Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Let me guess the Social Darwinists here never had a family member or a friend kill themselves while addicted to drugs or alcohol.
You can choose friends you cant choose your family

Let me guess you can't read any later where that was already mentioned and I responded to it. Are you completely clueless?

Guys, I'm on the verge of just deleting all of the replies and trying again.

If you're going to make an argument, please try to make it COHERENTLY.

Provide some examples, I'm sorry that you do not know what I'm referring to. Just like most people, I'll to provide some links for every statement I make. But one of them is pretty coherent, that news story you linked basically talks about them getting arrested and treated for drug use. So the numbers fell, still caters to prohibition. As they have been discouraged from using the dugs they wanted to use.

At 10/7/11 09:39 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Provide some examples, I'm sorry that you do not know what I'm referring to. Just like most people, I'll to provide some links for every statement I make. But one of them is pretty coherent, that news story you linked basically talks about them getting arrested and treated for drug use. So the numbers fell, still caters to prohibition. As they have been discouraged from using the dugs they wanted to use.

By "prohibition" I mean the application of criminal punishment for drug use. If you look at the article, it mentions that the recommended treatment can be refused without penalty. In Portugal, drugs use has been decriminalized (which is not the same thing as legalization), and they've seen positive results, and they certainly haven't seen the explosion of drug use that's often predicted by proponents of prohibition.

What I'm arguing, specifically, is that thowing people in jail or giving them a criminal record for using drugs does nothing to solve the drug problem, and that a better, more cost-effective approach would be to try to solve to problem via treatment and community. Simply put, I think that the war on drugs is a broken policy.

I'm not trying to claim that the drug problem doesn't exist and that everyone should be doing drugs all the time.

"small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail"

Still a black market, still punished for larger amounts, and for distribution. I'm not sure how that is argument for "if its legal everyone will become a drug addict"

In my initial response I already provided reasons for prohibition. Even with a little picture showing "legal cocaine" as a cure-all. Kind of like things containing uranium were claimed as such. Why don't you just try to find statistics about how many were addicts when it was legal and use that instead?

But see, I still have no idea what your point is. What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

Also, with regard to pre-prohibition statistics, finding those is not a trivial task. That would be during a period before the widespread use of statistical analysis, not to mention a lesser understanding of the nature of drug addiction.

Sure, and with something as persuasive as calling it a cure-all. Was society ruined? Do I need sarcasm tags?

At 10/7/11 10:12 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Sure, and with something as persuasive as calling it a cure-all. Was society ruined? Do I need sarcasm tags?

See, this is what I'm talking about. I have no idea if you're even arguing for or against prohibition. I asked why you believe prohibition is advantageous, and you responded with "Sure"

Do you see the problem I'm having here?

Maybe it was an answer to the question in the first line, or agreeing with the second line. I don't know my stance! Even if I'm talking about hypocracy of the "Drug Warriors". Talking about certain experiences I've had in the General Forum. Posting images that were made and appeal to people in an alterered perception. Looking at my favorites I've listed in my profile. But I know plenty of illegal drug users who are for prohibition! I'm sorry, I'd rather just confuse people who can't see through it so I can make statements and leave and go back to the little artistic activities I enjoy.

At 10/7/11 10:10 AM, Elfer wrote: What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

I am not convinced by the situation in Portgual. I see that problems that drugs cause to others every day at work (actually just 2 days a week, now that school has started back up) The those who say drug use is a victimless crime, I strongly disagree. Sure, drug usage by a single person of age who has enough money to fuel the habit and never chooses to drive, and had no family or friends, may count as a victimless crime. The minute a single one of those elements changes, a victim shows. The majority of CPS cases result from drug usage. The majority of child neglect and mistreat criminal charges come from drug use. In other words, drug usage is a major driving factor in the neglect and abuse of children.

At 10/7/11 10:12 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Do I need sarcasm tags?

A translator function might help us more.

A translator function might help us more.

Translate what? I'm typing in English. Maybe just one post where I criticized one user addressing previous posts in this topic. Wouldn't make sense to anyone but them or did not remember or read those previous posts.

I tried, the info is all out there in these statements. You can use google or even highlight them and right-click and in the context menu of your browser you might even be able to Google from there! I also have phonemic paraphasia exacerbated from a bacterial infection of the lungs on top of a viral infection in the upper respiratory tract. The apperception of esoteric knowledge from newslinks I don't care to provide!

At 10/7/11 10:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/7/11 10:10 AM, Elfer wrote: What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

I am not convinced by the situation in Portgual. I see that problems that drugs cause to others every day at work (actually just 2 days a week, now that school has started back up) The those who say drug use is a victimless crime, I strongly disagree. Sure, drug usage by a single person of age who has enough money to fuel the habit and never chooses to drive, and had no family or friends, may count as a victimless crime. The minute a single one of those elements changes, a victim shows. The majority of CPS cases result from drug usage. The majority of child neglect and mistreat criminal charges come from drug use. In other words, drug usage is a major driving factor in the neglect and abuse of children.

Oh good, finally someone has posted something that's actually readable. This is something that's very important to address when talking about eliminating prohibition.

It's not that drugs aren't a problem or that drug addiction doesn't have victims other than those with drug addictions or dependence. The abuse of drugs is absolutely a serious problem in our society, and in no way am I trying to claim that it isn't.

The point I'm trying to make is that criminal punishment for drug use has never been shown to be an effective solution to the drug problem. Despite many decades of cracking down on drug users and drug dealers, the drug problem persists.

People break their addictions through treatment, not through fear of jail. In fact, when the fear of prosecution is removed, we have pretty much universally seen an increase in the number of people seeking treatment for their drug problem, and a decrease in associated problems such as spread of blood-borne diseases, petty crime, and deaths due to overdose.

Again, I'm not saying that there's no drug problem to be solved, I just can't see any convincing evidence that prohibiton is a workable route to success.

At 10/7/11 10:33 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote:

A translator function might help us more.

Translate what? I'm typing in English. Maybe just one post where I criticized one user addressing previous posts in this topic. Wouldn't make sense to anyone but them or did not remember or read those previous posts.

Perhaps if you didn't, we would have to always be doing otherwise all the time. If you look at my first post, you can read what I wrote there and see that sure, drugs can be bad, but also that prohibition isn't totally convincing when drugs are out.

If you hadn't already, I wouldn't see the need to continue, but if we have to restate, then maybe this isn't something worth it to remember.

Ok, but "which is that eliminating criminal penalties for drug use will cause addiction to skyrocket, etc."

Where your argument posting statistics from a newslink that doesn't quite cover your argument. I've posted the criticisms in my last post addressing you.

I'll type it again, they're being given treatment. Or rather given the choise of treatment for small amounts of posession. They'll be forced with larger amounts. This is what drove down the statistics.

So basically these stats aren't covering the select group of small posession offences. Since it talks about 9th graders I know that they'll be talked into choosing the treatment. I go the courts here to watch cases, and watched many youth being persuaded into drug diversion.

At 10/7/11 10:51 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: I go the courts here to watch cases, and watched many youth being persuaded into drug diversion.

Seeing as juvenile cases are confidential, I seriously doubt you have been able to watch cases involving minors and drugs. Furthermore, the vast majority of drug diversion youths are put there through informal punishment (i.e. their juvenile counselor issues such a punishment in lieu of an actual prosecution.)

I said youth, and that covers people over 18 to mid twenties. Forgot to add the cases of assault where they go "the drugs made you do it" "yes sir" "you will be given treatment instead of incarceration"

At 10/7/11 10:37 AM, Elfer wrote: People break their addictions through treatment, not through fear of jail. In fact, when the fear of prosecution is removed, we have pretty much universally seen an increase in the number of people seeking treatment for their drug problem, and a decrease in associated problems such as spread of blood-borne diseases, petty crime, and deaths due to overdose.

I have two responses to this.

First, you speak of penal deterrents to breaking the addiction. What about penal deterrents to start or upgrading an addiction?

Second, at least in my county, much of the drug prosecution and punishments are meant to force the user into treatment. We have correctional centers, drug court, treatment packages and a bunch of other programs that are attached as conditions on to probation for drug offenses. The hard jail time is reserved for the dealers, the manufacturers, and the users who consistently refuse to be treated. In other words, prosecuting drug addicts in my jurisdiction focuses first on treatment, and second on punishment as a last resort (except for dealers and manufacturers)

Again, I'm not saying that there's no drug problem to be solved, I just can't see any convincing evidence that prohibiton is a workable route to success.

I think the treat first sort of prosecution, adopted universally, could help.

And it should be assumed that is used for youth because "they didn't know any better" so "give them a second chance"

But really, I'm not sure how ones gets "found guilty of possessing small amounts" in "the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs".

But let's survey a bunch of kids who have no money receiving treatment against "the argument against prohibition is that the money saved on enforcement can be used for treatment".

Uh... just so everybody knows... Loiarlyritpyat is NOT my alt account. I don't know who this guy is or what his problem is, but if I was going to post anything like that, I'd do on my own account.

Haha, what a seflish dumbass. What do I have to do with you? I should also add price inflation over the years for the ninth graders who don't have even have the money for drugs.

At 10/7/11 11:31 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Haha, what a seflish dumbass. What do I have to do with you?

Absolutely nothing, and I'm glad for it.

Yeah, I remember arguing you, dealing with your "anti-drug" posisition in a thread about the movie Avatar years ago. Enjoy the alcohol and drugs to treat the anxiety that is your own creation "anti druggie"

I'd like to be you, a dupe

At 10/7/11 10:10 AM, Elfer wrote: But see, I still have no idea what your point is. What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

i'm pretty sure its afuckingname; hes the only one who goes around ranting about glyshopates and how terrible we all are.

At 10/6/11 06:36 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: ...Like aerial spraying of glyphosate herbicide...

At 9/23/11 01:53 PM, afuckingname wrote: ...oozing arrogance while eating glysophate...

but it could be that my drug addled state prevents me from being critical.
woo, drugs (tha'ts an opinion, right?)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/Coca_eradication

The only that posts https links and is aware and concerned about real issues!

Gentlemen, it is at this point that I would like to remind you of something we used to say in the lounge.... don't feed the trolls.

Gentleman, dodging the arugments and saying you're a troll doesn't work. What is your position on drugs now user? Is it a stark contrast from your 'druggie' insults from a year ago?

At 10/7/11 12:07 PM, Proteas wrote: Gentlemen, it is at this point that I would like to remind you of something we used to say in the lounge.... don't feed the trolls.

speaking of which; has coca eradication been fair to those who use coca leaves culturally (not equivalent to cocaine), or another example of the ill-effects of the war on drugs?

it sure as hell means you can't get coca here.

I saw a coca plant at the Vancouver Seed Bank. But that's here, and awhile back. So when are you going to overcome the fear of letting go? Better living through chemistry eh