentioned in my previous post, should even be CONSIDERED to be legalized. It won't happen and never will. Those drugs DO NOT have a positive impact on lives.
Some of us do not believe that other people have a right to prohibit you from things just because they do not have a positive impact on lives in whoever's opinion (even if it's everyone's opinion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:50 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,686,967 times
Reputation: 1298

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. [/quote]

Alcohol is legal and contributes a lot more to that number than all the others.

Legal or illegal, people will use the drugs. You might as well take the power out of the violent cartels and put it into the hands of law-abiding corporations that pay taxes. You can't argue with that. The average daily pot smoker spends about $3,000 a year on pot. Tax it at just 10% and that's $300 a year. Say there are 1,000,000 of those (a cautious estimate), that's $300,000,000 a year in taxes without anything changing other than who sells it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,621,552 times
Reputation: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
Some of us do not believe that other people have a right to prohibit you from things just because they do not have a positive impact on lives in whoever's opinion (even if it's everyone's opinion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,621,552 times
Reputation: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
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: 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. 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. You should be able to do that. 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.) Neither is harmful in any way that would be prohibited. 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. 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. Avoiding other problems there (such as correlation versus causation), this issue is similar to negligent harm. 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. 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). 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. Please do not tell me that drugs and rape are identical, or drugs and negligent homicide, etc. They're different things. Of course. I'm against drugs being prohibited in that way. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreAristotle View Post
I think it's ridiculous to even suggest that drugs, like the ones I mentioned in my previous post, should even be CONSIDERED to be legalized. It won't happen and never will. Those drugs DO NOT have a positive impact on lives.

Go back and read my post! Don't skip it because it intimidates you by its length. I know there are smart people here who can read -_-

Then make the argument that the spending on drugs will decrease, because it WONT.
i have proved it too but the dopers cannot accept the fact that they will always be a yoke on societys neck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,621,552 times
Reputation: 387
Our Argument
It should be stated initially that most people misconceive the amount of resources expended under the status quo for drug control. The FY 1994 federal budget allocates $7.51 billion for drug control (supply reduction) which includes criminal justice, interdiction, international programs and intelligence.81 State and local governments spend even more, $12.6 billion a year.82 Granted, this is a lot of money, but we should put these numbers in perspective. Americans spend about four billion dollars each summer for air conditioning.83 The citizens of Washington State spend $1.4 billion each year on legal gambling alone.84 The national debt numbers in the trillions of dollars. One Stealth Bomber runs half a billion dollars. Indeed, only 1.4% of total government spending goes for law enforcement of all types, and an additional 1.0% for prosecution and prisons.85 Out of this small percentage, 12% of spending for law enforcement was allocated to drug control activities, and about 25% of correctional (prison) spending was drug related.86 Only 1.5% of total state and local government spending is attributed to drug control activities.87 Thus, when taken in context, it is apparent that the costs of criminalized drugs nowhere approaches the financial obligations of government programs such as national defense, Social Security, or Medicare.
More important, if we legalized drugs on the assumption that by taxing them we could raise large amounts of revenue, we would be sadly mistaken. First, as discussed in Chapter Two, any such taxation scheme would perpetuate a criminal black market. Consequently, we would still have to spend money funding police, courts and the like to fight this problem. Second, if alcohol is any indication, we simply would not make that much money by taxing drugs. The total revenue collected from alcohol taxes at the federal, state, and local levels amounts to about $13.1 billion a year," a paltry sum compared to the social costs associated with alcohol consumption - something in the neighborhood of $100 billion." Third, how would we structure a tax scheme for drugs? If we wanted to correlate higher taxes with higher risk behavior, logically we would tax the fifth joint more than the first (inasmuch as the fifth joint probably is more damaging to one's health). And wouldn't it cost money to create the governmental bureaucracy that would handle this taxation policy?
Thus, we do not spend that much on the drug war in comparison to other governmental programs, and taxation of legalized drugs would not result in that much revenue. But by far the most compelling economic argument against the legalization of drugs is the social costs associated with such a policy.
First, treating drug addicts is enormously expensive. Take crack babies as an example. In 1988, it cost $2.5 billion for the intensive care needed to keep the babies alive after birth.90 But that was just the beginning of the expenses. It is estimated that it will cost $15 billion to prepare these children for kindergarten,91 and will then cost between $6 billion and $12 billion for every year of special learning programs.92 Even assuming the low-ball figure, the social costs of educating all of the crack babies born in 1988 - not all crack babies, mind you, just those born that year - will run approximately $90 billion by the time they graduate from high school. Now to the extent that legalization will increase the drug addiction rates enormously [see Chapter One], legalization seems like a very expensive policy indeed. And who will foot the bill? Either common citizens will through taxes for government aid programs, or through increased insurance premiums.93
But treatment costs are just the first way in which drug addiction drains society. Already, drug addicts cost the country roughly $33 billion dollars a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents, according to a study conducted in 1987 by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.94 If legalized, addiction rates would increase and the cost would rise to between $140 billion and $210 billion a year.95 And who will pay for lost productivity and job-related accidents? Consumers will, of course, in the final costs of the produced goods.
Finally we must consider human lives in the economic calculus. As drug abuse causes more job related accidents, more people will be hurt or killed. Take, for example, the Conrail/Amtrak disaster of January 4, 1987. Because an engineer and a brakeman were high on marijuana, their train collided with another, killing sixteen people and injuring 175.96
So go back to the beginning. We spend approximately $20 billion a year on drug control activities. If drugs were legalized, we would see an increase in addiction rates. Consequently we would have more crack babies (the kind that already will cost the system $90 billion), decreased productivity (at a cost of between $140 billion and $210 billion), more job-related accidents, and more dead people. And given the potential black market effect, it is unlikely that we could raise even several billion dollars in tax revenue. From a purely economic standpoint, legalization is not cost effective
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,621,552 times
Reputation: 387
The libertarian views of legalizing drugs ......http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin166.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2008, 07:15 PM
 
Location: CA
95 posts, read 269,333 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreAristotle View Post
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
Religion has a key factor in our laws on what is considered moral behavior, people affiliated with churches and such have this idea that we can criminalize immoral behavior.

This dates back 1484 (for western civilization) where Pope innocent Vlll banned the use of cannabis.

In 1657 the General Court of Massachusetts banned the use of hard alcohol. There was a clear consensus that while alcohol was a gift from God, its abuse was from the Devil. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony.

Prohibition had its first ties to religious beliefs, and it still does today.

If you didn't read as selectively as you did you would see I also included the strong influence of our government the big corporations have on our laws, such as Big alcohol and tobacco, as well as Pharmaceutical companies, that hate competition.

Basically to get my original point through, I will quote Ronald Reagan

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
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

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, 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 - Top