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.
I understand where you're coming from - but how exactly has prohibition stopped your uncle from going back to the drugs?
And what mainstream political party in America advocates legalizing drugs?
Prohibition has not helped him, nor do I think legalizing them would either, he would just become more of a criminal because he lacks the education to make enough money to afford the drugs if legal, which in turn would make him still get them off the street, or start robbing people to afford the money.
Helping people stay addicted to these drugs does not help anyone, it hurts society as a whole.
The many I have met that advocate the legalizing of drugs in the United States have all been die hard Democrats.
Prohibition has not helped him, nor do I think legalizing them would either, he would just become more of a criminal because he lacks the education to make enough money to afford the drugs if legal, which in turn would make him still get them off the street, or start robbing people to afford the money.
Helping people stay addicted to these drugs does not help anyone, it hurts society as a whole.
The many I have met that advocate the legalizing of drugs in the United States have all been die hard Democrats.
Well, if he robs people he can go to prison for robbery. That is a crime any way you slice it, and I'm not in favor of legalizing robbery.
People who want to stay addicted to drugs will, no matter what happens. They will know where to get it, and nothing we have done has stopped drugs from existing in America.
And though you may know Democrats who are pro-legalization, to suggest that it is officially a part of the Democratic platform is disingenuous. I am not a Democrat, FWIW - more like a (lowercase) libertarian independent. Ron Paul supports ending the drug war and he is about as far removed from a Democrat as you can get. This is not a partisan issue.
I do note that you seem to not be opposed to the legalization of cannabis, which I support, but it should be regulated similarly to tobacco or liquor.
Well, if he robs people he can go to prison for robbery. That is a crime any way you slice it, and I'm not in favor of legalizing robbery.
People who want to stay addicted to drugs will, no matter what happens. They will know where to get it, and nothing we have done has stopped drugs from existing in America.
And though you may know Democrats who are pro-legalization, to suggest that it is officially a part of the Democratic platform is disingenuous. I am not a Democrat, FWIW - more like a (lowercase) libertarian independent. Ron Paul supports ending the drug war and he is about as far removed from a Democrat as you can get. This is not a partisan issue.
I do note that you seem to not be opposed to the legalization of cannabis, which I support, but it should be regulated similarly to tobacco or liquor.
I never did say that the Democratic party as a whole supported it
My point being, Hard drugs are of course always going to be in demand for those that want to get ahold of them. If they are legalized, and taxes at a very high rate, the druggies are going to still obtain them on the streets for lack of funding to purchase the legalized versions. I am not against soft drugs such as Pot, especially for people with Chronic diseases that have quite a bit of pain associated with it. Several friends, that are fellow people with MS, use pot in combination with the chronic pain meds they are on. The pill form does very little, but most get the benefit from smoking, or baking the cannabis within the foods. They say it does not stop the pain, but it takes the edge off. I myself fall in the Conservative realm with many of the social views of the Libertarians.
I never did say that the Democratic party as a whole supported it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma
I find it quite an interesting thing that the political party that advocates legalizing drugs, is the same party that has placed bans on simple things like cigarettes from being in public because of the adverse health effects, and the addictive nature of them.
Maybe you meant to say, rather, that "the people I know who advocate legalizing drugs are members of the same party that has placed bans on simple things like cigarettes..."
All said, though, I respect your position on the matter. Obviously you have your reasons for taking the stance that you do.
Maybe you meant to say, rather, that "the people I know who advocate legalizing drugs are members of the same party that has placed bans on simple things like cigarettes..."
All said, though, I respect your position on the matter. Obviously you have your reasons for taking the stance that you do.
that most defiantly would have been a better choice of words
What kind of sentence (if any) you'll get for what is mostly on a state-by-state basis. There are still people locked up for minor drug offenses committed decades ago in New York under the Rockefeller laws, for example. Same goes for what kind of treatment if any they get in prison. It depends on what kind of funding has been allotted for treatment as opposed for prevention.
Here's something that might shock you - I say the clinics give them the drugs. That's right, for free. Why? That means they're not paying a drug dealer, and they're in a setting where they can get help. That means they're eliminated from the whole equation. If there's a break-in or a stickup done by a drug addict I'll take that over all-out turf wars in the streets involving thugs backed by drug cartels and international gangs like MS-13. I'm a realist. There is no eliminating crime any more than there is eliminating drugs. The goal here is making it as minimal as possible. What we're doing now is not coming anywhere close to that. When some big shot in the drug trade goes down there's another bloodbath among the remaining ones for the turf that just went up for grabs.
I never "have my mind made up." However, nobody has succeeded in convincing me that the current approach is the best way. All prohibition has done is sent crime skyrocketing - violent crime, not just possession or dealing. And there are always going to be "hitches" - this isn't a perfect world, so there's not a perfect solution. What you're looking for is the way with the fewest hitches. The drug policy status quo is full of them.
So everyone just gets free drugs? So we have taken care of the argument "just legalize them and tax the $hit out of it". Glad that's settled. Now we just have tons of junkies with nothing to show for it (except for medical costs that WE incur just like the alcoholics who don't have jobs, etc. and end up in the ER every night because they crashed their car into a tree or their body failed). As far as the violence argument goes...well...DUI related deaths already outnumber murders. Not all murders are drug related. That being said, drug related murders are already far less than DUI related deaths. Alcohol is obviously already legal, and DUI doesn't always equate into "alcohol" in the first place. Sometimes it's drugs. Is making drugs acceptible and legal going to double the DUI related death toll every year but take away from the murders associated with drugs? The math still puts you well behind and now, instead of drug dealers killing drug dealers (still unfortunate anyone is getting killed), you are trading drug dealers for every day citizens just driving home. How many soccer-mom's have been killed in an MS-13 shootout? Now...how many have been killed by drunk or high drivers? Is making it legal and having more addicts going to all of the sudden make them think..."Hey, but I draw the line at driving all high on Meth because that wouldn't be right." Domestic violence...DV is often drug and alcohol related. It's after the fact. It doesn't make a difference if it's legal or not. The root cause of it is someone is f-ed up on something (legal or not) and beats the you know what out of someone or kills them. Does making it legal change this? F-ed up is f-ed up. It has nothing to do with legal or not. These violent confrontations start over stupid $hit like dinner is cold not because the husband is wearing red and the wife is wearing blue. Are more addicts (because you are going to have more just like cigarettes and booze) going to all of the sudden change their attitude because it's legal? It seems like the argument is going to just trade one for the other. I'm not so sure what the lesser of two evils is, and I'm not so sure that I just want to roll the dice. Once you allow something, it's a lot harder to take it away if all hell breaks loose. Again...I'm not trying to be the moral police and I can see both sides to the argument. I'm just bringing up the be careful what you wish for aspect of it.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan
And why does Ronald think that the government can protect us from each other if we are clearly unable to protect us from ourselves?
If we can't protect us from ourselves the government certainly can't protect us from each other.
Most addicts use drugs because they're trying to suppress a (personal) problem and not because they 'like' drugs; their drug use is a symptom and not the cause.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan
Dude...Reagan started "the war on drugs" in 1982? He actually signed the drug enforcement bill in 86. Nancy's program was "Just say no". You picked the wrong guy to quote. Let's say he didn't though. One part of the argument is just sell it legally and tax the $hit out of it. When brought up why this likely won't work, it's all of the sudden "let's give it to them for free" as it will cut down on violence and they won't have to steal (anyhow...because they would if it cost money) to support their habit. Alcohol is already legal, and the simple math shows that it's killing more people than any hardcore crack dealer fighting over turf right now. One aspect are DUI deaths. Although more manslaughter (people aren't intentionally trying to kill each other or themselves), I would venture to say that anyone who has been hit by a drunk driver and lived to tell about it would say it wasn't a pleasant experience. Domestic violence is another aspect. I would bet that about 80 percent of DV's wouldn't even happen if alcohol wasn't involved. This doesn't even take into account the drunker bar fight where someone gets stabbed or shot or whatever because someone looked at them wrong.
Now I'm not going out there and saying let's try prohibition again by any means, but people are comparing prohibition to this, and it's not the same. I don't think you can go back after you let something become okay. Alcohol prohibition was completely different. Alcohol was legal for what, 150 years here (and well before this country was settled) before it was taken away. It was part of nearly every household. This naturally wouldn't go over well. It's like letting a kid do whatever they want until the age of 10 and then trying to start disciplining them all of the sudden for the same stuff you had been letting them get away with their entire lives. It's not going to work, and will have the exact opposite effect. Also...cars weren't near as common back then and didn't go 100mph in 10 seconds. No one could weigh this equation at the time...Crime related deaths related to prohibition (again...gangster shooting gangster usually) are x per 100k. DUI deaths (again...drunks killing normal folks, not gangsters) are y per 100k. If we had the car culture we do now and this was trackable, politicians may have chosen to keep fighting the "war on booze" because less people are dying from the crime aspect than the driving??????. Just a thought. And no...once again, I don't believe we should do alcohol prohibition again. I don't believe you could if you wanted to as it is "the norm" now. It would take about 4 generations before people would forget about the day when you could drink a beer without getting busted. Currently...we don't have people reminiscing about the days when they could smoke some crack and not have the cops hassle them for it. Once there is that day...hard to go back. I'm just pointing out why it's not the same.
The Dutch address the problem of hard drugs and i like the way they think i hate hard drugs and would never like to see them legal but to have a substance abuse program for anyone no questions asked would be just the thing for America. I am not so hard headed that i cannot be open to new ideas..
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.
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.
And why does Ronald think that the government can protect us from each other if we are clearly unable to protect us from ourselves?
