At 10/19/11 09:46 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:
You said the sources of death and harm in society, which are drugs like alcohol/tobacco etc." You are directly asserting that all harm and every death is the result of drugs.
We've been discussing drugs as the sources of death. Not any other sources of death. The introduction of red herrings like that is merely a distraction to the argument.
No matter what context that statement was made in, it was pretty unequivocal that you stated that drugs cause all deaths and are the source of all harm in society. I have the quote to prove it.
You have a quote that does not contain the word "all" and pretty clearly refers to the sources of death being discussed in this topic. Like drugs, this is a waste of my time.
This didn't work in the Era of Prohibition in the U.S.
Again, that was the 1920s. I'd like to see it tried again.
And it's not working all that much now. I have had quite a few friends who smoke weed and I know people who still do. Guess what? They're not likely to spend anytime in prison unless they do something stupid to get themselves caught.
Not enough resources dedicated to it. In order to deter usage, you gotta go all in.
And your idea of "harsher penalties" isn't really a good idea. First, it's already nearly impossible to enforce these drug laws. My weed-smoking friends are testimony to that fact. Why aren't they in jail now? Because it's not too difficult to circumvent these particular laws and avoid apprehension. "Harsher penalties" won't catch these people in the act; "harsher penalties" only deal with them after they've already been caught, and police aren't omnipresent, which is why drug laws are so difficult to enforce.
Enforcement is lax, that's why. Increase the level of enforcement, get people to turn on drug abusers for cash rewards.
Second, "harsher penalties" will simply overcrowd the prisons, which I've been saying repeatedly to you, yet you ignore this fact. Unless your idea of harsher penalties does not entail jail time, then you're going to have to rethink your stance on this issue. Harsher penalties don't deter most criminals from doing anything once or even twice. Why do you think the jail systems in the U.S. are referred to as "revolving doors"? Most offenders commit the same crime or a similar crime after they are released. They are not at all deterred by harsher punishments.
Again, as I've stated countless times, prisons are not at all part of the solution I'm proposing.
People are stupid? Why do you have such a contemptuous view of others?
And forgive me for asking, but are you any smarter? I don't mean to offend you. I'm just asking.
I don't kill people by practicing destructive habits, so I guess you can judge for yourself.
Yeah, but prohibition won't effectively deter people from doing stupid things like that.
I think with the right policies, it definitely could.
And I am utterly positive that there is no empirical proof that prohibition has ever worked, because it's been tried before and didn't work.
Not enough incentive in the 1920s to get people to stop. So let's give them some this time.
This is the way things are in many jurisdictions. It's not working.
Precisely why a change in the concept of enforcement is required.
At 10/19/11 09:41 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:
And what if I think that the positives outweigh the negatives? Am I wrong? Nope, it's subjective.
Nah, death and health degradation is actually the most negative side effect that exists, and it is inherently linked with drug abuse.
Yes I can. The point was that we use many things in our day to day life that have negative side effects.
But what you ignore is that their positives vastly outweigh their negatives. It simply cannot be said that that the vast majority of people who use calculators or cars on a very regular basis experience a negative effect on health. The same cannot be said of drug abusers on the whole, who do experience a negative effect on health, and may even cause death for some people as a result of their actions.
They aren't inherently harmful, but the use of them are. Gas costs are harmful, lack of logical thought(calculators) is harmful. Marijuana is not harmful if it's just there, but the use of it is.
Lack of logical thought is not physically and mentally destructive -- humans survived for thousands of years without calculators after all. Cars are not inherently physically and mentally destructive -- 99% of the people who use cars use them freely and without harm. People who abuse drugs on the other hand, by putting smoke in their lungs, alcohol in their bloodstreams, any sort of altered mental or physical state induced unnaturally like that for recreational purposes, experience a much less rosy outlook, and their endangerment of society is unconscionable.
You can't judge if someone's actions harm others without seeing them do so. Maybe you should need a license to use these things, and then when you do something wrong, it is taken away. People who can drive have the ability to harm others, but that doesn't mean it should be banned, because they could always well.. Not harm others. The right is only taken away if they do harm others.
There are literally thousands of cases of drunk driving, drunk abuse, drunk this/that, smoky environments for young children, strung-out addict parents screwing up childrens' lives. I'd say that's a pretty concrete thing, and needs to be addressed.
Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying that freedom to smoke marijuana is not a big deal.
Well, the discussion here is much larger than just marijuana. We're talking all drugs, and have been for a while. The ability of marijuana to induce an altered mental state exists too, though the immediate threat is less severe.