Be a Supporter!

I can't decide on the drug issue

  • 1,665 Views
  • 57 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
UltraHammer
UltraHammer
  • Member since: Oct. 27, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Game Developer
I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 00:04:16 Reply

Libertarians make the case that the prohibition of drugs causes extra crime, and then people get killed as a result of that crime. Therefore, we should legalize drugs.

Well, one could also argue, by that logic, that we should legalize theft. Because think of all the people who die in the crossfire of the crime around stealing. Therefore, it can be argued legalizing drugs just because some people will break the law is a bad principle; as it opens up the can of worms for all the other sorts of crimes on the spectrum.

But, on the other hand, stealing (and most other crimes) is an act that directly infringes on someone else's human rights, whereas you, by yourself, taking drugs, hurts no one but yourself. Therefore, we shouldn't be able to ban drugs any more than we should be able to ban soda, beer, hats, cheese and dildos.

Though, I've heard some people like Mark Levin make the case that banning certain products would be constitutional in America, even if not practical or smart.

HOWEVER, from what I understand, the more hardcore drugs corrupt most any mind into a state of recklessness, stupidity, selfishness and violence. In other words, it automatically puts someone into a criminalistic or disrupter-of-the-peace-like state of mind.

I've also had it explained to me by a former junkie that Marijuana is a 'gateway drug' because it 'gives you a high that you enjoy, but you get used to the high quickly, and will want to pursue other, better highs.' That's what he told me, any way.

BUT, don't beer and--you know--being an asshole to begin with do the same thing? Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?

What the health, reality? Why do the problems in life have to be complicated?

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 00:14:36 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:04 AM, UltraHammer wrote: BUT, don't beer and--you know--being an asshole to begin with do the same thing?

Yes.

Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?

No. Alcohol is more destructive than several illegal drugs including marijuana.

Some people have no control over their impulses. If you're going to spend every day smoking weed on your couch instead of going to work then it's not the government's job to "protect" you. Besides, since when was a prison sentence protection?

People that get caught smoking weed in their spare time do not deserve to be punished by the legal system for a recreational activity that's safer than getting drunk. Kids stumble back to my dorm drunk every holiday weekend and it's socially acceptable so what's the deal.

As for the "gateway drug" argument? It depends on the person, but I'm inclined to believe that those who take the step to harder drugs had problems that existed before they started smoking marijuana. From experience, I've never had any desire to go "deeper" or whatever. But like I said, it's not the government's place to protect you from your addictive personality and even if I thought it was throwing people in prison isn't the right way to do it.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 00:19:20 Reply

"War on Drugs" is propaganda as they will always have drugs illegal as they can make more money playing both sides against the middle.


BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 00:56:28 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:04 AM, UltraHammer wrote: Libertarians make the case that the prohibition of drugs causes extra crime, and then people get killed as a result of that crime. Therefore, we should legalize drugs.

That's not really the libertarian argument. The libertarian argument is that you have an absolute right to your own mind and body, as well as the right to alter your mind and body as you see fit. What you have there is more of a pragmatic argument.

Well, one could also argue, by that logic, that we should legalize theft. Because think of all the people who die in the crossfire of the crime around stealing. Therefore, it can be argued legalizing drugs just because some people will break the law is a bad principle; as it opens up the can of worms for all the other sorts of crimes on the spectrum.

But, on the other hand, stealing (and most other crimes) is an act that directly infringes on someone else's human rights, whereas you, by yourself, taking drugs, hurts no one but yourself. Therefore, we shouldn't be able to ban drugs any more than we should be able to ban soda, beer, hats, cheese and dildos.

What's the point of positing an argument and then refuting it in the very next paragraph? You clearly understand that using a drug is not the same as directly harming another human being through stealing from them, so why bring it up in the first place?

HOWEVER, from what I understand, the more hardcore drugs corrupt most any mind into a state of recklessness, stupidity, selfishness and violence. In other words, it automatically puts someone into a criminalistic or disrupter-of-the-peace-like state of mind.

There are very few drugs that "automatically" causes someone to commit harm to others. Much of the violence related to the illicit drug trade comes from the very simple fact that a black market is inherently more violent and dangerous than a legitimate market. Disputes generally cannot be settled in peaceful ways, you can't call the police or take someone to court if an amount of your merchandise is stolen, you'll have to take to violence to get it back.

Prices are also artificially high because of prohibition driving up the costs of doing business, so it is very easy to rack up a significant amount of debt trying to support your drug addiction in the case of harder drugs. Many are then forced to take up prostitution or theft as a way of paying for the drugs. This is not because drugs simply MAKE you act irrationally and violently.

I've also had it explained to me by a former junkie that Marijuana is a 'gateway drug' because it 'gives you a high that you enjoy, but you get used to the high quickly, and will want to pursue other, better highs.' That's what he told me, any way.

He needs to check the statistical evidence, because the vast majority of people who try marijuana will never go on to do any harder stuff. If there IS some sort of "gateway effect" to marijuana, it is BECAUSE it is an illegal substance. The kind of criminal enterprise that are going to be involved in the sale of marijuana are much more likely to be dealing with other, harder illicit substances as well, and they will have a financial incentive to get their customers hooked on whichever drug brings in the most profit for them. The idea that people grow tired of marijuana and begin craving harder stuff as if by magic is nothing but complete nonsense.

BUT, don't beer and--you know--being an asshole to begin with do the same thing? Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?

Alcohol surely has it's downsides (far more numerous than marijuana, by the way), but one thing that we have when it comes to alcohol is the benefit of hindsight. Prohibition of alcohol on a large scale was attempted once before, and it failed spectacularly. It didn't bring crime down- instead, it ushered in the era of the bootlegging gangster, of Al Capone and many others. Murder rates rose dramatically, as well as deaths resulting from poorly made bathtub liquor. Millions of dollars were wasted trying to enforce prohibition (small change compared to today's billion dollar enterprise) and public pressure to end prohibition got so bad that after only 13 years, the ban was lifted.

What the health, reality? Why do the problems in life have to be complicated?

The drug issue has been made more complicated than it needs to be. When you look at the facts of the matter it becomes quite easy to see what needs to be done.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

T3XT
T3XT
  • Member since: Jan. 7, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Gamer
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 01:02:55 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:14 AM, Entice wrote:
Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?
No. Alcohol is more destructive than several illegal drugs including marijuana.

That, and outlawing a drug increases the demand for it greatly and drives people to more deadly alternatives. Although some drugs are just to dangerous to be allowed, more harmless ones just need to be legalized.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 13:20:24 Reply

The crime thing is a small part of the drug legalization argument...

But the real argument is, who the fuck is the government to decide what an individual consumes under his/her own free will.

If I want to snort coke, why should the government have any say in that? It doesn't hurt anyone, it's my personal choice to smoke weed, or do coke, or drink a quart of vodka if I want too. There is no reason for the government to be able to dictate whether or not an independent adult cannot make their own choices on what they smoke, drink, eat, etc.

Of course, I believe in drunk driving laws and the like. However, those come into play because you're endangering others. If I'm at home on a friday and want to consume [insert vice], why should government personnel who don't even know me, or even live in the same state as me, decide if I can smoke pot, or eat trans fats.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 13:22:37 Reply

At 10/29/12 01:02 AM, T3XT wrote:
At 10/29/12 12:14 AM, Entice wrote:
Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?
No. Alcohol is more destructive than several illegal drugs including marijuana.
That, and outlawing a drug increases the demand for it greatly and drives people to more deadly alternatives. Although some drugs are just to dangerous to be allowed, more harmless ones just need to be legalized.

Agreed.

The other thing is, the hypocrisy of drug laws. Tobacco is totally legal...but pot, which probably has less chemicals and bullshit in it, is illegal. Hell, ORDERING (or providing) A LARGE SODA in New York City, is illegal.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 17:04:37 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:04 AM, UltraHammer wrote: Libertarians make the case that the prohibition of drugs causes extra crime, and then people get killed as a result of that crime. Therefore, we should legalize drugs.

Libertarians argue that making drugs illegal is in violation of the first amendment. All of the consequences that follow after banning drugs are irrelevant when you've already violated the constitution.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 18:57:07 Reply

At 10/29/12 05:04 PM, Saen wrote: Libertarians argue that making drugs illegal is in violation of the first amendment.

Only if Libertarians are collectively stupid.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 22:04:36 Reply

At 10/29/12 06:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/29/12 05:04 PM, Saen wrote: Libertarians argue that making drugs illegal is in violation of the first amendment.
Only if Libertarians are collectively stupid.

Just putting myself in the shoes of a Libertarian.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-29 23:06:31 Reply

At 10/29/12 10:04 PM, Saen wrote: Just putting myself in the shoes of a Libertarian.

My comment was based out of a little frustration. Took my dog out for a walk and she refused to #2. Once we get inside that bitch decides to crap all over the floor...

What I really meant is that there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that supports the act of using a drug. In fact, there was a bug case in the early nineties that upheld drugs laws over the first amendment right to religion (which is a much stronger protection than that for speech and press).

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-30 19:06:16 Reply

At 10/29/12 05:04 PM, Saen wrote:
Libertarians argue that making drugs illegal is in violation of the first amendment. All of the consequences that follow after banning drugs are irrelevant when you've already violated the constitution.

I have NEVER heard a libertarian even mention the 1st amendment in context to legalization/prohibition laws.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-30 20:19:59 Reply

New purposed second amendment: change the word "arms" to "material, inanimate possessions of any kind"

because, why should we only protect our right to own weapons when we can protect our right to own anything that can be lawfully acquired through our own hard work?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 12:48:40 Reply

At 10/30/12 08:19 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: New purposed second amendment: change the word "arms" to "material, inanimate possessions of any kind"

because, why should we only protect our right to own weapons when we can protect our right to own anything that can be lawfully acquired through our own hard work?

Well, the right to bear arms was there so we could kill tyrant leaders if the need be.

Owning pot doesn't exactly relate to that.

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 13:20:49 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:04 AM, UltraHammer wrote: HOWEVER, from what I understand, the more hardcore drugs corrupt most any mind into a state of recklessness, stupidity, selfishness and violence. In other words, it automatically puts someone into a criminalistic or disrupter-of-the-peace-like state of mind.

This is incorrect. There are not 'soft' drugs and 'the more hardcore' drugs anyway - you might say that LSD or MDMA are 'the more hardcore' drugs but they do not 'automatically' turn someone's mind into that of a criminal - in fact, they would make you very friendly. As far as drugs like crystal meth or crack cocaine, or the range of 'bath salts' that have recently come to the market are concerned, they might make you focused and confused and could even get you pumped up with adrenaline, but that doesn't mean you go out and attack people. Less criminally-minded people might be inclined to chat to their friends, dance around a club, clean their house or listen to music when on these drugs, but if you're doing them on the pavement and have absolutely no plans for the experience, you probably care little for public order anyway.

Is alcohol one of 'the more hardcore' drugs? Because if there's something that will make you want to breach the peace more than crystal meth, it's a significant quantity of alcohol. It turns men and women alike into fucking dickheads.

Tbh I suppose by 'the more hardcore', you mean 'anything other than cannabis'.

I've also had it explained to me by a former junkie that Marijuana is a 'gateway drug' because it 'gives you a high that you enjoy, but you get used to the high quickly, and will want to pursue other, better highs.' That's what he told me, any way.

Any 'former junkie' who said such a silly thing must have been doing tours of schools and giving the government-mandated line, because it is completely incorrect. However, it might be true that people who are the kind of person that wants to find out what cannabis feels like will also be the kind of person that wants to find out what [insert other drug] feels like, but you don't think 'I'm bored of smoking weed now, pass the crackpipe'.

Most 'former junkies' will tell you that the reason they got into injecting heroin is because of [insert series of awful childhood experiences] followed by [insert series of awful adulthood experiences]. I reckon I could go to hospital for an operation tomorrow and they could give me diamorphine (which is the medical name for heroin) and I would not be inclined to set aside my goals and aspirations and spend the rest of my life shooting up. In fact, I could go to the doctor and be seen by a man who actually is shooting up - lots of doctors take medicinal-grade heroin recreationally.

Why anyone would put that dirty adulterated street heroin into their veins is beyond me and is good evidence of how much heroin addicts must dislike themselves. But it does not go back to them smoking a joint.

shimmyya
shimmyya
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 15:20:25 Reply

At 10/29/12 12:04 AM, UltraHammer wrote: Libertarians make the case that the prohibition of drugs causes extra crime, and then people get killed as a result of that crime. Therefore, we should legalize drugs.

Well, one could also argue, by that logic, that we should legalize theft. Because think of all the people who die in the crossfire of the crime around stealing. Therefore, it can be argued legalizing drugs just because some people will break the law is a bad principle; as it opens up the can of worms for all the other sorts of crimes on the spectrum.

But, on the other hand, stealing (and most other crimes) is an act that directly infringes on someone else's human rights, whereas you, by yourself, taking drugs, hurts no one but yourself. Therefore, we shouldn't be able to ban drugs any more than we should be able to ban soda, beer, hats, cheese and dildos.
Though, I've heard some people like Mark Levin make the case that banning certain products would be constitutional in America, even if not practical or smart.
HOWEVER, from what I understand, the more hardcore drugs corrupt most any mind into a state of recklessness, stupidity, selfishness and violence. In other words, it automatically puts someone into a criminalistic or disrupter-of-the-peace-like state of mind.
I've also had it explained to me by a former junkie that Marijuana is a 'gateway drug' because it 'gives you a high that you enjoy, but you get used to the high quickly, and will want to pursue other, better highs.' That's what he told me, any way.
BUT, don't beer and--you know--being an asshole to begin with do the same thing? Or do drugs have this effect more strongly than alcohol to a significant distinction? Where is this line drawn?

What the health, reality? Why do the problems in life have to be complicated?

If i may say. Rastas in africa do not believe in other drug use like mushrooms and booze and so on. They only smoke weed, Weed is not a gateway drug for people they make their own decisions. So a chunk of what you learned from rehab is wrong. And you are not really a junkie If you smoke weed. Its just weed man not like its crack. But legalize theft are you kidding???? That would be the most absurd thing to do. And they should just legalize weed acid and shrooms. Acid is only illegal because the governments plan failed in mind control. All they got was soldiers running up trees and shit. Man you need psychology to do mind control shit on acid.


queef!

shimmyya
shimmyya
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 15:23:42 Reply

but you cannot deni it opens your mind to creativity for some drugs like acid. changes your life in some ways. you learn new things on it.


queef!

shimmyya
shimmyya
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 15:28:07 Reply

the way i see it weed would be beneficial to the economy.


queef!

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-10-31 20:30:51 Reply

At 10/31/12 12:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, the right to bear arms was there so we could kill tyrant leaders if the need be.

Owning pot doesn't exactly relate to that.

If you make it illegal to own something when the act of owning alone it is not an infringement of other people's life or free choice, its intolerance at best, and tyranny at worst. Marijuana is an inanimate object, religious symbols are inanimate objects, guns are inanimate objects. "oh but there's a difference" the difference is the excuse, nothing more. Pots a "gate way drug" for irresponsible users, religion is a cause for violence in extremist followers, guns are a tool for murder for bad people. whats the common denominator? bad things that are caused by bad people.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Kwing
Kwing
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 45
Game Developer
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-01 22:45:10 Reply

Certainly alcohol is a more dangerous drug than marijuana. I'd like to say this has a black and white solution but it really doesn't. Prohibition didn't work, and this war on drugs isn't either. For economic, health, and constitutional reasons, I would say that cannabis should be legalized. As far as other drugs, I really can't say. While it's always supposed to be someone's choice what they put in their body, more powerful drugs may suppress someone's self-control and make them potentially dangerous. Heroin would be a fairly accurate example of this.

I suppose the best thing would be to try legalizing drugs in a few states and see how it worked; it's never too late to change it back if it's a disaster.


If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-02 00:31:08 Reply

At 10/31/12 03:23 PM, shimmyya wrote: but you cannot deni it opens your mind to creativity for some drugs like acid. changes your life in some ways. you learn new things on it.

No you don't. Those closest to the drug using musicians in the 1960s (see Jimmy, Janice, et al) say that drugs did more to limit their creativity than expand it.

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-02 06:35:38 Reply

At 11/2/12 12:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/31/12 03:23 PM, shimmyya wrote: but you cannot deni it opens your mind to creativity for some drugs like acid. changes your life in some ways. you learn new things on it.
No you don't. Those closest to the drug using musicians in the 1960s (see Jimmy, Janice, et al) say that drugs did more to limit their creativity than expand it.

Steve Jobs said he wouldn't have invented the shit he did if he hadn't have taken acid. Apparently loads of breakthroughs in computing technology and microchips were a direct result of people figuring shit out on LSD. Notwithstanding that Sergeant Peppers would never have been written.

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-02 10:57:36 Reply

At 11/2/12 12:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No you don't. Those closest to the drug using musicians in the 1960s (see Jimmy, Janice, et al) say that drugs did more to limit their creativity than expand it.

Even if that's true it's somewhat irrelevant since it still doesn't prove that acid has negative effects on health.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-02 11:14:23 Reply

At 11/2/12 06:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: Steve Jobs said he wouldn't have invented the shit he did if he hadn't have taken acid.

By invented, you mean stole from Xerox?

Come on people. Steve Jobs is NOT a person to be looked up to. He's nothing other than the most successful scam artist in history, playing off the stupidity and trendiness of hipsters, old people, and the other generally stupid out there.

At 11/2/12 10:57 AM, Entice wrote: Even if that's true it's somewhat irrelevant since it still doesn't prove that acid has negative effects on health.

The drugs killed them. I'd say death is pretty bad for your health.

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-02 11:31:32 Reply

At 11/2/12 11:14 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The drugs killed them. I'd say death is pretty bad for your health.

Are we talking about LSD specifically? Because there's no documented deaths caused by LSD overdoes.
It's only been known to worsen certain mental disorders and cause people to do stupid things that cause self-injury (which obviously can obviously happen with marijuana and alcohol as well).

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-03 12:43:10 Reply

Comparing prohibition on alcohol and its effects on crime are not the same as comparing prohibition and its effects on crime of marihuana. First and foremost, when prohibition on alcohol came into effect, there were tens of millions of people already drinking alcohol legally up until that day, so it's something they were already doing socially or dependent on. None of us were alive when marihuana was legal, so if any of us tried it, it was already illegal.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure because you were telling millions of people to stop doing it. Marihuana prohibition, you are telling people they cant do something, which they try in spite of the ban.

Secondly anyone who thinks making marihuana or any other drug legal will eliminate organized crime from the picture clearly doesn't know much about organized crime. In Canada, despite tobacco being legal, it is estimated that as much as 1/3 of the market is black market tobacco, run by organized crime groups. Strippers are legal in Canada, but a large number of strip clubs across the country are run by organized crime. Prada, Coach and tons of other brands of clothing or other items are totally legal, yet there is a huge counterfeit market. If there is some way for organized crime to make any money off of something they will, and legalized marihuana or other drugs are no different.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-03 15:13:22 Reply

At 11/3/12 12:43 PM, JoS wrote: Secondly anyone who thinks making marihuana or any other drug legal will eliminate organized crime from the picture clearly doesn't know much about organized crime.

On top of that, crime will exist regardless. Quite frankly, I'd rather have crime dealing with relatively (RELATIVELY) harmless marijuana than with things such as guns, prostitution, or other worse sorts of trafficking.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-03 18:54:27 Reply

"Mexican officials said Wednesday almost 13,000 people died in drug violence in the first nine months of 2011, pushing the toll since the start of a five-year military crackdown above 47,000."

At 11/3/12 03:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: relatively harmless

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-03 18:59:53 Reply

At 11/3/12 03:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: On top of that, crime will exist regardless. Quite frankly, I'd rather have crime dealing with relatively (RELATIVELY) harmless marijuana than with things such as guns, prostitution, or other worse sorts of trafficking.

So you're saying that if marijuana was legalized crime would increase in other areas? What's the correlation between illegal firearms, prostitution, and marijuana?

I'm also curious to see your response to my last post?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to I can't decide on the drug issue 2012-11-03 19:07:12 Reply

At 11/3/12 06:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: "Mexican officials said Wednesday almost 13,000 people died in drug violence in the first nine months of 2011, pushing the toll since the start of a five-year military crackdown above 47,000."

At 11/3/12 03:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: relatively harmless

Those deaths will happen regardless of the specific product that is the basis of the criminal organization..

Again, I'd rather have 47,000 deaths and a booming black market for marijuana, than 47,000 deaths and a booming market for child prostitution in the US.