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.
Should drug traffickers be allowed to bring arsenic into schools and sell to children telling them they can get high? Or should you bring arsenic to parties of underaged children and tell them it's better than ecstacy? If the children then ingest it, is it just their own foolish decision?
When did we say that children should be allowed to have drugs?
Legalization has proven, time and time again, to lower if not almost eliminate underage use.
Alcohol, for example. When prohibition was on, children could go and get whatever alcohol they wanted. Drug dealers don't ID.
After prohibition was repealed, all Americans drank less. Even to this day the number of Americans that drink is lower then it was in the 20's and 30's.
No one is saying children should be allowed to have drugs. Thats why we made it illegal for you to buy cigarettes until you are 18, and alcohol until you are 21. Similar laws would be on the books if drugs were legalized.
I always find it funny that the first thing anti-legalization folks jump to is the children, when no one in their right mind is suggesting that children have the mental capacity to make an informed decision about their own bodies.
This War got its foothold with a paranoid, ignorant, racist fool---Nixon.
Some of the biggest drug peddlers are the CIA and the financial banks.
It is an atrocity. This failed war has wreck havoc on America. However, America has turned into a police and military state. America exceptionalism is now define by have the highest prison population of non-violent criminal and exporting arms.
I think around 60% of our prison population consists of non-violent drug criminals. We spend around $30k a year to harbor prisoners. Not only is the War on Drug is unjust, but it harms economic prosperity. It diverts productive resources towards non-productive ends.
Certainly one of them...I would rank the drift towards scio/communism and the abdication of personal responsibility/accountability as the numero uno.
Point being, seizing assets is far more profitible than a sin tax.
What they haven't done is close the borders. The cartels have pretty much total access to every city and town in the USA and can easily bring in any kind of highly addictive poison and destroy our cities and rural areas, destroy our people.
Drugs have destroyed our inner cities -- should foreign entities be allowed to poison our people?
Just like the House of Death example and now the Fast and Furious example show - the government is actually with the cartels, there is no real War on Drugs, nothing is really done to control the problem.
Point being, seizing assets is far more profitible than a sin tax.
I highly doubt that. Stopping the policing, seizing of assets, court costs, incarcerating offenders, and societal problems associated with prison cost a lot more than anything the cops could get for selling off assets. Add on top of all those savings we won't spend anymore, the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana would be huge.
I didn't say there was none, but its far less today then when alcohol was illegal.
Illegal = greater use
Legal and controlled = less use
Even you can understand that right?
Much of the problem is the welfare programs. Addicts are not allowed to suffer the consequences of their addictions. Their children are provided food stamps -- but if people were allowed to go hungry, die on the streets, then maybe we could legalize drugs.
Now any cartel can get drugs to any American child, advertise them as "party drugs" that let you party all night, dance better than you can really dance, or magic weight loss drugs, they can even bring in candy-colored crystal meth and sell to middle school kids. Kids who can also easily obtain beer and other alcohol BTW, because making beer legal definitely did not make kids stop using it.
Drugs have been made to seem glamorous. So many pop celebrities like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan use them -- but no one gets to see where the drugs really lead. They don't get to see the overdosed addict laying on the street and dying. It's all cleaned up - the government actually pays the costs of their joblessness and hospitalizations.
Let the children of drug addicts starve to death so that the taxpayers at least aren't having to pay for the poor decisions made by drug users.
I highly doubt that. Stopping the policing, seizing of assets, court costs, incarcerating offenders, and societal problems associated with prison cost a lot more than anything the cops could get for selling off assets. Add on top of all those savings we won't spend anymore, the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana would be huge.
Imagine how much more could be saved by ending all the freebie government programs that jobless addicts and their families currently enjoy?
Depends on how you look at it. We're pouring billions into this no-face war.
Someone is making a mint off this so it's a win for them.
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.
