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 12-01-2008, 12:47 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,964 times
Reputation: 1298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
From Wiki - "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys." Sex between a male of consenting age and a male of NON-consenting age is not 'being gay' and I resent that, even though I'm not gay. Pedophilia is about power, manipulation, and abuse, not about love and/or sex. Two (or more) of age, legally consenting adults have the right to indulge in any prediliction they choose - children who are forced or emotionally manipulated into this type of relationship that have not reached the age of consent are raped, or at the very 'least' sexually or emotionally abused. PLEASE do not promote the stereotype that pedophiles are 'merely' gay. Thank you. A decent (gay or straight) man will not abuse his mate, use him/her solely to satisfy his lust, or emotionally manipulate him/her into a relationship based on guilt, fear, threats, or coercion, nor will he destroy an impressionable child simply for his own self-gratification.

That said off topic, does no one remember how often we have been told that all previously legal drugs are instantly addictive and deadly? Is there any stronger lure than that of the forbidden, especially to those in a rebellious stage of their lives? As an EMT and a child of the 60's (ahem) I would answer my children's questions about drugs honestly and without panic or hype. I told them the physiological and psychological effects, duration, everything they wanted to know. I and DH drank occasionally, and we did not teach our children that drinking was horrible and led to addiction - we explained effects and later introduced them to responsible drinking habits. As our children grew, we became the local 'party house' - the kids would come over, hand me their keys, and sit down and drink their self-purchased liquors, play video games, watch TV, play cards, swim in the pool together, etc. We normalized alcohol consumption for them in the Bible Belt - and ensured their safety by requiring that they spend the night. Their parents knew not only where they were but that they were safe and wouldn't be out (like so many Bible Belt kids) at the boat landings or racing up and down the back roads drunk. IF drugs were legal I would have introduced those interested to pot, too, in exactly the same way. All of the kids trusted us to be honest with and to take care of them. Since most of them feared needles, heroin was not an issue - and now, 10 years later, not one of our 'party kids' is an alcoholic or drug addict, they all drink responsibly with a DD and friends. Some of them tried pot when they went to college, but they didn't like the duration of the effects and were uncomfortable with the whole immaturity and irresponsibility of the 'drug scene' and quit. They still talk to us today, call us Mom and Dad, even though we've moved 1800 miles away, and tell us how much we meant to them in their gaining maturity by our respecting their persons, their right to choose, and their ability to make informed decisions.

My point is this - when you treat adults like dependent children, they remain so - with all of the rebellious nature and refusal to mature that implies. When you treat them like intelligent responsible people, inform them with all of the available information, and keep them in a safe and protected environment until they reach the age of accountability, they will make responsible choices. I don't believe in giving away free drugs, liquor, or anything else - but adults have the right to choose, and to make informed choices - and to work to PAY for their indulgences, as well as to choose to suffer the consequences of their actions, be they responsible or irresponsible choices.
My parents introduced alcohol to me in basically the same way, and now I am the one of my friends who drinks the least, and always the most responsibly. My mother would order wine for me at dinner when I was 12 so I could learn to savor the taste and quality and not the alcoholic effects. Now, when I do actually drink, which is a rare occaision, I only drink the finest stuff. I never drink to get drunk, I drink for quality.

Heroin is only for people with a serious need in their life and a lot of problems, you don't do heroin just for fun. You know what happens to Heroin addicts in prison? They do even more heroin and come out more addicted than before. Prison is one of the main places where people get addicted to it, it's never the cure. So how is sending someone to a place where life is horrible and drugs are plentiful going to cure them of the addiction that sent them there in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:51 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
"While using heroin hurts only oneself directly..."
You used this same lame logic for legalization of marijuana, but believe it or not, there's a stronger backing there (even from me) than for heroin or any other addictive drug.

Marijuana is not addictive unless large amounts of THC (the main chemical component of marijuana) are used in large doses over a large period of time (something most research shows that the majority of users (over 99%) aren't even close to).

But heroin is a different story. Because it is addictive, it's a different ball game all together. People who smoke marijuana haven't committed crimes near the numbers more addictive drug abusers (cocaine, heroin, meth, crack) have (larceny, assault, etc.). They (heroin users) have been known to commit several criminal acts in gathering money for getting more drugs. When they get to the point where they've lost their families, their cars, their houses... what's left? They commit assault and robberies to get the money. If the government isn't going to give them the levels needed to continually grow their high (which increases over time), they will get it other ways, anyway.

Again... as a taxpayer, a lot of people died a long time ago fighting taxation without representation. If most Americans want to pay for drug abusers highs, then I'm in the minority, and that's what the votes will state. However, as long as I have a vote, mine will never be to enable people to use my money for others personal activities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 01:38 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,964 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
You used this same lame logic for legalization of marijuana, but believe it or not, there's a stronger backing there (even from me) than for heroin or any other addictive drug.

Marijuana is not addictive unless large amounts of THC (the main chemical component of marijuana) are used in large doses over a large period of time (something most research shows that the majority of users (over 99%) aren't even close to).

But heroin is a different story. Because it is addictive, it's a different ball game all together. People who smoke marijuana haven't committed crimes near the numbers more addictive drug abusers (cocaine, heroin, meth, crack) have (larceny, assault, etc.). They (heroin users) have been known to commit several criminal acts in gathering money for getting more drugs. When they get to the point where they've lost their families, their cars, their houses... what's left? They commit assault and robberies to get the money. If the government isn't going to give them the levels needed to continually grow their high (which increases over time), they will get it other ways, anyway.

Again... as a taxpayer, a lot of people died a long time ago fighting taxation without representation. If most Americans want to pay for drug abusers highs, then I'm in the minority, and that's what the votes will state. However, as long as I have a vote, mine will never be to enable people to use my money for others personal activities.
The second I saw who replied I knew it was going to be some anti-drug tirade by someone who has no clue about how the world really works. I use the same argument because it's the same thing. Any time you make vice illegal, it doesn't go away, it just becomes more dangerous to those who do not have the vice.

Prostitution is illegal, as a result, they have STDs go unchecked and spread to their johns...the johns go home and have sex with their innocent wife and BAM! She's got Herpes.

Gambling is illegal in many parts of the country, and as a result there is organized crime that promotes its own gambling. A husband secretly gambles away his business at Mafia sponsored high-stakes poker games that allow him to put anything on the table as collateral. His son then loses his college fund because they need to bail out the business. Another innocent victim that would not have been victimized if his father was gaming at Caesar's palace instead of John Gotti's palace.

A Wall Street financial guru snorts some cocaine before he has to trade stocks every day to keep up his energy level. One day on the way to work he is pulled over and arrested for cocaine possession and sentenced to jail time. His family can't pay the bills and they lose their home as a result.

All of those are situations where the punishment didn't just affect the person with the vice, but their dependents and loved ones. In every situation, legalization would make things a lot less costly to them. Make prostitution legal and regulated and things get better. Sure the man is a bad husband, but at least he's not giving STDs to his innocent wife. Gambling is always a bad thing if unchecked, but at least Caesar's Palace pays taxes on the losses and doesn't break people's knees anymore. Cocaine CAN ruin people's lives, but it also fueled the Wall Street boom cycle in the 1980s and has allowed many people to reach deadlines they thought were unreachable. I personally would never do cocaine, but know many good people who have used it without any negative effects. Wouldn't it be better for that money spent (billions a year) to be taxed and to benefit someone other than the worst criminals in the world?

The fact of the matter is, they've tried this in small sample sizes and it's worked in ways that nothing else has. Heroin is a horrible drug and I would never touch it in a million years, but the fact is that unchecked heroin users are dangerous to me (I live in San Diego, a haven for Heroin, Crack and Meth) unless they are given proper treatment. The actual heroin criminals would be dealt with by the police who deal with crime, but those who just use because they are depressed or in need of something would be helped by this program. After all, people who go to jail are far less likely to stop using Heroin than people who go to treatment. Having the side effects of Heroin (AIDS, other diseases, assault and robberies) decline because of the availability at injection centers would DECREASE the tax burden of Heroin users. How much in taxes did you pay last year to finance the DEA, the Drug Wars, cops policing heroin addicts in inner cities and AIDS patients on medicare because of illegal heroin?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 01:41 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,964 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Again... as a taxpayer, a lot of people died a long time ago fighting taxation without representation. If most Americans want to pay for drug abusers highs, then I'm in the minority, and that's what the votes will state. However, as long as I have a vote, mine will never be to enable people to use my money for others personal activities.
How is paying taxes to criminalize addicts so much worse than paying taxes to treat them? We spend BILLIONS a year on Narcotics police...I never voted to pay my taxes to criminalize drugs, so how is that any different than you not voting to legalize?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 01:59 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
How is paying taxes to criminalize addicts so much worse than paying taxes to treat them? We spend BILLIONS a year on Narcotics police...I never voted to pay my taxes to criminalize drugs, so how is that any different than you not voting to legalize?
It's because it's how I choose to spend my tax dollars (read: I agree with it). If you disagree with how the government is spending your tax dollars, you can vent to your congressman/congresswoman.

Or... you can donate to clinics to treat people who habitually make bad decisions (relapse numbers for treated people are very high... I couldn't find a good source to give accurate numbers, but all were above 50% some as high as 90%, but I'm not sure I agree with that).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:18 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
The second I saw who replied I knew it was going to be some anti-drug tirade by someone who has no clue about how the world really works. I use the same argument because it's the same thing. Any time you make vice illegal, it doesn't go away, it just becomes more dangerous to those who do not have the vice.
Shame you can't address the issue instead of insulting me. Whether I think you're half-baked doesn't matter and bears no impact on the logic of discussion. And I still question your philosophy. If that were true (the part above that's not bolded), we should just be able to legalize every single thing in our society that is illegal and it will all go away (or at least decrease). I don't think that is a sound philosophy. But, at least I have the cognizance and intelligence to admit that there's a chance I may be wrong. I'm not so blinded by my own self-importance that I believe I'm right at any cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Prostitution is illegal, as a result, they have STDs go unchecked and spread to their johns...the johns go home and have sex with their innocent wife and BAM! She's got Herpes.

Gambling is illegal in many parts of the country, and as a result there is organized crime that promotes its own gambling. A husband secretly gambles away his business at Mafia sponsored high-stakes poker games that allow him to put anything on the table as collateral. His son then loses his college fund because they need to bail out the business. Another innocent victim that would not have been victimized if his father was gaming at Caesar's palace instead of John Gotti's palace.
So, as I've asked before and it was never addressed (as I'm sure it won't here... selective answering is a great tactic by those who don't think things through)... why not make murder legal? Then, we would have people who wanted to kill someone pay a certain fee... say... $500. Then they have to provide written notice to the person who they want to kill. That person, can then hire a body guard (helps with unemployed people). Then, if they get killed, they have no excuse because they were notified, the killer paid the required fee, and no one goes to jail. Works great, right!??! I know this is an extreme, but where do you draw the line? Do you draw it only where you LeftyDan6 (in your obviously infinite wisdom) think it's okay? Theft - yes. Drugs - yes. Gambling - yes. Prostitution - yes. Murder - no. Rape - no. Incest - yes. Bigomy - yes.

What happens 50-60 years down the road when you're dead? Someone else thinks that incest or pedophilia is okay. Where's the line? Who decides? Why do we trust that person or body of people to decide? Oh.. wait. That's kind of like we do now with congress, so that's a dumb idea, right? So... who decides ... and where's the line drawn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
A Wall Street financial guru snorts some cocaine before he has to trade stocks every day to keep up his energy level. One day on the way to work he is pulled over and arrested for cocaine possession and sentenced to jail time. His family can't pay the bills and they lose their home as a result.
I get your point.. hard as it is for you to believe.. I really do. But still. He broke the law. We're back to only LeftyDan6 is smart enough to make laws, right? Some people... whoever they were, decided for whatever reasons it was wrong. Only time will hell how bad it was, or whether the decision is wrong for today's time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
All of those are situations where the punishment didn't just affect the person with the vice, but their dependents and loved ones. In every situation, legalization would make things a lot less costly to them. Make prostitution legal and regulated and things get better. Sure the man is a bad husband, but at least he's not giving STDs to his innocent wife. Gambling is always a bad thing if unchecked, but at least Caesar's Palace pays taxes on the losses and doesn't break people's knees anymore. Cocaine CAN ruin people's lives, but it also fueled the Wall Street boom cycle in the 1980s and has allowed many people to reach deadlines they thought were unreachable. I personally would never do cocaine, but know many good people who have used it without any negative effects. Wouldn't it be better for that money spent (billions a year) to be taxed and to benefit someone other than the worst criminals in the world?
All I have to say to this is 30,000 people a year die to drunk drivers. Allowing drugs is hurting innocent people that you are NOT accounting for. That's significant to me. These are incidents of a shame. The family affected by the guy who knowingly and willingly broke the law is a shame, but a choice. It's like saying that I needed another car for my son, but couldn't afford it.. so I robbed a bank. In the process, I was caught. Now I can't work and my family looses the house and cars we have now. The logic is extremely faulty, but by your argument, we should just legalize robbery. Then I could have gotten the money for my car and everything would have been fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
The fact of the matter is, they've tried this in small sample sizes and it's worked in ways that nothing else has. Heroin is a horrible drug and I would never touch it in a million years, but the fact is that unchecked heroin users are dangerous to me (I live in San Diego, a haven for Heroin, Crack and Meth) unless they are given proper treatment. The actual heroin criminals would be dealt with by the police who deal with crime, but those who just use because they are depressed or in need of something would be helped by this program. After all, people who go to jail are far less likely to stop using Heroin than people who go to treatment. Having the side effects of Heroin (AIDS, other diseases, assault and robberies) decline because of the availability at injection centers would DECREASE the tax burden of Heroin users. How much in taxes did you pay last year to finance the DEA, the Drug Wars, cops policing heroin addicts in inner cities and AIDS patients on medicare because of illegal heroin?
I hear what you're saying. You may be right. We are not Sweden. We are not smaller countries. We are a country breeding recidivism of crime through people who believe rehab is the answer to all the problems we have (or, if it's a crime, legalize it and no one can be put in jail). It sounds like you don't hold people accountable for bad decisions, you would rather blame someone else. I, on the other hand, believe people make choices.

If we legalized drugs, and all the other bad things people are forced to do (because we know people don't make bad choices like doing drugs they know are illegal) then crime will definitely go down. But, I don't know if you are willing to admit this, but if everyone who choose to illegally get and do drugs chose the way of the law, we'd see less crime, too. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:21 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,964 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
It's because it's how I choose to spend my tax dollars (read: I agree with it). If you disagree with how the government is spending your tax dollars, you can vent to your congressman/congresswoman.

Or... you can donate to clinics to treat people who habitually make bad decisions (relapse numbers for treated people are very high... I couldn't find a good source to give accurate numbers, but all were above 50% some as high as 90%, but I'm not sure I agree with that).
I have been, and I have been voting that way since I was able to vote...unfortunately, even the propositions that passed, like Prop 215 in California, have been fought by the Federal Government's DEA that I had no part in approving or funding. As long as we have people like you, we will continue to see inner cities ravaged by drug crime directly related to its prohibition and criminalization. You'll notice that the people who live in the most affected areas always lean more towards legalization than those in the places that are rarely touched by drugs. Why would that be? It's because people close to it realize that criminalization is the main cause of the problems associated with it.

I'm not one of these selfish people who says "I'm not paying to support someone's drug habit" I'm a person who says "Who am I to call someone a criminal when they hurt nobody but themselves?" I'd rather spend money to help people than to continue to push an agenda that makes our streets less safe and our children more prone to selling drugs for a quick buck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,381 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
So, as I've asked before and it was never addressed (as I'm sure it won't here... selective answering is a great tactic by those who don't think things through)... why not make murder legal?
Easy to answer that one for me. I believe that all activities where all of the parties directly involved in the activity are consenting to that activity should be legal. That would leave heroin, and all other drugs, legal, but keep murder (which by definition has a non-consenting party directly involved in the action) illegal.
Quote:
What happens 50-60 years down the road when you're dead? Someone else thinks that incest or pedophilia is okay.
Incest should be legal as long as the involved parties are consenting. With pedophilia, we do not grant children the adult right to consent (however, some of us think that at least the legal definition of "children" should be changed, but that's a different issue).
Quote:
All I have to say to this is 30,000 people a year die to drunk drivers. Allowing drugs is hurting innocent people that you are NOT accounting for.
You're conflating activities. Drinking alcohol isn't the same activity as vehicular manslaughter, and neither is drug use. By the same token, I believe that people should be allowed to have a belief that they should be allowed to run over non-consenting parties with a vehicle--I do not believe that people should be jailed for having that or any other belief, but having that belief is different than them actually running over the non-consenting parties.
Quote:
so I robbed a bank.
Robbing a bank involves non-consensually taking others' property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,245,515 times
Reputation: 3094
All I can say is that I hope you guys get what you're asking for. I really do. It's like arguing with my kids. "Why take a shower if I'm just going to get dirty again??!?" I can talk to them all day long about sanitation, but if they don't believe it, then it doesn't exist.

I was born and raised in the projects of San Francisco. I have been around drugs and crime plenty. To suggest otherwise is a misconception.

If you think that people addicted to heroin or any other addictive drug(regardless of where they get it) don't commit crimes, you're fooling yourself. It's a proven fact that the more the drug is taken, the higher the tolerance builds. If they are only getting a certain amount from the government, they will find other ways to get it, and find whatever means necessary to raise the money for getting it.

And, Tungsten. Those numbers were not vehicular manslaughter. Those were alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Alcohol is also considered a drug. We legalize drugs, we condone people using it. There will be just a big a percentage of people abusing the drugs you want legal as are abusing alcohol. So, you are (in effect) condoning increasing the number of drug-impaired fatalities on the road (something that involves "non-consenting" parties) which is the crux of your argument.

All I can say is I hope it's you and your loved ones killed or hurt by what you are asking... not me or mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2008, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,637,381 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
If you think that people addicted to heroin or any other addictive drug(regardless of where they get it) don't commit crimes, you're fooling yourself.
I think that doing drugs is different than committing crimes. We can't conflate the two any more than we can conflate the belief "I should be allowed to rob banks" with actually robbing banks, even though having that belief may be a contributing factor for someone who actually robs a bank. Being a contributing factor in something that we agree should be illegal isn't sufficient to make the contributing factor illegal.
Quote:
So, you are (in effect) condoning increasing the number of drug-impaired fatalities on the road (something that involves "non-consenting" parties) which is the crux of your argument.
There is a difference between drinking and accidentally killing someone with your vehicle (which is vehicular manslaugher). One should be legal. The other should have legal repercussions (although certainly not repercussions as serious as intentionally killing non-consenting people with your vehicle).
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
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