Marijuana Legalization - Why Not?

[Giancarlo]

Rev: You are so eager to disprove my opinon. But you fail. Drugs have no place in society no matter what you or anybody else say. I say the US should draft a law that will give the United States Armed Forces power to blow the ****ing hell out of drug compounds. I say the US should deploy the National Guard and militarize borders. I say Drug traffikers or dealers must be executed by lethal injection. That is my opinion and it is much more valid than having a society where drugs are legal, and where the drug addiction rates increases because of lower prices. Everything single FARC must be killed, along with every single trafficker in the Burmese Triangle, and everyone involved with the Mexican Cartels. Yet you say this opinion is not valid with these half-assed evidenceless remarks. In your ****ing world there is only one opinion on this. Well wake up, I make the majority on this issue in the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, Jesus.

What about booze, Gian? It kills more people every year than pot has in all of history. Something like 1/3 of all fatal accidents are caused by drunk driving, 10% of people will become alcoholics at some point in their lives, etc. I personally know 6 or 7 people who have had to be hospitalised for alcohol poisoning. Let's at least be consistent.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Oh, Jesus.

What about booze, Gian? It kills more people every year than pot has in all of history. Something like 1/3 of all fatal accidents are caused by drunk driving, 10% of people will become alcoholics at some point in their lives, etc. I personally know 6 or 7 people who have had to be hospitalised for alcohol poisoning. Let's at least be consistent.

Then that problem should be dealt with in a efficient manner. Law should state that people should be limited to a proper amount of alcohol. But drugs have no place in society what-so-ever. I want to walk out on the streets and not see ****ing drug addicts. To see that is unacceptable and I believe the governments that have to deal with this problem along with the US should have a meeting and come up with a battle plan. They must utilize all of their armed forces and kill as many drug growers as they can. And kids growing crack in their basements isn´t enough once the Armed forces of each and every nation that has to deal with the problem, take the entire drug trade out. I am talking about the Burmese Army, Mexican Army, Colombian Army with the help from the US can and will be abled to wipe out drugs once and for all from their countries thus reducing drug traffiking by a substantial amount. All the drug traffikers captured must either be imprisoned for life or executed.

You people! You disgust me! Always trying to discredit the other side when you can´t support an argument.

[KrazyHorse]

Giannie: Just because you choose not to label alcohol a drug doesn't mean it isn't a drug. It's both physically and psycholgically addictive, you can OD on it pretty easily (once you start drinkin' your judgment goes out the window) and it profoundly alters your sense of reality when taken in any significant quantity. There are many more winos on the streets of Montreal than there are crackheads, and they're just as out of it.

Winos are drug addicts too.

[rev]

I say the US should draft a law that will give the United States Armed Forces power to blow the ****ing hell out of drug compounds.

We already do that, Giancarlo, and it's not working. We shoot down planes, spray random farms with chemical weapons, et cetera, et cetera. Instead, drugs continue to flow fairly freely into the United States and we end up hurting more people than we help (for instance, shooting down a missionary's plane).

Yet you say this opinion is not valid with these half-assed evidenceless remarks.

Evidenceless? Hello? I, at the very least, provided some reliable data to prove my point. You respond by ranting about how anyone involved with any sort of drugs at all should be executed and then say my points are not backed by any evidence whatsoever. At least, sir, I'm making a point rather than saying "it's bad" (without any evidence to back that point up) and arguing for lethal injection for thousands upon thousands of people.

In your ****ing world there is only one opinion on this. Well wake up, I make the majority on this issue in the US.

Help! Help! I hold an opinion that differs from the 'majority' of the US. Oh no, I MUST change! How hypocritical.

At least FG, Gareth, Asher, myself, and others speak from reasonable experience. Do you think our lives should be taken by the government? Sure, I disagree with some of what they say, but at least I can take them seriously because they have some clue as to what they're talking about.

Law should state that people should be limited to a proper amount of alcohol.

How? People can only come in and buy a shot or two of whiskey from the local liquor store, then drive home? Why can't someone get drunk in his or her own house (or elsewhere) if they know what they're doing? I mean, if they get in a car and drive, take their liscense away, but punish them for drinking or smoking?

I want to walk out on the streets and not see ****ing drug addicts. To see that is unacceptable and I believe the governments that have to deal with this problem along with the US should have a meeting and come up with a battle plan.

Let me guess: a dirty, homeless guy in the streets of San Diego. Yup, must be a drug addict! Tell me, how would bombing the hell out of a compound in Colombia help this guy? What about jail?The answer: it won't. Drugs will still be available to this guy and when he gets out of jail he'll probably go right to them.

Treat addiction and use as a health problem, not a criminal one. If you want to go after the big-shot dealers and auction off their Audis for money to help addicts while the dealers are in jail, fine. But don't waste my tax dollars on a method that obviously does not work.

must utilize all of their armed forces and kill as many drug growers as they can. And kids growing crack in their basements isn´t enough once the Armed forces of each and every nation that has to deal with the problem, take the entire drug trade out.

So do you advocate searches of every home in the United States, regardless of warrant? That's what it's going to take. A bit unreasonable, no?

Oh, and by the way, your ignorance just made yet another stunning appearance; you don't GROW crack. You get coke from coca plants and then you cook the coke to make crack.

You people! You disgust me! Always trying to discredit the other side when you can´t support an argument.

I'd reply to this, but I'm too busy reading all the links of evidence you gave me to support your opinion. Stunning stuff, really.

[Ted Striker]

I like Faded Glory's post about his experiences. I've personally seen that happen to people time and time again.

The two most common things I've seen in chronic pot smokers are behaviors that mimic: bi-polar (cool when on it, a MONSTER when off it), and borderline (the paranoia, fear of those plotting against you, freaking out at everyday obstacles).

A HUGE problem that I've seen is how pot is glorified in the media and movies. It's kind of like the way mobsters are portrayed. "Oh hey, they are good guys! They are so colorful and only keep their violence between each other. Fahggetabouit" But you never see the other side of mobsters, the murders, torture, intimidations, robberies, etc. Just like you never see the dark side of pot use.

Doc Strangelove works as a pro and sees the end effects of pot, and I have YET to talk to a medical or mental health professional that will dismiss pot as something harmless or trivial. Pot is soooo underestimated.

One thing they DO tell me, is that users almost always tell them about how they still feel like they have their abilities, when in reality they do not.

You guys still in school, there is still plenty of time to quit using that stuff. Do yourself a favor and quit damaging yourself before it is too late.

[Asher]

Originally posted by faded glory
Oh realllllllllllly Most of the people who smoke ciggarrettes claim not to be addicted. Yet they stop? Watch what happens...

Well, let's see...using it 3 times a month max is addicted to you?

I hate to burst your bubble. But Marijuana smokers take in 11 times the Carbon Dioxide (think thats the one) than ciggarrette smokers. It is more deadly...if not deadlier. Also Marijuana is a big contributer to COPD and Chronic Bronchitus. Unrelated to marjiuana, i have the latter. Which is not cool...

Erm? I never said it didn't have any long term side effects. I'm just saying there's other forms of addiction out there also, doesn't mean we should ban everything.

Your talking out yer arse again! Why is it just me and gareth? I can probably pick hundreds of thousands of people of out of the trom-head crowd who ended up feeling like we did! So it isnt just us being idiots.....its just you being extremely naive.

I can also list about a dozen people addicted to the internet (seriously). Moreso than pot, actually. While it's physically not as bad as marijuana, emotionally it's just as bad, if not worse. Most people aren't potheads, buddy. That's where you're being naive. Maybe your clique was when you did it...

Bullsh1t......would you say anything if you did? What does it matter.....I have my doubts this claim itself, is factual. How much do you smoke a day? a week? Im not talking about the occassional joint on your birthday! That totally doesnt count...

I said I only did it occasionally, about 3 times a month max. Maybe less?
I'm not a regular user. Same goes for alcohol.

[Berzerker]

Dr Strangelove -

I've known a couple of kids who "banged" away at each other while under the influence of pot, but no other substance.

This was the basis for claiming marijuana is linked to violence? I've known people who banged away at each other while sober, does that mean sobriety causes violence?

A case in which a twenty something dispatched two teens here recently comes to mind. There wasn't any conflict over money, the guy just thought that they were plotting against him.

So his motive was a conspiracy against him? Does the fact millions of people use marijuana without "dispatching" anyone lead you to believe there was something else going on? The fact sober people dispatch others doesn't mean sobriety is causal to murder.

Almost anyone who has worked in the medical community is going to be able to cite similar such cases.

Just as they can cite cases of murder committed by people who don't use marijuana.

I've seen some of the literature put out by the anti-prohibition groups in the late 20's and early 30's.

Well, the fact they did not have stats for post-prohibition years kind of limits them to prohibition and pre-prohibition stats. Accusing our side of playing nasty tricks based on what people did way back then is a "nasty trick".

The statisitics put out by the Department of Commerce that the Schaffer site refers to weren't available at the time

Yes they were, they were being compiled by the Commerce Dept.

so what the anti-Prohibition groups did is compare various state and city statisitics prior to 1920 to the FBI statistics which became available in the 1920s.

The Commerce Dept was compiling these stats, not anti-prohibition "propagandists". You claimed they compiled stats from at least two major urban centers which would actually bias the stats toward an even higher crime rate before prohibition making the increase under prohibition appear even less just as Ramo pointed out.

I'd also like to point out that the source referrenced by the Schaffer site is probably worthless without a publication date, and I'm wondering when did the Commerce department take on the function of compiling crime statisitics?

Why does it matter when the Commerce Dept published the stats? I imagine they published them the following year.

Did the great J. Edgar Hoover, so famous for his jealous protection of his political fiefdom, actually allow another Federal department to get away with encroaching on his territory?

If the Commerce Dept was compiling stats before he entered the picture, it wasn't his fiefdom. Hoover was not in charge of prohibition and he strongly resisted allowing the FBI to get involved with drug wars.

If you look closely at the statistics shown on the Schaffer site you might notice that the homicide wave actually peaked nearly two years after the repeal of prohibition.

You're wrong! Here are the stats for just prohibition and post-prohibition years:

1919 - 7.2
1920 - 6.8
1921 - 8.1
1922 - 8.0
1923 - 7.8
1924 - 8.1
1925 - 8.3
1926 - 8.4
1927 - 8.4
1928 - 8.6
1929 - 8.4
1930 - 8.8
1931 - 9.2
1932 - 9.0
1933 - 9.7
1934 - 9.5
1935 - 8.3
1936 - 8.0
1937 - 7.6
1938 - 6.8
1939 - 6.4
1940 - 6.3
1941 - 6.0
1942 - 5.9
1943 - 5.1
1944 - 5.0

Prohibition was ratified at the end of 1919 and didn't go into effect for a year - the end of 1920. And prohibition was repealed at the end of 1933. Look at the stats, murder rates began climbing after 1920 and started declining after prohibition was repealed. And by 1940-41, murder rates were back down to where they were before prohibition and before US involvement in WWI.

Could it be that the wave of crime in the late 20s and early 30s was actually more fueled by the depression than by prohibition?

How did the Depression of the 30's (beginning in 1933) fuel crime in the 20's?

Sikander -

In Marijuana: Drugs of Abuse, Volume I, Mark S. Gold, MD, writes "individuals may use marijuana in the mistaken belief that it will help them sleep or that it will relieve their depression, but in reality marijuana has been shown to cause insomnia and depression"

These were people alredy suffering from depression.

He notes that "patients often cite depression as a reason for their marijuana use, without realizing that depression is a common consequence of marijuana use....

So where is the study showing a higher incidence of depression among pot smokers - and no, not "addicts"? I smoked quite a bit of pot and never suffered depression or insomnia. If my "case history" is anecdotal and to be dismissed, why are the anecdotes offered by this guy valuable?

chronic use of marijuanna can definitely lead to depression

There is an equal chance that marijuana will help your depression.

This just refuted the claims in your sources.

This has been a pretty boring search, in large part because anecdotal evidence abounds as do plenty of propoganda sites

Exactly! Anecdotal evidence is often used to prove a point while it is ignored when it refutes a point. I was hoping for an actual study showing a higher incidence of depression among pot users (and not just heavy users). I wouldn't doubt heavy use of pot can have negative effects on some people, that just hasn't been my experience.

There is little doubt that there is a correlation between marijuana and depression, the only true debate is which came first.

It seems the latter is quite important to proving the former. If the depression came first, the "correlation" is a fiction.

I have seen everyday smokers function perfectly all of the way through college and med school, but I have not seen anyone who used marijuana at that rate who is doing well after 10+ years. They may be minimally funcional, but they are all depressed and tend to have a much lower level social and emotional life than people I know who never used drugs, or those who still dabble in them from time to time but don't use every day. This is of course anecdotal, but I bet there are many people who would tell you the same stories about their friends and aquaintances.

"All"? You stayed in close contact with every pot user you knew in school? Most pot smokers don't even continue using that long and my experience doesn't support your claims - but that is anecdotal too.

Faded Glory -

is utterly absurd. Addiction is addiction

Addiction once referred only to physical addiction as in heroin addiction. It was only recently when the psychological community started expanding the definition to include the ambiguous nature of likes and dislikes as in the oft used characterization of "C-SPAN junkies" that "emotional addiction" became an issue. But what the psyche community cannot address effectively are all the possible causes for a person's behavior. Just claiming person "A" - a pot smoker - does "a" and "b" doesn't prove pot was the cause.

I spent MANY days at school with my head on the desk waiting for class to end so I could find my friends and smoke a blunt. Why!? Because I hated the low...

Not everyone is motivated to get an education. Which came first? The lack of motivation or the pot use? I've known people who used pot and were highly motivated and I've known people who didn't use any drugs who lacked motivation. I excelled at sports while using pot.

I was never 100% during these times.....yes 70%, 80%, never 100%.

Which was a problem with prioritizing, not necessarily pot use.

It is now clear at this point that you do not or have not smoked very much.

I can't speak for the person you are addressing, but I did use quite a bit and agree with him. Gareth is claiming that because he used alot of pot, everyone else who uses even smaller amounts should be punished. Expand that "logic" to every other activity and we'd all be in cages because someone out there over indulges.

If you have any foresight into what this stuff does after 2-3 years, twice a day, 7 a week. You would know thata the detachment from weed is a HUGE cause of depression.

I used for a longer period than 2 or 3 years and suffered NO withdrawal when I quit.

Well..so because you are allowed to get drunk means you are allowed to be a Coke-head or Heroin-fiend?

You didn't answer his question. He asked if cars should be banned because some people drive their cars into others. It's the same argument you guys are using to ban marijuana.

No......you dont give up.......you fight these things

So you don't believe in freedom, why don't you use your own money to take it away from others instead of stealing mine?

For Christ sakes!? How stupid are you??? I can tbelieve im argueing this with a teenager. You are young kiddo...you have no, I repeatNO idea what the repricussions of this are later in your life! Sure your friends will tell you things......you might know a few old guys who smoked pot in the 70's who are alive and well. That means nothing...

Just a few old guys? Most people who used pot did not suffer the fate you claim awaits them. Your side always points to the exceptions to push your agenda, but when your agenda doesn't include banning guns or alcohol, you drop this desire to punish millions of people for what the exceptions do. Should people who use alcohol or guns be put in cages because some of them hurt others or themselves?

Depression is undetectable and most likely people wouldnt make the connection.

You just claimed ending pot use (heavy) is a HUGE cause of depression, but now you claim it is undetectable?

[quote]Why dont you understand this point of view on the Gun Debate threads?

Why should he when you don't understand this point of view on drug threads? If you're accusing him of inconsistency (hypocrisy), then you're admitting your own inconsistency.

Irresponsible.....

No, freedom. Does the fact murder rates increase under prohibition make prohibition irresponsible? Look at this thread and the murder stats offered by Ramo and tell us opposing a policy that increases crime is "irresponsible"!

Agree we have got enough drunks and idiots. Do we really need more????......also see above

Freedom includes being drunk or idiotic.
But just try proving prohibition actually decreases alcohol/drug use. It didn't when they banned alcohol and it hasn't when they banned other drugs, both attempts increased the crime resulting from the black markets created by prohibition without decreasing consumption.

Typical "I have nothing else to say so I will throw in the democracy card" liberal-pansy-ass response.

Since when is freedom either democratic or liberal?

This thread is littered with reason's why it cant and shouldnt be done...

"Littered" as in garbage? Agreed...

take your pick

Why take our pick when all of your arguments have been refuted?

Well......if its Tim's "God given right" to become addicted to heroin. And we shouldnt interfere with that.....or try and stop him in anyway.

No one has said you can't try to convince Tim to stop, but using money forcibly taken from others to put him in a cage with criminals is not "compassionate".

Why the hell should I, as a taxpayer pay for him to get rehabilitated?

Why the hell should I, as a taxpayer pay for him to be put in a cage?

You see? Legalization will create 10 fold the problems we have today.....

What I do see is your utter failure to even bother trying to prove this claim. All drugs were legal for the first ~130 years and the "problems" resulting from legal drugs were not 10 fold the problems we have today (or even close). According to various researchers - American Heritage magazine and a book dealing with the history of drug use ("Hepcats, Narcs & Drug Wars"?) - crime and drug consumption did not decrease with prohibition laws. Crime went way up and consumption remained stable if not increasing slightly.

Im also fed up with peopl talking about how much money we use on the War on drugs.

Oh, throwing money at the "problem" is okay now?

We spend less than 50 million a years. I dont have a calculator on hand, but thats about .3% of the federal budget... hardly a waste considering the cost's of other astronomical things the government spends on...

Try 50 - 100 BILLION a year by all levels of government.

Im sure its more with prison's and all...but somebody has to take out the trash.

Putting millions of people in cages for not getting your permission to ingest their own property doesn't make them "trash".
Btw, are you calling yourself "trash" since you used pot?

Thats alot of money for someone who stripped pallettes for 3.50 an hour for 10 hours a day and swindled as much as possible from his parents and friends! Really suprised I never got caught...actually.

And a had the ill audacity to bum like 20.00$ from my varouis high School girlfriend's occassionaly!Or once...actually twice stealing a few bucks from a car via breaking a window to get to the change jar when I was in Rocky Point doing what else.....preparing to get high!

And you call other people "trash"?

Most of the people who smoke ciggarrettes claim not to be addicted. Yet they stop? Watch what happens...

You took a poll? I smoked cigarettes for 20 years and knew I was addicted. But I didn't complain and demand that government put all the other smokers in cages. I made up my mind to quit and I did.

I hate to burst your bubble. But Marijuana smokers take in 11 times the Carbon Dioxide (think thats the one) than ciggarrette smokers. It is more deadly...if not deadlier.

Nonsense! And it's carbon monoxide. If you smoke a joint and a cigarette, the amount of smoke is comparable, but since pot smokers hold the smoke in a bit longer, the effects are a bit more. But we all know pot smokers don't inhale 40 joints a day and we do know most cigarette smokers do inhale much more than just a couple a day. Try smoking 3 packs a day and compare the smoke intake to a couple joints.

Why is it just me and gareth? I can probably pick hundreds of thousands of people of out of the trom-head crowd who ended up feeling like we did! So it isnt just us being idiots.....its just you being extremely naive.

Tens of millions of people used pot without becoming like you guys, so don't try to portray yourselves as the typical pot smoker.

Connorkimbro -

Allowing people the freedom to excercise their OWN opinions is not irresponsible

Oh, but it is for those with a mandate to rule over us while claiming to believe in "freedom".

Gareth -

Faded Glory: Finally someone who has actually smoked weed more than once!

Then by all means, while you guys are advocating the caging of millions of people for doing what you've done, GET IN LINE FOR YOUR CAGES! I've used plenty of pot so don't act like only you two here have used it.

Asher: Are you beginning to get the feeling that you don't really have any idea what you're talking about?

Try refuting what he has said before making such self-serving statements.

Try smoking weed for an extended period of time and then come back and tell us if you feel the same.

Did he claim he would "feel the same"? No one "feels the same" as they did several years ago regardless of any drug they use or don't use. I used pot and when I quit, I didn't suffer from these "horrors" you guys claim I should have suffered from.

Its been 5 days since my last smoke, and even though I don't want to smoke, I crave it intensely.

That's your problem. I didn't have that problem when I quit. But I did to a lesser extent when I quit smoking tobacco, should cigarette smokers be put in cages?

If you put a joint in front of me I would smoke it no question. The only reason I can manage to not smoke right now is because I'm home for Christmas and have no weed.

Your problems are not reasons to cage other people.

I went to the doctor earlier today and got 2 vaccinations, but for the life of me I can't remember what they were for. I'd be pressed to tell you what I did for the past 2 months for that matter.

Then maybe you're not one to be telling us what to think. How did you remember to go home for Christmas? How did you remember all the details about your past?
I find this claim more than just unbelievable.

And don't call it irresponsibility, Asher. Nobody wants to become addicted. No one plans to get addicted. Arrogant *****...

And no one wants to be put in a cage because you have problems. You've got a strange definition of arrogance.

Um, I thought we made it clear that the effects of alcohol and pot are entirely different! I drink, and I've drunk for extended periods of time. In fact, I've used alcohol as a means of getting off pot...I figured if I'm drunk I won't want weed. It just makes you hung over, the effects aren't long lasting. How many times do you need to be told this?

I knew someone who died at an early age from alcoholism so don't tell me the effects just go away.

Yeah, its called addiction. You can't seem to get this through your head.

When did Asher endorse addiction?

Another blanket statement for when you have no argument.

You shouldn't be telling others to get it through their heads when you can't even figure out he is exposing your hypocrisy.

Stop comparing it to booze, jesus. Its different.

He wasn't comparing alcohol to pot, he was exposing the hypocrisy of arguing for the illegality of pot while supporting the legality of alcohol. Alcohol is much worse than pot when both are abused.

Basically what it comes down to is you have no idea what a low is, you don't have these kind of lows with alcohol, just hangovers.

Are you an alcoholic? If not, maybe you shouldn't be telling us alcoholics don't have "lows".

Which is good for your sake. I guess its a good thing for you that you really don't know what you're talking about. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to this ****.

Doesn't that mean you're ignorant?

Giancarlo -

Then that problem should be dealt with in a efficient manner. Law should state that people should be limited to a proper amount of alcohol.

Weren't you the Franco defender? Makes sense now...

But drugs have no place in society what-so-ever.

Giancarlo has no place in society what-so-ever.

I want to walk out on the streets and not see ****ing drug addicts.

Then the "law" should deal with public addiction in an efficient manner and not punish the millions of people who use drugs without being addicted or in public. Besides, I know you fascists have trouble understanding this, but the world does not revolve around you. God did not die and put you in charge.

You people! You disgust me! Always trying to discredit the other side when you can´t support an argument

Lol, all you've done is state positions without any support. Do you find yourself disgusting?

[Giancarlo]

Oh I am sorry for telling my opinion around here. And you people are backing up your´s with arbitary facts that have nothing to do with what you are saying. Drug legalization doesn´t do a thing but precipate the problem and make it worse. I was playing a geo-political game before, something like DotW at the Frontier and played as Colombia. I went on a military spending spree, killed about 20,000 guerrillas and had them surrender. Considering Colombia is a major drug producer, for Cocaine yes, couldn´t we beef up the Colombian Airforce with A-10s and B-52s and let them solve the problem that way? We could do the same for Mexico.

Couldn´t that be more a more sensible and effective solution to the problem. You bet ****ing right it is.

[rev]

And you people are backing up your´s with arbitary facts that have nothing to do with what you are saying.

You'd be in a much better position to make this challenge if you presented any facts, data, or evidence whatsoever that backed your position. And how do our facts (which are not dependent upon anything - it's DATA, not an "if, then" statement) have nothing to do with what we're saying? I posted my evidence in response to your challenge that not that many people smoke marijuana. Evidence regarding crime rates during Prohibition are posted to show that our war on drugs may only heighten crime.

Drug legalization doesn´t do a thing but precipate the problem and make it worse.

"Precipate" isn't a word in the English language. I could not understand what you are saying; could you rephrase it?

What, exactly, is "the problem"?

I was playing a geo-political game before, something like DotW at the Frontier and played as Colombia. I went on a military spending spree, killed about 20,000 guerrillas and had them surrender. Considering Colombia is a major drug producer, for Cocaine yes, couldn´t we beef up the Colombian Airforce with A-10s and B-52s and let them solve the problem that way? We could do the same for Mexico.

Yeah, and I could play a geopolitical game as the United States, legalize drugs and watch all the crime in America disappear. But does that mean it will happen in real life? Um. no.

Anyway, what are we going to bomb? Fields? Yeah, that'll work. Wait, no, it won't, because they'll cut their losses and replant as soon as they can, or they'll move elsewhere.

Couldn´t that be more a more sensible and effective solution to the problem. You bet ****ing right it is.

You're suggesting that we kill and physically hurt more people (many of them innocent) than drugs will ever hurt or kill. And you know what? It won't help. You'd have to bomb much of South America, then take your battle to the middle east (hello again, Afghanistan!) and drop hundreds of thousands of bombs on FIELDS. I don't think the Northern Alliance would be too happy with that, considering that they used heroin to finance their efforts against the Taliban.

[Giancarlo]

I will counter this entire argument.

Originally posted by rev


You'd be in a much better position to make this challenge if you presented any facts, data, or evidence whatsoever that backed your position. And how do our facts (which are not dependent upon anything - it's DATA, not an "if, then" statement) have nothing to do with what we're saying? I posted my evidence in response to your challenge that not that many people smoke marijuana. Evidence regarding crime rates during Prohibition are posted to show that our war on drugs may only heighten crime.

The facts you post have nothing to do with what you are supporting. I support the Drug war because not only has reduced drug production Peru and Bolivia, but it has given farmers the opportunity to grow alternative crops. It was the Communist Tupac Amaru that forced farmers at Gun-point to crop drugs. The Peruvian Army beefed itself up with tons of new equipiment and went on an battle wiping out the Tupac group (Also called the Shining Path) completely. Former Bolivian President Hugo Banzer went after drug traffikers throwing them in prision, and the drug production went down. There I already stated two real life example.

"Precipate" isn't a word in the English language. I could not understand what you are saying; could you rephrase it?

precipitate. Typo. But of course you have to make a big deal about it.

What, exactly, is "the problem"?

The problem is you fools don't have a plan to deal with the drug cartels. All you care about are your disgusting freedoms.

Yeah, and I could play a geopolitical game as the United States, legalize drugs and watch all the crime in America disappear. But does that mean it will happen in real life? Um. no.

Yes you could. But let me say this: Legalization will never happen in the United States.

Anyway, what are we going to bomb? Fields? Yeah, that'll work. Wait, no, it won't, because they'll cut their losses and replant as soon as they can, or they'll move elsewhere.

We should give them a reason not too. You must realize most of these farmers and peasents are held at gun-point by drug traffikers or Rebel groups to grow drugs. We must kill the drug traffikers and rebel groups and give these farmers a chance to grow legiminate crops. Something you are again against.

You're suggesting that we kill and physically hurt more people (many of them innocent) than drugs will ever hurt or kill. And you know what? It won't help. You'd have to bomb much of South America, then take your battle to the middle east (hello again, Afghanistan!) and drop hundreds of thousands of bombs on FIELDS. I don't think the Northern Alliance would be too happy with that, considering that they used heroin to finance their efforts against the Taliban.

I am suggesting we give the farmers in these nations a reason not the plant drugs. They would not plant drugs and rather plant legiminate crops that can save lives like basic food sources if they were not held at gun point. The Northern Alliance is primarily backed by Russia, China and India and get their money from them. You don't have evidence to prove that they do or otherwise. If they did, they will have to clean up their acts because the entire world is watching them. There is an interim government which will have to wipe out the drug production and restore the once agiculturally great nation to which it once was, and it will have billions upon billions to do so.

[rev]

The facts you post have nothing to do with what you are supporting.

The facts I posted showed that 50% of people in the 16-20 age range have used or currently use marijuana. The links I provided were in reponse to your challenge that the claim that 50 million Americans have tried weed was untrue.

I support the Drug war because not only has reduced drug production Peru and Bolivia, but it has given farmers the opportunity to grow alternative crops. It was the Communist Tupac Amaru that forced farmers at Gun-point to crop drugs.

Regardless of who forced them to grow what in the past, isn't your position anti-capitalist? That is, farmers plant these crops (and continue to do so, even with the threat of being held at gunpoint for doing so) because they know they can earn money. Now the government tells them they can't and forces them to grow something that will earn them less money. Government dictating who can produce what... doesn't that just reek of communism?

Former Bolivian President Hugo Banzer went after drug traffikers throwing them in prision, and the drug production went down.

Down, yes, but not eliminated. Even if you were to stop a large majority of the drugs travelling into the United States, the drug lords and dealers would still make a handsome profit.

The problem is you fools don't have a plan to deal with the drug cartels. All you care about are your disgusting freedoms.

That's one for the siggy.

What would happen to drug cartels if marijuana were legalized? If they wanted to continue dealing in marijuana, they'd have to become an official, legal business and would have to go about getting liscenses to sell marijuana (assuming we would require companies to possess a liscense to grow/sell/etc.). That means that they might have to ditch the other drugs, and if they didn't, we'd have an easier way of knowing who's involved and tracking them down.

Legalization will never happen in the United States.

Oh, it will. Not soon, but eventually. Half of my generation has used it and another rather significant portion of my generation (at least in my experience) is 'tolerant' of it - they don't do it and won't, but don't really care if others make that choice. Overall, 30% of Americans have used it. Not only that, but our neighbors up north are apparantely mulling over legalizing it -- and they've already legalized it for medicinal uses, starting next week.

We should give them a reason not too. You must realize most of these farmers and peasents are held at gun-point by drug traffikers or Rebel groups to grow drugs. We must kill the drug traffikers and rebel groups and give these farmers a chance to grow legiminate crops. Something you are again against.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said I was against giving farmers the choice of what to grow - in fact, if anything, that's what I'm for and you're against. I just believe that bombing people senseless won't do anything.

I also don't believe that these people are being held 'at gunpoint' and forced to plant certain crops. They're obviously being paid for what they do. In fact, coca plants (where part of cocaine comes from) are used for many other purposes and, from what I know, are still legal down there.

The Northern Alliance is primarily backed by Russia, China and India and get their money from them. You don't have evidence to prove that they do or otherwise. If they did, they will have to clean up their acts because the entire world is watching them. There is an interim government which will have to wipe out the drug production and restore the once agiculturally great nation to which it once was, and it will have billions upon billions to do so.

Here you go:

British investigators said yesterday that they believe Osama bin Laden has benefited financially from Afghanistan's drug trade, despite no evidence to show that he or his supporters have been involved in the business directly.

Before the poppy ban, the Taliban took effective control of the heroin market by taxing the crop, and it is thought that Bin Laden has been funded from the income raised.

A source said Afghanistan had been a war zone for more than two decades and had no natural resources, so poppy was the only product it could sell. "You cannot live in Afghanistan and not benefit from the drugs trade. It's the principle source of tax revenue."

So much for an "agriculturally great" nation.

[Giancarlo]

I was nearly done replying to it, click on the link and the whole message wiped out.

All I have to say is I pointed everything I could out and explained myself.

Also, another crop that is legiminate and could make farmers much more money than drugs are roses. Some roses go at 6 for $100. Ecuador for example is trying to utilize this market.

[Berzerker]

Giancarlo -

I support the Drug war because not only has reduced drug production Peru and Bolivia, but it has given farmers the opportunity to grow alternative crops.

These countries went from being the primary providers of marijuana to mass producing cocaine and heroin because these drugs were made even more valuable than pot by your side while also being alot easier to transport.

The Peruvian Army beefed itself up with tons of new equipiment and went on an battle wiping out the Tupac group (Also called the Shining Path) completely. Former Bolivian President Hugo Banzer went after drug traffikers throwing them in prision, and the drug production went down. There I already stated two real life example.

And yet the drugs are flowing in even greater quantities.

The problem is you fools don't have a plan to deal with the drug cartels. All you care about are your disgusting freedoms.

Save your insults for people within arm's reach. The cartels were formed after drugs became illegal. When drugs were legal, businesses like Bayer and Coca-Cola had contracts with S American farmers to grow the crops. It was their illegality that led to their mass production and the cartels taking over the trade. As for our "disgusting" freedom, it's your freedom too. The freedom to decide for yourself what you ingest. If you find self-ownership so disgusting, they still practice slavery in The Sudan.

I am suggesting we give the farmers in these nations a reason not the plant drugs.

You mean murder them if they don't do as you say?

They would not plant drugs and rather plant legiminate crops that can save lives like basic food sources if they were not held at gun point.

They will generally plant the crops that bring in the most profit. Even if some farmers are being forced to grow these crops (another unsupported claim), they will still have a greater economic incentive to grow these crops as long as they are illegal.

[Berzerker]

This debate should be about the following questions:

1) Does prohibition reduce crime?

2) Does prohibition reduce drug consumption enough to outweigh all the negatives of prohibition?

No one on your side has even tried to answer these questions in the affirmative. Only Dr Strangelove has made the effort to address these questions, and his arguments were destroyed by Ramo with actual homocide statistics compiled by the government.

Here is a graph showing the effects of prohibition on murder rates:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

Notice how murder rates increased dramatically under alcohol prohibition and doubled during the more recent drug war? That means about 5 people are murdered for every 100,000 people
because of intensified prohibition. That's 12,000 - 15,000 people every year! Furthermore, if prohibition is supposed to reduce crime by reducing consumption, and crime actually increased, doesn't that mean consumption increased? But you guys would have us believe prohibition decreases consumption, so why did crime - murder rates/property crime - increase?

Here is an article on traffic accidents and drugs:

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/nhtsa1.htm

You guys point to the "horrors" of marijuana use, but fail to explain how prohibition prevented those horrors - because you can't. In fact, all you've done is tell us legalization will dramatically increase consumption, but don't offer anything to support your claim. In an earlier debate, someone posted US Commerce data showing that alcohol consumption actually increased under prohibition. And in The Netherlands where pot was largely legalized quite a while ago, teen use of pot there is much lower than here in the US. And in India where pot is legal (last I heard) they don't have the "problems" with consumption we have here. While I can't track down the stats right now, I did see the author of a pro-prohibition book on C-SPAN, and this man acknowledged that the consumption of drugs was comparable or slightly less back in the 19th century when they were mostly legal. So where is your proof that legalization will significantly increase drug use?

Here are some of the negatives of prohibition:

1) 1 or 2 TRILLION dollars down the proverbial rathole. That's 30 years at an ~ average of 30-70 billion a year.

2) Increased crime rates, particularly murder and property crime.

3) Corruption, numerous cases of law enforcement getting involved with drug dealing.

4) Overcrowded prisons have led to the outrageous situation of early release programs for real criminals to make room for drug offenders.

5) Diverted law enforcement resources to bust people for drugs means less money available to catch real criminals. The drug war should be re-titled to accurately reflect the result - the crime empowerment act!

6) Asset forfeiture laws have been used to seize the property of people who had nothing to do with drugs, often without ever charging the property owner of any crime. They charge the property with a crime instead and use less stringent standards of evidence to "convict" the property. There have even been a few cases where landowners were targeted just so their land could be seized if the agents got lucky. One case led police to kill a homeowner who believed he was protecting his wife from late night intruders. Farmers with large tracts of land are in jeopardy of losing it all to government if someone else tries to hide pot plants among his crops.

7) Bungled drug raids have caused many deaths of both police and civilians, including many cases of "mistaken identity".

8) The spread of STD's is propagated partly by needle sharing. Outlaw drugs and paraphenalia and you help spread STD's through government policy.

9) Overcrowded courts have not only increased plea bargaining for real criminals, it has bogged down some jurisdictions with drug cases so much that civil cases have lengthy waiting lists.

10) A nation of suspects! That is what we've become since drug possession is a "crime" without a victim, there is no one to file a complaint with the police, and no one to offer a visual ID of the perpetrator or the stolen property. No leads means the cops have to "guess" who is violating the law and that leads to (racial) profiling.

11) The black market, fueled by the profit margin of illegal drugs, not only causes real crime to increase, but creates job opportunites for the poorer members of society. This has led many teens to get involved in the drug trade.

12) Back in the mid-80's, the feds followed by the states increased penalties for adults busted dealing drugs.
The result was not surprising - many adults seeking to avoid those harsher penalties recruited teens who were exempt from the more severe penalties into the drug trade. It's no coincidence these laws were quickly followed by record gang recruitment. If you are a teen about to sell drugs, better join a gang for protection and marketshare. It's no surprise juvenile crime began skyrocketing around this time.

13) Religious freedom? Not in this country! Yeah, some people use drugs as part of their religion. At least the alcohol prohibitionists exempted Catholics from their social engineering.

14) Marijuana prohibition led to heroin and cocaine trafficking. Why? They're easier to transport and more profitable.

15) The US blackmailed Colombia into fighting our drug war. The result? A vast increase in crime and violence! But I thought drug wars reduced these

16) Guilty until proven innocent! That is the immoral assumption underlying the drug war! Just look at this thread. People here want government to forcibly take our money - "taxes" - to pay for what they want. And what is it they want? To punish millions of people who use drugs because some drug users hurt themselves or others. As if being physically abducted and put in a cage with violent criminals doesn't harm the user. If all non-drug users were being put in cages because some of them hurt themselves or others, people who don't use drugs would scream bloody murder.

17) I'd like to see all murderers punished. I'd like to see all rapists and robbers punished. But how can one reasonably support a policy that seeks to cage 30-40 million people? We don't have the jail space and never will!

These are just some of the negatives you guys have to overcome...

Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits. - Mark Twain

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. - Abraham Lincoln

Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln: Speech in the Illinois House of Representatives, Dec 18, 1840.