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, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
adults who have sex with children are only kidding themselves that it is an equal "consensual" relationship, which is why they have such a high rate for recidivism.
I mentioned in an earlier post that much of the discussion would hinge on different ideas about consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2008, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Heartland Florida
9,324 posts, read 23,226,903 times
Reputation: 4895
It is interesting to see the proof used to show that prohibition was a failure. Prohibit anything people want and organized crime will arise to fill the need. By driving something underground control is lost. By cancelling the drug war, releasing all nonviolent drug captives the country would save more than enough money to provide treatment for drug addicts. Eliminating prohibition could also help solve the energy crisis by unlocking the potential of biofuels like cannabis. By cancelling drug prohibition drugs are not automatically endorsed by the government. The actions of people, drugged or not are still held accountable. In my view without criminal penalties the whole drug culture will wither and die due to lack of profit motive. Medical science could then create anti-drug treatments and addicts would be free of the addiction. Poppies would return to a benign garden flower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 8,443,210 times
Reputation: 1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallrick View Post
It is interesting to see the proof used to show that prohibition was a failure. Prohibit anything people want and organized crime will arise to fill the need. By driving something underground control is lost. By cancelling the drug war, releasing all nonviolent drug captives the country would save more than enough money to provide treatment for drug addicts. Eliminating prohibition could also help solve the energy crisis by unlocking the potential of biofuels like cannabis. By cancelling drug prohibition drugs are not automatically endorsed by the government. The actions of people, drugged or not are still held accountable. In my view without criminal penalties the whole drug culture will wither and die due to lack of profit motive. Medical science could then create anti-drug treatments and addicts would be free of the addiction. Poppies would return to a benign garden flower.

Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, Fact 10 (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm - broken link)

I really doubt that will cover the entire cost to rehab thousands of heroin addicts..All the way from the physical detox they must do to withdraw to the time (usually several months) spent in rehab. Do you really think it will be that simple? Do you have any links to the cost of rehab for the 'average' heroin addict verses the savings of monies from the whole 5 percent of captives incarcerated for nonviolent drug charges? I would love to see some more info on your claim.

Do you know about the recurrence of relapse for a heroin addict? This is not a recreational drug. This can be lethal from the very first injection. It is disturbing to hear about the claim to end the energy crisis, decreased crime and all the other theories when people can die from it's use. Do you value human life less?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
Do you value human life less?
What I value is people being allowed to take whatever risks they'd like to take, harm themselves in whatever way they'd like to harm themselves, where the actions in question are consensual for all parties directly involved in that action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 8,443,210 times
Reputation: 1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
What I value is people being allowed to take whatever risks they'd like to take, harm themselves in whatever way they'd like to harm themselves, where the actions in question are consensual for all parties directly involved in that action.
OK...but a lot of addicted heroin users start at the ripe old age of 12. No problems with that either? Should we value the 12 year olds desire to dabble a little bit with heroin because they are "consensual"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 12:18 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,244,704 times
Reputation: 3090
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Incest is a personal choice of two consenting adults and I have no problem with the brotherly love...but if a father rapes his daughter, that's about as horrible as something can be. Once again, it's about consent. If I consent to something as an adult that only affects me, why do you, RATHAGOS, have a right to tell me I can't?

From what you say, you'd rather people adhere to puritan laws than to see families stay together. You'd rather see successful members of society locked away and their contributions to the economy eliminated simply because they do something that you wouldn't do. Tell me how there's any logic or reason to that.
Hmmm... let's start with I voted for Obama because I'm more left than right. But because I'm an independent, I can look at issues from a different view. I'm left on somethings, right on others. For drugs, I'm definitely right.

But, that's digressing from the issue. Let's start by saying you didn't answer any questions (which I have found to be a tactice by those on both the far left and far right). It's easier to pounce on what I said and slur it than to answer it. So, logic dictates you don't have an answer to the issues I discussed. And that's okay. I don't always have answers either.

In the case of your last paragraph there, I see that we're looking at the problem from different sides of the fence. The way I see it, it doesn't matter how I look at the family. I'm not the one who did drugs. I'm not the one who broke the law. I'm not the one who made a bad choice. We're back to just changing laws arbitrarily for those we don't want to follow. Picking and choosing... for our own benefit, of course. The person who chose to break the law, the person who chose to do drugs, that's the only person responsible for breaking up the family. It's no than any other crime that is illegal by law.

And for victimless, some people keep missing the point. Drugs, even marijuana, but especially others like heroin, methamphetanines, and others of that vein are designed to alter perceptions have chemical reactions in the brain. Those reactions impair people in different ways (as does alcohol). So, basing legalized drugs on the only drug that is legalized now (alcohol) we can effectively say there are those that will not do drugs at all, those that will use them within certain confines, and those that will get on the road impaired. Those that get on the road, just by historical statistics with alcohol, are proven to cause accidents... some fatal. Therefore, we are seeing innocent people (victims) killed, and legalizing mind altering drugs will increase the numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 12:22 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,244,704 times
Reputation: 3090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
What I value is people being allowed to take whatever risks they'd like to take, harm themselves in whatever way they'd like to harm themselves, where the actions in question are consensual for all parties directly involved in that action.
You really need to stop saying it's a victimless crime. As LeftyDan6 continues crying in his posts, it's destroying families. Other than that, I have statistically addressed that driving impaired by any drug (including alcohol) kills innocent people. As soon as you realize that it's not a victimless crime, you will see the argument in that vein doesn't hold any water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
And for victimless, some people keep missing the point. Drugs, even marijuana, but especially others like heroin, methamphetanines, and others of that vein are designed to alter perceptions have chemical reactions in the brain. Those reactions impair people in different ways (as does alcohol). So, basing legalized drugs on the only drug that is legalized now (alcohol) we can effectively say there are those that will not do drugs at all, those that will use them within certain confines, and those that will get on the road impaired. Those that get on the road, just by historical statistics with alcohol, are proven to cause accidents... some fatal. Therefore, we are seeing innocent people (victims) killed, and legalizing mind altering drugs will increase the numbers.
Some of the comments below were made already and you effectively ignored them:

If you'd want to argue that drugs cause people to get behind the wheel of a car and drive, then you'd have to actually argue that, and you'd need empirical evidence to back it up.

No one is arguing that accidentally hurting someone while you're driving should be without repercussions, whatever the contributing factors were.

On the other hand, doing things and being in states while driving that make your driving riskier to others isn't the same thing as getting into accidents where you actually hurt others. While we have made some of those activities and states illegal for driving--such as talking on a hand held cell phone, driving while drunk, etc., I personally feel that's the wrong approach. What I'd do instead is make the penalties for accidentally hurting others much greater when it is determined that one was engaging in risky behaviors that led to the accident. This would not only include talking on hand-held cell phones, but putting on make-up while driving, fiddling with CDs so that you take your eyes off the road, fiddling with your dog or your kids in the back seat, etc. Of course, some of these things are easier to deny than others in lieu of witnesses, but strong penalties for accidentally harming others while driving drunk, high, etc. are sufficient (and those are easier to demonstrate in court, as well).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
You really need to stop saying it's a victimless crime.
That's not the language I use, and for good reason.
Quote:
As LeftyDan6 continues crying in his posts, it's destroying families.
My stances are based on whether the parties directly involved in an action consent to that action. I would not introduce any prohibitions based on people being indirectly upset, dissatisfied, etc. with those consensual actions.
Quote:
Other than that, I have statistically addressed that driving impaired by any drug (including alcohol) kills innocent people.
And I have agreed that there should be penalties for non-consensually initiating causally demonstrable physical harm (that has observable effects for greater than 24 hours).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2008, 01:22 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,514 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
You really need to stop saying it's a victimless crime. As LeftyDan6 continues crying in his posts, it's destroying families. Other than that, I have statistically addressed that driving impaired by any drug (including alcohol) kills innocent people. As soon as you realize that it's not a victimless crime, you will see the argument in that vein doesn't hold any water.
And you really need to get off your high horse and stop claiming that making something legal will somehow cause people who used to be safe about something to all of a sudden get into all kinds of accidents. Legalizing Heroin and treating it as a medical problem wont cause people to line up around the block to try a hit. Only those who are already junkies will, and the program will be specifically designed to keep those users away from harm and away from causing harm.

Clearly you'll never understand the damage caused by prohibition. Not only the rise of organized crime and violence in the inner cities caused by turf wars, but from the devastation of otherwise productive lives by the simple fact that they chose to do something that was arbitrarily made illegal because some people thought that would cause the end of the use.

Judging from Tijuana and Juarez, Heroin and Cocaine are not only alive and well, but are thriving industries. The demand is great enough that Heroin costs about $70-100 a gram while Gold is 1/3-1/4 the price. Doesn't that tell you that as long as it's illegal, there will be crime lords fighting to control the trade?

Have you ever wondered how the Afghan warlords get their money? IT'S FROM ILLEGAL HEROIN. If legalized and regulated in the way that Switzerland is doing, the demand for Afghan heroin will plummet, causing prices to fall to the point where poppies are no longer able to finance their activities.

Using Alcohol deaths as a sign that "making more legal will cause more deaths" is not exactly accurate. What about the fact that during prohibition, the numbers of Alcohol related deaths and crimes increased each year? Or what about the fact that Alcohol causes more deaths simply because people generally go out to consume alcohol while most people consume Marijuana and other drugs at home?

How is the wife of a occasional cocaine user (that she knows nothing about the use) guilty of anything if he's put into jail for possession? Why does she get punished for a decision her husband made that didn't hurt anyone until the law itself hurt him. Laws are not supposed to break up families and destroy lives, they are meant to get justice. Who is having justice served by seeing an otherwise good citizen go to jail for something they chose to put in their body?

If I can go to In-N-Out and get a 10x10 (10 meat patties and 10 cheese slices) burger, which will kill me if I eat one a day for a short time, why can't I damage my body in a way that I prefer? I would never do heroin, and don't think anyone should, but there are people on it who pose a threat to me if they don't have a safe place to do it, that's what this is about.

As for marijuana, nothing you say will ever change the fact that Marijuana should be legal and there are no constitutional clauses that allow the prohibition of it. We had to make a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, where's the amendment banning marijuana and other drugs?
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