Drug War Disaster

[Dis]

I think it is a complete success

*runs away*

[Berzerker]

Buck Birdseed -

I'll post counter-arguments to your points, from the perspective of an idealised War on Drugs rather than the current American one. After this I won't return to the thread, knowing myself, but I've actually managed to work myself up this once so I can muster the requisite strenght.

Why respond based on a fictional "idealised" drug war and not reality? But I'm used to the hit and run tactics of drug war supporters. Education is about presenting arguments and facing scrutiny, not running away after speaking one's mind...

1) Surely "punishing" drug users would involve letting them continue with what they do? The point of fighting drugs, after all, is to empower the drug users and getting rid of this limiting influence on them and their freedom.

Your first "response" has nothing to do with my opening argument. You failed to address the immorality of punishing millions of drug users based on what other drug users have done.

2 a) So do murder laws, rape laws, kidnapping laws, etc. etc. Silly argument.

Liberty/freedom - religious or not - is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Murder, rape and kidnapping are constraints, therefore, laws banning these do not infringe upon freedom. But religious drug use imposes no coercion or constraint on another's choice or action. Would you tell people who go to church their religious practice can be outlawed because murder and rape are illegal? Yes, quite silly...try taking a moment to think about what freedom means before offering up silly "rebuttals".

b) The second amendment allows you to carry arms in order to form a well-organised militia. Allow me to doubt your ability to do so under the influence.

You've created another massive loophole in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment to the BILL of RIGHTS (not bill of added federal power) ends with these words, "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You've just argued the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment can be infringed because of the Founders instruction to the states that they and their militias shall be the ultimate defender of their freedom and sovereignty.

c) Hmm, no, as far as I'm aware that ammendment was added because of the extremely common practice in europe at the time to quarter soldiers in any local farm, etc. Hardly a relevant connection.

No, the King of England stationed troops in the homes of dissident colonists to spy on them, this was the genesis of the 3rd Amendment.

d) I fail to see the connection, but then I know little about the complex interpretation of your laws.

It's real simple, no-knock raids are an unreasonable means of searching homes. You'd understand that if the cops broke down your door in the middle of the night ready to shoot anyone or anything that moves.

e) Stringent drug laws save lives, enhance liberty, and only confiscate property illegally obtained. So no problem there.

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

Would you care to add up all the people "saved"? As for "enhancing liberty", ROTFLMAO! Having government decide what, if anything, we can ingest enhances liberty? No, it enhances government control over our lives.

f) More money to the courts, then, surely, rather than caving in to crime. As for Jury Nullification, surely it's the fault of the legal system rather than the law?

First, the taxpayers are footing the bill. As for calling drug use a "crime", does that mean anything government makes illegal is a crime? I'd like to see you explain how the Nazis weren't the criminals when they slaughtered millions of Germans, no, the criminals were the victims. Gee, Saddam's a great guy, it's those Kurds and Shi'ites who are the criminals. After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, there were juries that acquitted people charged with helping runaway slaves - that was jury nullification. If you say the legal system that allows for jury nullification is at fault and not legalised slavery...well...that speaks for itself.

g) Nothing says these right include the right to take drugs. When will you americans learn to ennumerate properly?

Maybe you ought to read the 9th Amendment a bit slower before accusing others of ignorance. Madison said the enumeration of certain rights should not be used to deny the multitude of un-enumerated rights retained by the people. but you tell us the 9th Amendment says we have only those rights enumerated in the Constitution? SHEESH!

h) Drugs are not a legally traded commodity.

The question was not if Congress has banned drugs, but whether they have the power under the Constitution.

3) There's been a considerable change in culture since then.

Yup, we've gone from a constitutional Republic to a leftist ideology where government effectively owns us.

One of the key aspects in any war on drugs is for society to stand together and defy the evil that is drug-use...

Prove that drug use is evil. And don't tell us it's evil because a drug user murdered someone, that would mean going to the store to buy food is evil if you murder someone along the way.

The US is unable to do this because of the emphasis on so-called individuality

Yeah, collectivism sure was a god-send. How many people were murdered last century by the socialists?

It's also the fault of people like you, pushing crass drug propaganda onto other people. You should be ashamed.

Strange, you've identified no "propaganda", and I'm not the one stealing massive amounts of money to cage millions of people for personal behavior I dis-like.

4) Practice, not theory.

I identified the practice, and you dismissed it.

5) Of course drugs has victims. The drug users themselves.

Then why punish them? Do you want to jail rape victims too? I used drugs when I was young, but I was no victim. Thanks for your concern, oh omniscient one. Oh yeah, you don't want my opinion as to whether or not I was a victim. Is there any limit to your arrogance and hypocrisy? Ouch! I stubbed my toe, I'm a victim of assault. Will you put me in a cage for stubbing my toe?

Who says you can't commit a crime against yourself?

I do, and anyone else with an ounce of sense.

And are you really suggesting a child is in a good home where the parents are using heavy drugs? Jesus.

Oh goody, strawman alert! Where did I make this suggestion? I said drug use/possession was an act without victims and instead of addressing that assertion, you introduced a separate element into my statement. Hey, if I said reading the Bible in China was a victimless "crime", would you say I was wrong because some guy read the Bible and ran around killing sinners? As for your strawman, I'd need more information. What did the parent do while under the influence of the "hard drug"?

6) See answer 3 above, but move the goalposts another few steps ahead. There's so little cultural support for a sensible move like alcohol prohibition, that such a law would be impossible to enact. Therefore such a law cannot be passed, as the collapse of the last attempt clearly shows. It's an unfortunate state of affairs, but nevertheless true.

That doesn't refute the accusation of hypocrisy, you merely rationalised it away with a popularity poll.

7) It's an incentive to try to make people understand move towards a prohibitionist culture, certainly. Unfortunately, again, it's incompatible with the simplistic american view of freedom (see below). If we do not act soon, the evil, power-to-the-already-powerful side, ie. you, will win. And that cannot be allowed.

I was unaware there were multiple definitions of freedom, only the one found in the dictionary. Are you now claiming there are numerous definitions of freedom to accomodate the various political ideologies? Yeah, Stalin and Hitler believed in freedom - they just had their own definition.

8) Pot use is even lower, by a significant degree, in Sweden which has stronger drug-prohibition laws than any other country in Europe and a 97% support for keeping Marijuana illegal.

You didn't address what I said (I'm getting used to that), I'm sure there isn't much pot in Greenland either.

Relax drug laws and you relax culture, and you allow the weak to drop through the net and quite frankly die.

And you accuse me of propaganda? How many people have used pot? How many have died from pot?

9) Frankly, this is your silliest argument so far.

I can't wait for your proof.

Loads of things can be "proved" through statistical correlation of completely unrelated complex factors, like the fact that countries with high HDI also score highly on the FIFA world rankings. I'd attribute all these changes to cultural changes, each out of gear with the legistlative.

That isn't proof, it's a dismissal of statistics based on the fact stats CAN be mis-interpreted. I guess that means we can ignore all your stats about Sweden now, huh?

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

The fact remains, homicide rates roughly doubled under alcohol prohibition followed by a 13 year decline upon repeal of prohibition only to double again under the new drug war. I wouldn't say those stats are "out of gear with the legislative", but a direct result of legislation.

Like I said, I find your drug culture reprehensible and think you need to do something about it.

Gee, the drug war is supposed to cure what you find reprehensible.

10) Hardly an "aim", more of a by-product of stopping smuggling to a greater extent.

No, a stated goal of the drug war pushers was to inflate the cost of drugs, which was then used as a measuring stick of "success".

Surely all this shows is that we need to redouble the cultural efforts rather than give in to the drug bosses?

Those drug bosses were created by the drug war. When drugs were legal, Bayer and Coca-Cola, etc, were distributing the drugs, not violent cartels. But once again you ignored the reality of the drug war.

11) The government needs futher expansion in the sense that more people at a grassroots level need to get involved and make their voices heard, so you're not governed by some elite clique.

Will you extol the virtues of "democracy" when the majority takes the freedoms you cherish?

This, ultimately is what the War on Drugs should be all about- empowering the weak and giving them more freedom.

By caging them for using drugs, real empowering.

12) You're putting forward J. Edgar Hoover as a paragon of non-corruptability?

Try reading s-l-o-w-e-r. I said Hoover recognised the corrupting influence of the drug war and didn't want to deal with it, not that he wasn't corrupt.

13 + 14) The "Drug War" is nothing but a thin smoke-screen that, much like many other motives, is used to mask the true intents of the US in fighting or supporting wars abroad. In Colombia, the US pours billions into shady paramilitary organisations that support corporate and strategic interest by murdering all legitimate left-wing activists, leading to the world's highest rate of murder. And indeed, it is the leftist Guerillas that benefit.

Well give yourself a hand, people like you helped create the situation down there.

15) Yup. Let's stop drugs entirely then.

Let us know when you return from Planet Whoopie.

16) Loose statistical-cultural connection.

In other words, don't bother me with facts.

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss the current US drug war, which obviously is having the wrong effect. All I can say is, in Sweden drug use has been kept well below the european average...

Then wtf are you doing in this thread? Obviously Sweden doesn't have the massive black market we have here.

17) I've seen medical studies pointing both ways.

I'd love to see the study showing that pot is a "gateway" drug.

Anyway, it's largely irrelevant, Pot weakens and stupefies the populace anyway and makes them less active and thus needs to go.

Where's it going? The commies sent people to "re-education" centers for not being properly active, I see mind-control is on your agenda as well.

18) I love the way you make logical connections.

I love the way you accuse me of making illogical connections without any proof.

How many people can you point at who started with cocaine because they couldn't find pot, or crack because they couldn't find blow?

I see the problem, my inability to make logical connections is based on your inability to read. I didn't say people started out on cocaine, I said the interdiction of pot made it more economical to traffic in other drugs like cocaine and heroin which in turn resulted in more pot users trying those drugs.

19) An extremely simplified, liberal view of freedom that seems to have permeated american culture, sadly.

Again, where have you found these various definitions of freedom?

Freedom is about the ability to rule over yourself, something an addiction is clearly stopping you from doing.

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Your attempts to spin the definition to allow for your desire to dictate what everyone else ingests is transparent BS. There are plenty of "addicts" who stopped, so even your perverted definition is bogus. Furthermore, freedom is about inter-human relationships, not personal behavior.

A truly free society is one in which all citizens and social groups are able to influence the leadership, not one where people are allowed to withdraw from light, Thoreau-like, and be ruled over by whatever dictator happens to be in place.

Oh really? And if the majority decided to enslave a minority, you'd tell the slaves they live in a free society?

As such, only a participant is free and a drug-user has far less power in society because he uses drugs. Therefore they must be stopped.

Lol, the powerless need to be stopped? Sounds like the powerful are the ones needing a swift kick in the pants.

20) More silly liberal propaganda.

That's funny, here in the US, it's the liberals who love forced taxation.

Taxes are a necessary part of freedom, if you're to rule over society you should also be able to decide how to fund it.

And if the majority decided to enslave a minority to fund society, you'd tell the slaves they are free?

The government ideally is you and me and everyone else, it should be an instrument of our freedom and our rule over ourselves.

"Ideally"? This isn't about "us" ruling over ourselves, it's about one group ruling over another group.

If it is not, as you libertarians want it to be, if it is a remote elite that has no connection to society then that society is not free.

Depends on what that elite is doing. If they are minding their own business, we are free. If they are "protecting" us from ourselves (as you desire), then we aren't free.

Self-rule is a prerequisite, nay the key component, of freedom.

But you don't believe in self-rule, you believe we exist to pay for and do what you want.

None of you ****ing libertarians are going to take that freedom away from me.

Lol, Merry Xmas to you too. We now have a new definition of freedom from Sweden - the freedom to steal massive amounts of money from other people to cage millions of people for their personal behavior. Yeah, and Hitler and Stalin believed in freedom too...

21) As you can see I'm using Civic Republican, rather than communitarian, arguments to support drug prohibition.

It's called fascism - the good of society must prevail over the good of the individual - Benito Mussolini.

I believe we, together, are doing this so that you will have more freedom and power in society and you can fulfill your freedom (and duty, as it is a prerequisite for freedom) to be an activist.

Don't include me in your immorality.

Try to connect that to ****ing communitarianism!

Fascism, communism, birds of a feather...

In fact, libertarianism and communitarianism, with their emphasis on conformity with markets and states and societies and fighting diversity, are considerably closer to each other than either is to Civic Republicanism.

Lol, libertarianism fights diversity? You're the one who wants to dictate what everyone else can ingest. And markets are the natural means by which a free people exchange their labor without busybodies hiding behind government interfering.

22) What's money compared to FREEDOM?

Tell that to the guy who spent the last 30 years saving to buy a house only for you and the mob to steal it away in the name of freedom.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


But the facts of the situation proves that being lenient on druggies doesn't reduce drug use, it just invites the cartels to come in.

When the Cocaine trade bean to increase in the 1970s cocaine use wasn't initially a problem in Columbia even though it early on came to dominate the trade. The stuff was expensive and the big dealers weren't interested in making more local problems than necessary. In the 1980s the chickens came home to roost as gangs fought each other and the government and large amounts of the goodies leaked out into local streets. Maybe we should wait another decade to see what happens to the Netherlands before we found a Dutch Admiration Society.

If you bothered to read the article it was about the Dutch drug policy and it's effects on the Dutch society? Do the Dutch like to see their kids drugged up any more than you do? Or do they simply have a much better drug policy that works? Is treating drug users as humans and a part of the society instead of as criminals so wrong?


What about: it has been on since the seventies, 30 years not enough, do you need 50? what about the 25000 heroin users and the number staying the same for the period, and users getting old with few of young ones joining in because they are educated? 9isn't that a good indicator for the whole drugs scene as heroin is probably the worst of the pack) What about less kids trying marijuana than in UK? For an educated man I think you underestimate the value of education. Wander what is it like in the US?

What about this

from here http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ort/part2.html

To estimate the number of hardcore heroin users, we begin with data from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (now the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring system). The National Institute of Justice has collected those data on a quarterly basis since 1988. The estimation procedure has several steps, which are described in a companion report,7 the “retail sales” report. Estimates of the number of occasional heroin users were tabulated from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). No estimates can be precise, of course, but there seems to be somewhat more than 900,000 hardcore heroin users and somewhat fewer than 500,000 occasional heroin users during the late 1990s.

And that is the product of your "tough on drugs" policy. Kind of steady amount of hardcore users, but a rising number of "occasional". 900000 vs 25000 now OK US populations in bigger still with your 20 year drug war you should have accomplished something by now? I mean if it is almost 1 million hardcore addicts now isn't that a sign enough of your view of drug control as a failure? What about billions of tax dollars thrown away (~15 billion in 1997)? What about many innocents being killed in the war?

I would imagine the US is worse than UK... and UK is worse by pretty much large margin from the Dutch.

If there are people in the Netherlands producing synthetic drugs in the underground and supply them to the US. How come it is not a problem for the Dutch themselves? Don't you think that they would not be manufactured in the US if the Dutch supply was cut, and would be just more expensive? And how come that there is no increase in crime in Holland even though you have seen drugged up people blast themselves up? Who is wrong?
There must be some cultural problem with the druggies in the US than.
What kind of proof do you need?

Or better still post some proof that what you have in the US is not the consequence of your "drugs war". Or that the "drugs war" actually works. Don't forget that without global "drugs war" cartels would not exist either.



Gatekeeper

Unfortunately, people who were "out of it" when they hurt or killed others is why we have these laws on the books today for the most part, IMHO. Irresponsibility, that's what it is. Terminal irresponsibility.

it is true, but if you bother to read the above you would find that it is quite obvious that as a consequence of drug war there are more innocent people dying from drugs directly or indirectly as a consequence of the war. read some of the bezerkers points and my examples.

[Anodyne]

OneFootInGrave
...no replies in 8 hours

Have you ever seen someone high on weed even try to get violent? It's near impossible! And as for rape, well, when you are moving as slow as a snail it's pretty ahrd to get that far.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes, I have. I saw two guys stoned silly beat each other with blunt objects. They laughed off the first few blows.

If they "laughed off" the first few blows, it hardly seems done with evil intentions. (although extremely moronic, though ). Of course, doing this is extremely stupid, and people like that shouldn't take ANY drugs. It's always sad to watch people behave moronically.
Like it has been pointed out, marginal groups exist among people.
Btw, are you 100% sure that they weren't on other drugs (like alcohol) besides dope?

There are people who are violent when sober, too, but the effects of alcohol, for example, often make also non-violent people act violent. Marihuana has no such effect. (If you think that marijuana was the sole cause of the violent behavior in your story, I'd suggest you contacting a researcher about it - it's something new and controversial)

I'm not sure about other drugs, since I haven't studied the matters closely, but at least I haven't crossed upon any proven claims of psychedelics inducing violent behavior. In fact, in the 60s LSD was used on hard-core criminals in clinical tests. Recidivism rates dropped enormously. Why commit a crime when you had found paradise? Psychiatric patients reported that a few sessions of LSD therapy had been more useful to them than ten years of traditional psychotherapy. Sadly, LSD (among other psychedelics) was illegalized due to the state-induced narcophobia and the "dangerous" subcultures it became associated with...

I saw another guy, a dope dealer, pissed off drive up to our apartment and blow away our mailboxes with a 9mm as a warning. (One of our guys, also stoned had called the guy and warned him that the state police were following his car. The dealer ditched the vehicle by driving it off a cliff. Later he found out that the whole thing had been a gag.)

Doesn't this prove a point FOR the legalization of cannabis? If it was legal, "your guys" could have grown it themselves or bought it from a shop, instead of using a dealer. The criminalization of cannabis sadly creates situations like this, with criminals controlling the market

[Aeson]

...no replies in 8 hours

Yes Anodyne, it must prove your position is right. I mean there couldn't possibly be any other reason that people would take a break from posting on a thread. Great deductive reasoning!

If you bothered to read the article it was about the Dutch drug policy and it's effects on the Dutch society?

You are oversimplifying things. Look at alcohol use in the US vs it's use in Europe in general, especially teenage use. Given access to it US teens are more given to binge drinking than their European counterparts. This certainly is a less healthy manner of consumption. You could say it's because alcohol use for that age group is illegal in the US, but it's not just alcohol either. the US has a real cultural problem with overconsumption in general (food, power, ect).

A system which works in one culture may not work the same way in another. Making drugs more available in the US will almost certainly increase it's usage. See below for an example which you provided.

And that is the product of your "tough on drugs" policy. Kind of steady amount of hardcore users, but a rising number of "occasional".

You have to look at all the factors involved. In the source you linked to, notice that the cost of heroin has been decreasing over the past decade, with an inverse correlation to the number of hardcore and occasional users. That would seem to point to the increase in use due to the availability of it. Hardly a point against the war on drugs.

One of the points made in this thread about the failure of the war on drugs is that it increases drug cost, thus increasing profits for the distributers, and increasing crime by users looking to get the money for their purchase. I think that is a valid point. If we legalize these drugs, the cost definitely will fall. Use will go up. From this perspective, it's not the war on drugs that is increasing use, but the increasing availability and thus lower price.

You can't use those statistics as an argument against the war on drugs, and for the increase of crime because of the war on drugs. The arguments refute each other based on those statistics.

[ixnay]

I only support the drug war if it is fought by guys with sleeveless blue outfits using machine guns and rocket launchers.

[Hueij]

The Republic of the Netherlands

Ah, good. It's not us then...

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

I don't get the 2nd amendment claim. It seems like you are reaching quite a bit with this one in order to get all of the first 10 in.

If you own a gun and use a drug prescribed for someone else, you are subject to the minimum mandatory penalties originally intended for armed drug traffickers - that's the nature of government, write a law and expand it later to include others not originally targeted by the law. Furthermore, the crime resulting from the drug war has given the gun banners more ammo for their cause just as the crime from alcohol prohibition fueled the machine gun legislation in the early 30's. People who support the drug war and claim to be defenders of the 2nd Amendment are allies I don't need, they push policies that drive up crime which is then used by enemies of the 2nd Amendment to attack our right to keep and bear arms...

[Berzerker]

Aeson -

Making drugs more available in the US will almost certainly increase it's usage.

Your assertion is not supported by the historical evidence. When all drugs were legal, consumption rates for all drugs were comparable to today with tobacco and alcohol way out in front. As for "availability", the drugs are available, it's just the cost that fluctuates. And as cost goes up because of prohibition, property crime goes up to accomodate the increased cost/less availability. I just wish the drug war supporters would admit they are making a trade-off - more crime in the name of allegedly less consumption. They can't prove there is less consumption and rarely admit there is more crime. Instead, they tell us all the drug war related crime is actually drug related crime thereby running from the negative consequences of their policy...

This is one point I agree with. Of course it sort of refutes that legalizing drugs would make them less harmful to our society doesn't it?

No, legalising drugs would make them less harmful because of quality control just as alcohol poisoning increased during prohibition as quality control declined.
Furthermore, you're assuming greater use, an assumption unsupported by any evidence.

[Berzerker]

Aeson -

Alcohol is not a more dangerous drug than any illegal drug from a chemical standpoint.

Really, then why is alcohol diluted so people won't keel over? How many people have died from alcohol and pot?

It's use is so widespread that it's effects are greater on our society though.

It's effects are greater because it's worse than most illegal drugs too. And you cannot compare the effects of legal alcohol to illegal drugs in that way because the latter are not subject to legal market forces.

Legalizing drugs would increase the usage of those drugs by teaching that their usage is ok.

That didn't happen when all drugs were legal.

Sure there would be less drug related crime.

Ahem.

The question is if there would there be less drug related problems.

And your only answer to this is speculative.

Would addiction decrease because we make it legal? No, it would increase due to wider spread use and more availability.

Speculation.

Would drug induced crimes (of the type that would survive) decrease? No, they would increase due to wider spread use and more availability.

Speculation.

Believe it or not, some people do follow laws out of respect for society, or fear of punishment. In the absence of a moral or educational aversion to drugs (which in the US is severely lacking), law is the only restraint in those cases.

"Moral"? You think it's moral to steal money from others to cage millions of people based, not on what they did, but based on what someone else did? Is that the "moral" education you advocate?

I would be all for legalizing drugs if the populace was educated well enough on the subject.

So you're holding millions hostage to someone's ignorance?

The problem with learning through personal experience in drug related matters is often once you've learned, it's too late to apply that knowlege. Addiction.

BS, tens of millions have used illegal drugs without this dreaded "addiction". And many of those who were "addicted" quit when they wanted to quit. That's why forced treatment is largely bogus, if you force someone into treatment when they don't want to quit, they won't quit.

2. The affect alcoholism has on the developement of children who are raised in such environments. Also the effect alcohol can have on an unborn child when taken by the mother.

A team of Canadian doctors analyzed the effects of alcohol, crack cocaine, and tobacco on the unborn. Their conclusion? Alcohol was by far the worst with tobacco and crack cocaine roughly comparable. But you'd never get that impression from the government and media. Is that who you want "educating" people about drugs?

It seems you agree that drug use isn't healthy.

Not me. Over-using many things can be unhealthful, but few things in life are bad when used in moderation. Claiming that drug use is unhealthful is about as valid as claiming food is unhealthful because someone died from obesity. For those who have "addictive" personalities, people who have trouble moderating their behavior for whatever reason, drugs, food, cars, guns, etc can be harmful.

Why make it legal and send that message that it's ok to do?

Do we exist to hear your messages?

It isn't a question of funding, we can fund the enforcement of drug laws and drug education if that's what we choose to do.

Can you pay for this and stop forcing others to pay for it?

Alcohol is too ingrained into society from thousands of years of it being legal and being widespread in use, and the industry that has arisen to support and promote that use.

You forget that the Constitution was amended to allow for alcohol prohibition. Btw, when was the Constitution amended for drug prohibition?

Couple that with the 'lesson' we learned the first time... it just isn't going to happen even though it should.

It isn't often someone refutes themself in the very next sentence.

Most other drugs haven't had much influence in comparison.

That was true when all drugs were legal, it just took a century or more for the Republicrats to start ignoring the Constitution in such blatant ways.

I don't think that the problems with enforcement warrant making drug use legal though.

Then you'd rather have higher property crime rates and doubled homicide rates. Is that the moral message you want "our" children to learn?

I'm sure we can agree that murder shouldn't be made legal, and only rely on education to show people that murder is wrong.

Comparing murder to drug use is a lame attempt at sophistry.

Legalizing murder (which would just be 'killing' such a case) would decrease crime, but increase non-consentual death.

Wow! You think murder ceases being a crime just because it's legal? Does that mean the Nazis and communists committed no crime when they slaughtered millions? So much for "crimes against humanity"...

Sure there is collateral damage from apprehending murder suspects, time, money, even lives. But it's better to keep it illegal.

Murder has not created a massive black market. When was the last time you heard about alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare?

Some things are just too dangerous to allow to have free reign in society, and it's up to society to decide where to draw those lines.

Lol, freedom is just too dangerous to allow a free reign in society.

I think drugs certainly are too dangerous to be freely distributed, you disagree, that's fine.

No, you'd rather create a huge "criminal" class to distribute the drugs which causes real crime.

Overall consensus as shown in voting in the US is still that they should remain illegal.

That was true for slavery too.

But I do care if they decide to take a course of action which will negatively affect the lives of those around them. When you take drugs (at least certain drugs), it's not much different than randomly shooting bullets around.

LOL! Yeah, snort cocaine and you are spraying the neighborhood with gunfire. So, you think all the drug users who don't "negatively effect" others should be punished because others who do negatively effect others? I refer you to my opening argument - it is immoral to punish the innocent because of the guilty. And we both know you'd have a fit if you were put in a cage because someone else committed murder.

Having it state run may be a good idea, although I doubt our government's ability to compete pricewise with the black market trade that would develope.

Do you know what the cost of heroin and cocaine is in a free market? It's very cheap.

Dr Strangelove -

Another point is that the drug scene in the Netherlands is not quite so cool nor as under control as we would be led to believe. The goverment of the Netherlands has drug cartels operating within their country and they're unable to control them. This exposes the bankruptcy of their liberal drug policies.

Those cartels exist to supply ILLEGAL drugs. I'm used to drug war pushers using the failures of their policies to justify said policies.

True. A few years ao Canada tried putting an extremely high tax on cigarettes. A cigarette smuggling industry quickly developed. There were even running gun battles on the Great Lakes between Canadian police and smugglers. Eventually the Canadians were forced to cut back the tax.

Well what do you know. At least they were smart enough to see the mistake of creating a black market.

Yes, I have. I saw two guys stoned silly beat each other with blunt objects. They laughed off the first few blows. I saw another guy, a dope dealer, pissed off drive up to our apartment and blow away our mailboxes with a 9mm as a warning. (One of our guys, also stoned had called the guy and warned him that the state police were following his car. The dealer ditched the vehicle by driving it off a cliff. Later he found out that the whole thing had been a gag.)

Some of these are the result of drugs being illegal, but since sober people murder others, should sobriety be illegal?

GePap -

I think Bezerker makes some very good arguments, and I agree with him that the 'refudiation' in this thread have been minimal, and have not engaged him on an equal par (and everyone here know I am no Libertarian)

Thx, only Buck Birdseed tried to offer a rebuttal but ran away before I could counter his arguments.

Gatekeeper -

Yeah, drug use is all fun and games until someone gets raped, suffers brain damage, ends up maimed for life or gets outright killed. Then it ain't so much fun anymore, is it?

Yeah, guns are all fun until someone gets shot.
Yeah, food tastes good until someone dies of obesity.
Yeah, soda's cool until someone gets diabetes.
Yeah, swimming is great until someone drowns.
Yeah, driving cars is a blast until someone runs you over.
Yeah, are you getting the picture?

I personally don't have *any* interest in drugs or alcohol, but (obviously) there are people who do. If they want to use such things, fine and dandy. Let them take the risk of incurring society's wrath.

Who is "society"? Don't hide behind this "society", it's your wrath you want imposed upon others because you don't like their personal behavior.

And if, by God, they hurt someone other than themselves while on drugs or when using alcohol, then they deserve to be sanctioned for their misdeeds.

You mean in addition to the wrath you want incurred?

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of this stuff wasn't illegal at one time, but folks abusing it and inflicting harm on others as a result seem to have made a lot of things forbidden, it seems.

Yup, but what those folks didn't live to see was the result of their hatred of freedom. They aren't here to see the rampant crime resulting from the drug war they began. They aren't here to see that their social experimenting didn't reduce drug consumption. But keep in mind, it wasn't the Founding Fathers who began this disaster, some of them used what are now illegal drugs. Ben Franklin even used opium.

Guess it goes to show that irresponsibility has a way of making things less fun in life for not only the irresponsible ones, but the responsible ones as well.

It's called punishing the innocent because of the guilty, a practice you apparently endorse.

For me, this is what it comes down to: You (generally speaking here, not you specifically, capone) want to use drugs and or blast yourself into oblivion with alcohol? Fine. You do that. It's your life to waste. May God (or society, for atheists) have mercy on your soul (or body, for atheists), however, if you hurt or kill me or others while you're out of it.

I would think this would hold true regardless of the perpetrator's state of mind.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Your assertion is not supported by the historical evidence.

I think it's a valid assertion given the current state of our society. You say history doesn't support it, but we didn't have the consumption problems in the past either. I am basing this off current trends, not some point in the past which is assumed to be forever non-changing.

As for "availability", the drugs are available, it's just the cost that fluctuates. And as cost goes up because of prohibition, property crime goes up to accomodate the increased cost/less availability.

I was using availability in the sense that it is available for usage. Part of that is price. The numbers that I was refering to show that there was a drop in price and an increase in users. It was in response to two arguments which both refute each other. Basically saying "choose one or the other". Those numbers can't support both the arguments at the same time, and that was my point.

If you have a problem with the numbers or it's source, bear in mind that they were brought forward to support legalization of drugs, not by me.

I just wish the drug war supporters would admit they are making a trade-off - more crime in the name of allegedly less consumption. They can't prove there is less consumption and rarely admit there is more crime. Instead, they tell us all the drug war related crime is actually drug related crime thereby running from the negative consequences of their policy...

If you wish to rant about "they", please try to keep directed properly (ie. not in response to me directly). In case you don't understand why I am making this point I refer you to some previous quotes I made in this thread:

"One of the points made in this thread about the failure of the war on drugs is that it increases drug cost, thus increasing profits for the distributers, and increasing crime by users looking to get the money for their purchase. I think that is a valid point."

In regards to the effects of a ban on alcohol:

"Short term, it would be a mess, from an enforcement perspective, and also an economic one. How much so would depend on the general support for such a ban."

You can see I do admit that there are tradeoffs. We don't agree on the extent of those tradeoffs, but I hope you can see how your "them" rant was poorly directed.

It might also be worth noting that you are asking for proof of usage which doesn't exist. Whether or not the war on drugs has increased or decreased usage isn't provable from either standpoint. It's like asking for proof of crimes that didn't happen when drugs were legal. They didn't occur, and so could leave no evidence.

By looking at what numbers we do have, it can show basic trends, but not proof. One trend I pointed out was that as price dropped the number of users increased. One of your points is that the war on drugs increases cost, which would lead to the assumption that it also decreases use based on the price:usage ratios. It's not proof, I don't try to makebelieve that it is. It's an indicator which shows probability. If you don't agree with it that's fine, why don't you offer an argument (which takes the numbers into account) against it? I can think of several possibilities.

No, legalising drugs would make them less harmful because of quality control just as alcohol poisoning increased during prohibition as quality control declined. Furthermore, you're assuming greater use, an assumption unsupported by any evidence.

Harm to the user is not what I am concerned about, and I think I've stated that a few times. I can see how a user would want quality control for their drugs, when chosing to use them that is something they have to take into account. There are negative personal factors (those which only affect the one making the choice) in most decisions we make. In this sense, my choices are only my concern, and other people's choices are their's.

Harm to society in general, specifically to those who are affected by another person's decision to use drugs, is what concerns me when dealing with the subject of legalizing drugs. This is mainly spouses of users, and their children, and those affected by DUI type events.

Alcohol clearly has a negative impact on many people's lives in this sense. Drugs which have similar psychological and/or physical effects to alcohol can be assumed to have similar impacts in similar circumstances. It comes back down to the question of how much, if any, change in usage would occur if drugs were legalized, and how that relates to the tradeoffs in lower crime rates.

Our opinions differ here.

[Aeson]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Really, then why is alcohol diluted so people won't keel over? How many people have died from alcohol and pot?[QUOTE]

Dilution obviously doesn't change the amount of alcohol necessary to get any given 'effect'. A small sip of higher proof is going to be comparable to a larger volume of lower proof (not exactly of course, as rate of absorbtion into your system is different). If you look at the amount of alcohol in a pint of beer, that's probably still well in excess the volume that anyone wishing to live would use of many illegal drugs. I'm not sure of the exact usage amount of most drugs so I can't get very detailed on the subject.

As for the number of people who have died, you also have to take into account the number of people who are users. I'll admit that alcohol kills far and away more people than any illegal drug. I'm not really sure how they stack up when % users killed is taken into account though. In any case, pot is less dangerous than alcohol, which I have already said. There are drugs which are more dangerous than alcohol in like doses, I hope you can admit that.

That didn't happen when all drugs were legal.

First of all, when all drugs were legal our culture wasn't what it is today. The effects of legalization now would be different than the effects of them being legal back then. It may be a slight difference, but one nonetheless.

Also, there is a difference in 'always been legal' and 'making it legal' that I'm sure you can see. You are assuming that absolutely no one has decided to not use drugs because of their illegality. In such a case, you would be correct, and usage wouldn't change in that regard. You also have to account for the drop in price that will occur with legalization, which makes it more readily available. You have to account for the increase in quality control, which makes it safer, and thus more attractive for use. Also there is the removal of illegality itself, which because some people do respect the law will possibly increase usage in that demographic, and which sends a pro-drug message in general.

To be fair there are also a couple of other factors which might reduce use. Legal things are viewed as less cool by some. It could be a factor. Legalizing drugs would open up new avenues of treatment for addicts, but this can be accomplished by only allowing them by prescription just as easily.

Of course chemical dependancy is a very influential factor in negating any 'less usage' factor.

How many people would become users that currently are not is debateable, and until it actually happens, we can't know for certain. Looking at the statistics we do have on the price front can give us some clues though.

Ahem.

I already addressed this in the last post. Perhaps if you try to use my statements in context we can have some sort of discussion here. For emphasis, I admit (as stated at least 3 times already) that there is crime that is created by making drugs illegal. This crime is both direct (drug use/distribution/production is now a crime when it wasn't before), and indirect (theft to support drug habits, other violent crimes to protect drug organizations).

And your only answer to this is speculative.

How awful. In a post about speculation on the subject of what the effects of drug legalization would be, I have speculated. I must have lost my time machine, and all my observations on alternate universes. Forgive me.

I would love to hear how you think that addiction would decrease due to making drugs legal. The only way to decrease that is to better educate (pre-emptive) or to give better treatment. This may involve step down prescription methods, which isn't exactly the legalization of drugs we are talking about here. I've already stated my opinion on that subject as well.

The crimes I was talking about are the ones which are not related to the 'making drugs illegal' type. I am talking about spousal and child abuse and DUI among other things. I can't imagine how you would think those problems would decrease in number given more availability (remember that includes price and quality). I was too strong in my assertion that they would increase, even though I think they would. Like you said, speculation.

"Moral"? You think it's moral to steal money from others to cage millions of people based, not on what they did, but based on what someone else did? Is that the "moral" education you advocate?

I said our society in general is immoral. I didn't touch on the morality of anything else, but thanks for trying to read my mind. I also love the hyperbole, caging millions is one of my hobbies.

Education is key to solving the problems in our society that are drug based (as well as just about any other problem). Do you disagree? Note that I did not say "moral" education until this sentence. Again, you try to twist words, or baring that, you just don't read very well.

So you're holding millions hostage to someone's ignorance?

Again, nice hyperbole. I suppose millions in a cage could qualify as hostages. :P

When judging the readiness of a population for legal freedoms, the overall readiness is what needs to be judged wouldn't you say? Now, I'm a good driver, and I can handle my car at speeds my mother would be a death waiting to happen at. She has trouble at the posted speed limits. That doesn't mean she is holding me hostage (or rather the state holding me hostage) by limiting the legal speed to something they deem safe for everyone. Sure I could easily handle 85 on the freeway, but I certainly don't want everyone driving 85 out there, as there are many people who just don't have the same level of control, or are driving vehicles which won't respond as well. As such, I think the speed limits are a good idea. (and no, I don't always keep to them)

BS, tens of millions have used illegal drugs without this dreaded "addiction". And many of those who were "addicted" quit when they wanted to quit. That's why forced treatment is largely bogus, if you force someone into treatment when they don't want to quit, they won't quit.

Well, if you want to argue with all of medical science on this point feel free. My point is you can't know whether or not you will be addicted before you try, and after that, it's too late if you are. A person can overcome their addiction through proper treatment and/or enough willpower, it doesn't mean addiction isn't real.

A team of Canadian doctors analyzed the effects of alcohol, crack cocaine, and tobacco on the unborn. Their conclusion? Alcohol was by far the worst with tobacco and crack cocaine roughly comparable. But you'd never get that impression from the government and media. Is that who you want "educating" people about drugs?

No. I already stated that the state of US education is pitiful. It was one of the main points of why I don't think Holland's experience with legalization would translate to the US. To refresh your memory:

"The US deficiency in education is something that almost everyone would agree on. Why rely soley on a system that is obviously broken when other methods are available."

As for the Canadian doctor's conclusion... I've said it several times already. Yes I think alcohol is more a problem than many illegal drugs. In this area (birth defects) it may very well be the biggest problem. In others, it is the biggest problem just because how widespread it's usage is. That is an argument against allowing the usage of drugs to spread though.

Not me. Over-using many things can be unhealthful, but few things in life are bad when used in moderation. Claiming that drug use is unhealthful is about as valid as claiming food is unhealthful because someone died from obesity. For those who have "addictive" personalities, people who have trouble moderating their behavior for whatever reason, drugs, food, cars, guns, etc can be harmful.

Drug addiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "addictive" personalities. It is a strictly chemical thing. You've already stated you don't believe it exists in a chemical sense, so I see where you are coming from. Of course the effects of drugs on the body can be rather extreme even in moderation. Ask the people (or rather their loved ones) who die on their first use. Sometimes it's due to low quality (or 'mislabeled') drugs, sometimes it's due to a natural reaction.

I want to be clear here, because I already see your response coming on this point and don't want you to get sidetracked... I agree that better quality control would decrease these types of deaths (the low quality/'mislabeled' ones). This is a personal risk that people take when using drugs. Much like the risks a person would take when buying a car which has rated poorly in crash tests. Buy from someone you trust, accept the consequences, or don't use.

Do we exist to hear your messages?

I doubt it. I am talking about the message sent by government policy. We have an either/or here.. either the law can allow drugs, sending a message in favor of drug use (if it had never been illegal, that message wouldn't have been implied, but now it would be), or sending a message against drugs. I feel we should send the second. Current policy agrees. If you want to change that, you have your say just as much as I do.

Can you pay for this and stop forcing others to pay for it?

As soon as I only have to pay for what I get/use (and everyone else is treated the same), sure. We aren't living in a society where that would work though. As it is, everyone contributes according to the law, and everyone gets their say in how that is distributed. That's idealized of course, our 'say' gets kinda muffled in the process, but that's another issue altogether. I personally would collect and distribute taxes much differently than they currently are, but it's up to society in general to make those choices. As part of that society, I can at least get my say in. So can you.

You forget that the Constitution was amended to allow for alcohol prohibition. Btw, when was the Constitution amended for drug prohibition?

I don't forget it. I was agreeing as to why it failed, and why it would 'fail' now as well. Why would I forget an ammendment and show I've done so by commenting on that ammendment? I do think that it would eventually pay off to make it illegal, but we as a nation don't really think long term (as in lifetimes) on any issue.

Prohibition (1920-1933)

It isn't often someone refutes themself in the very next sentence.

You seem to have misread, or I wasn't very clear. To be honest, I don't think you and I are reading much of anything the same way. To paraphrase:

I agreed that prohibition didn't work very well. I stated some reasons why it didn't (and wouldn't) work. I alluded to the fact that I think it may have worked out eventually if we stuck to it, but that by giving up on it it certainly did fail.

That was true when all drugs were legal, it just took a century or more for the Republicrats to start ignoring the Constitution in such blatant ways.

Supply has a lot to do with it. The US tobacco industry was big from the get go, as was grain/fruit/whatever production necessary for the fermentation of alcohol. These were established drugs for the European immigrants, and the growing conditions were right. Obviously the man made chemical drugs we have today weren't readily available until this century, many of them are new in just the last few decades. As such, their production industries don't have the political clout that more established ones do. Also they don't have the user base.

I think drug legislation has been terrible, as the intent really isn't anti-drug. It's to protect the established drug industries. That said, I think there are good reasons for anti-drug legislation.

Then you'd rather have higher property crime rates and doubled homicide rates. Is that the moral message you want "our" children to learn?

Of course not. No one in their right mind wants higher crime, but as has been said several times by both sides, it's a tradeoff. The extent of the drug war's increase in property crime isn't that big a deal to me. Theft hurts, but it's not even close to the problems drugs themselves cause. Homicide rates are terrible, but keep in mind some of that is drug vs. drug violence. Criminals willing to kill each other to control crime isn't a concern for me, though innocents do get hurt as well (which does concern me). There are also many other factors in the homicide rate as I'm sure you understand. Just pointing to the war on drugs and saying it's the only factor is ludicrous.

In the end, it comes down to a tradeoff, the factors mostly speculation. We disagree. I think keeping drugs illegal reduces the overall impact that they have on our society.

As for the moral message, I just don't think it should be pro-drug, which legalizing them would be at this point. I don't think a message of "do the right thing even if it's difficult" is a bad message to send at all either. I'm not saying that's the current message, just the one that we should be shooting for. Because of the hypocrisy of protecting 'legal' drug industries, the current message we are sending is something more along the lines of "take what you can and if you've got the biggest guns it's yours". Not a good message at all... but it's an argument against the basis for the war on drugs, not an argument against keeping drugs illegal.

Comparing murder to drug use is a lame attempt at sophistry.

I wasn't comparing murder to drug use. I was giving an example of how making a 'bad' thing legal doesn't decrease the occurance of the 'bad' thing. It just makes it so doing the 'bad' thing is not a crime. Judging by your next response I need to further add: in the eyes of the law. Which is, by definition, implied.

Wow! You think murder ceases being a crime just because it's legal? Does that mean the Nazis and communists committed no crime when they slaughtered millions? So much for "crimes against humanity"..

Legally, yes, murder becomes killing when it is legal, and is no longer a crime unless there is some other law which makes it illegal. That's just word definitions. It doesn't mean killing is 'good' now, just that it's not illegal. "Crimes against humanity" assumes that there are certain laws (which denotes legality) which have been broken, those laws are defined/observed by the victor or the observer making the statement. They can be moral laws as well.

Just to be helpful here:

crime
n.

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.

3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.

4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

Murder has not created a massive black market. When was the last time you heard about alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare?

See above. I'm not comparing murder to drug use.

Lol, freedom is just too dangerous to allow a free reign in society.

Yes, certain freedom's are. You're probalby going to miss the point of the analogy again, but murder shouldn't be a 'freedom'. 'Bad' things in general that affect other people have to be considered, and if the freedom from them (or from circumstances they cause) is deemed more important than the freedom to them, then they need to be restricted to whatever degree is necessary.

I'm sure you could list more than a few 'freedoms' that you wouldn't like everyone to have. When there are conflicting desires, there will be conflicting freedoms. They can't all be free, so it is up to us to figure out a just and fair way to give precidence to some freedoms over others.

No, you'd rather create a huge "criminal" class to distribute the drugs which causes real crime.

People willing to break the laws to make money are probably going to find a way to make money once the laws change. If we allow pot (which I'd support), does that mean pot dealers will just decide to starve to death after the corporations (and their new distribution chains) move in and drive them out of business? They'll probably just switch (or in many cases, focus) on the other drugs that are still illegal.

If you legalize all drugs, then where do these people get their money? Will they become law abiding citizens, or find some other path in crime for 'easy' money? Or will they start selling low quality, low priced drugs to stay in business...

LOL! Yeah, snort cocaine and you are spraying the neighborhood with gunfire.

First of all, you seem to have a problem with understanding analogy. I am not saying that being on drugs will make someone shoot a gun randomly. I'm saying that the effects of drugs can be random and deadly. Much like randomly shooting a gun, which is obviously random, and can be deadly, thus, the analogy.

As for harmful or deadly.... It might be a reaction to the drug which causes the user to die. It might be an addict parent which neglects/abuses their child. It might be a person on a psychotic which kills another person. Each drug is going to have different risks involved, not all are violence inducing, not all of them pose immediate health threats to the user, but they all have their effects. Some are mild enough that I wouldn't have a problem legalizing them. Drugs in general should not be legalized though.

As for random... People under the influence of drugs behave/react differently than they would have without that influence. In the case of some drugs, it's a very big difference, in others, not so much. Some people react much differently to some drugs than 'normal', and as such, trying drugs induces a rather random range of effects.

So, you think all the drug users who don't "negatively effect" others should be punished because others who do negatively effect others? I refer you to my opening argument - it is immoral to punish the innocent because of the guilty.

Speed limits again (analogy here). For the good of society, sometimes we have to make laws based off the lowest common denominator. That's 'lowest common denominator' implied to be within reason... whatever reason is decided upon by society. For instance, a blind person isn't going to be able to drive a car at any speed safely, but we make the speed limits what they are because most people can drive those speeds safely, so it's within reason.

It would be nice if each of us could have a customized 'speed limit' in every instance of the law. It's entirely not possible though, and so we have to live with broader more generalized 'speed limits'.

As for morality in general, if it's against your morals then sure, it's immoral. Morality is entirely subjective. When dealing with laws, ethics is what you want to reference.

[Aeson]

And we both know you'd have a fit if you were put in a cage because someone else committed murder.

Again, a problem with analogy. This cage you are talking about is jail I assume. If someone else murders someone, and I am put in jail for it, then I am being put in jail for someone else breaking the law. Laws are based on morality and ethics often, but it is the illegality of killing someone that makes murder punishable through the justice system.

In the case of drug users, they are the ones breaking the law. Regardless of whether the law is just in their eyes or not, they are the ones. They aren't being put in jail because someone else used drugs.

A more proper analogy would be if I was put in a cage for committing murder (thus breaking the law myself), but I didn't think that murder was wrong. In which case, I wouldn't be me, so I have no idea how I'd react.

If you care, I am in a metaphorical 'cage' for things I never did, and have been in a very real 'cage' because of it a few times. I don't throw fits about it... it's really not important though as my temperment and situation aren't the subject here.

Do you know what the cost of heroin and cocaine is in a free market? It's very cheap.

Which was what I was saying in relation to cost:use ratio. If you look at heroin use, it has increase inversely to the cost. That means the higher the price, the less users, the lower the price, the more users. It's 'conjecture' to assume trends would continue, but it's better than 'conjecture' to assume they would not continue.

[Berzerker]

Aeson -

I think it's a valid assertion given the current state of our society.

The current state of society is a result of decades of prohibition.

You say history doesn't support it

Yup.

but we didn't have the consumption problems in the past either.

You mean when all drugs were legal? Imagine that!

I am basing this off current trends, not some point in the past which is assumed to be forever non-changing.

The only valid comparison is consumption rates when drugs were legal and when they were/are illegal. American Heritage magazine did an analysis of drug consumption throughout US history and showed that consumption depended more on cyclical cultural trends than laws. It appears every generation would rebel against the trend of the previous generation - too much drug use was met with a "temperance" movement followed by a generation who became angry with the do-gooders and rebelled by using more drugs. The first temperance movement was in the 1820's as alcohol use skyrocketed, but since the spirit of the Founders was still alive, outright prohibition was never enacted. Instead, people spoke out against alcohol abuse and consumption decreased significantly. After an increase in the 40's followed by a decrease, the next big jump in drug consumption followed the Civil War for obvious reasons.

I was using availability in the sense that it is available for usage. Part of that is price. The numbers that I was refering to show that there was a drop in price and an increase in users.

Where are these numbers and a comparison dealing with trends longer than a few years?

It was in response to two arguments which both refute each other. Basically saying "choose one or the other". Those numbers can't support both the arguments at the same time, and that was my point.

Then your point should be supported by the historical evidence, it isn't. Your logic would mean there would have been far more drug users when all drugs were legal, true? Holland and India should be over-run with pot-smokers now.

If you have a problem with the numbers or it's source, bear in mind that they were brought forward to support legalization of drugs, not by me.

Not by me either. Where is the context for those numbers? Drug war pushers today claim drug abuse is climbing, but they base this on the fact that drug users who are caught are coerced into court-mandated "treatment" programs. The result is more people in treatment only because the courts allow them this "out" instead of jail thereby inflating drug abuse numbers.

If you wish to rant about "they", please try to keep directed properly (ie. not in response to me directly).

"They" is self-explanatory.

In case you don't understand why I am making this point I refer you to some previous quotes I made in this thread:

I'm aware you acknowledged that drug prohibition increases crime, perhaps you missed this part of my statement, here it is again:

"They can't prove there is less consumption and rarely admit there is more crime."

You can see I do admit that there are tradeoffs. We don't agree on the extent of those tradeoffs, but I hope you can see how your "them" rant was poorly directed.

"They rarely admit". How often do you hear prohibitionists make your admission?

It might also be worth noting that you are asking for proof of usage which doesn't exist. Whether or not the war on drugs has increased or decreased usage isn't provable from either standpoint.

Sure it is, the records are hard to find, but scholars have done the research to compare drug use rates for much of US history. But since you claim we lack the proof, what is your evidence for claiming legalisation would increase consumption enough to outweigh the benefits of crime reduction and all the other negative consequences of prohibition?

It's like asking for proof of crimes that didn't happen when drugs were legal. They didn't occur, and so could leave no evidence.

We know roughly how much alcohol is consumed, true? It's when the product becomes illegal that we begin losing accuracy. One of the techniques today is the household survey, but how many people are going to tell a stranger on the phone they use drugs when that info can be used against them?

By looking at what numbers we do have, it can show basic trends, but not proof.

But the numbers are for a short period of time during prohibition.

One trend I pointed out was that as price dropped the number of users increased. One of your points is that the war on drugs increases cost, which would lead to the assumption that it also decreases use based on the price:usage ratios.

No, the point was that as prices increased, property crime increased. Why is that? Because many people using the drugs began to steal or steal more to buy the drugs.

There are negative personal factors (those which only affect the one making the choice) in most decisions we make. In this sense, my choices are only my concern, and other people's choices are their's.

That runs counter to your position.

Harm to society in general, specifically to those who are affected by another person's decision to use drugs, is what concerns me when dealing with the subject of legalizing drugs.

If that were true, and given your preceding statement of principle, why do you advocate punishing the people who are innocent of "affecting" others?

This is mainly spouses of users, and their children, and those affected by DUI type events.

But if you were to apply your logic, drinking alcohol would be banned because of DUI's, which would still be punishing the innocent because of the guilty.

Alcohol clearly has a negative impact on many people's lives in this sense. Drugs which have similar psychological and/or physical effects to alcohol can be assumed to have similar impacts in similar circumstances.

That's the problem with lumping drugs together. Comparing alcohol to, say, speed, which has the opposite effect, or pot, which doesn't attack motor skills in a "similar" way is problematic. Show us which illegal drug has a similar effect to alcohol.

It comes back down to the question of how much, if any, change in usage would occur if drugs were legalized, and how that relates to the tradeoffs in lower crime rates.

For those who reject freedom, true. I'm not one of these people who would enslave 10% of the population if I deemed it "good for society". That effectively is your rationale, the good of "society" over the good of the individual. Those were Benito Mussolini's words to describe fascism.

Dilution obviously doesn't change the amount of alcohol necessary to get any given 'effect'. A small sip of higher proof is going to be comparable to a larger volume of lower proof (not exactly of course, as rate of absorbtion into your system is different).

Yes, but you said alcohol was less dangerous than illegal drugs from a chemical standpoint. Alcohol is diluted to make it more safe, illegal drugs are often not.

As for the number of people who have died, you also have to take into account the number of people who are users. I'll admit that alcohol kills far and away more people than any illegal drug. I'm not really sure how they stack up when % users killed is taken into account though.

Then why make the claim that alcohol is safer than illegal drugs?

There are drugs which are more dangerous than alcohol in like doses, I hope you can admit that.

Define "like doses"? I've used a wide variety of drugs and only booze came close to killing me. But sure, I'd say having a beer is less dangerous than shooting a spoonful of heroin into the bloodstream.

First of all, when all drugs were legal our culture wasn't what it is today.

You keep saying that but offer no proof. How have people changed to account for this alleged difference?

The effects of legalization now would be different than the effects of them being legal back then. It may be a slight difference, but one nonetheless.

Why?

Also, there is a difference in 'always been legal' and 'making it legal' that I'm sure you can see.

Yes, the damage has been done and more is on the way.

You are assuming that absolutely no one has decided to not use drugs because of their illegality.

No, nor do I assume you will run out and use heroin if it's legal. But illegality can have the opposite effect - the forbidden fruit syndrome - breaking the taboo. Why do we see lower pot use among teens in the Netherlands than here? Is it because the black market we've created has spilled over to supply teens? I suggest you read my opening post about how and why gang recruitment and juvenile crime began exploding in the mid 80's. Drug war's can increase drug use...

You also have to account for the drop in price that will occur with legalization, which makes it more readily available.

But this availability is countered now by property crime.
You seem to think increasing the cost will reduce buyers when all that really means is they will need to steal more to buy the drug.

Also there is the removal of illegality itself, which because some people do respect the law will possibly increase usage in that demographic, and which sends a pro-drug message in general.

I already addressed this, but I'll remind you we do not exist to live our lives according to your messages.

How many people would become users that currently are not is debateable, and until it actually happens, we can't know for certain. Looking at the statistics we do have on the price front can give us some clues though.

I prefer looking at the historical evidence from decades of legalised drugs, not an alleged mini-trend over a few years.

Perhaps if you try to use my statements in context we can have some sort of discussion here.

Perhaps you can explain how "ahem" changes the context of what you said.

How awful. In a post about speculation on the subject of what the effects of drug legalization would be, I have speculated.

You're the one who is speculating, not me. I've already pointed out that drug consumption was comparable when all drugs were legal, you are the one claiming legalisation will increase consumption.

I would love to hear how you think that addiction would decrease due to making drugs legal.

Where have I said it would decrease? I said the history shows consumption was comparable when drugs were legal.

The crimes I was talking about are the ones which are not related to the 'making drugs illegal' type. I am talking about spousal and child abuse and DUI among other things. I can't imagine how you would think those problems would decrease in number given more availability (remember that includes price and quality). I was too strong in my assertion that they would increase, even though I think they would. Like you said, speculation.

Yes, speculation.

I said our society in general is immoral.

And stealing money from others to cage millions of people for personal behavior decreases this immorality?

I didn't touch on the morality of anything else, but thanks for trying to read my mind.

You said we needed a moral aversion to drugs before they can be made legal, that implies drug use is immoral.
My comment was to point out that you're not qualified to teach us morality.

I also love the hyperbole, caging millions is one of my hobbies.

What would you call abducting millions of people and putting them in cages? "Hyperbole"? I call it reality.

Education is key to solving the problems in our society that are drug based (as well as just about any other problem). Do you disagree?

No, but I don't expect the government to provide this education, I expect lies.

Note that I did not say "moral" education until this sentence. Again, you try to twist words, or baring that, you just don't read very well.

Here is what you said:

"In the absence of a moral or educational aversion to drugs (which in the US is severely lacking), law is the only restraint in those cases."

How did I twist your words?

Again, nice hyperbole. I suppose millions in a cage could qualify as hostages.

Yup, you've said drugs should remain illegal until people are educated, that means the people jailed for using drugs are being held hostage because of our ignorance. Or are you suggesting drugs should only become legal when people don't use them, lol?

When judging the readiness of a population for legal freedoms, the overall readiness is what needs to be judged wouldn't you say?

"Legal freedoms"? You sound like a dictator who dispenses "freedom".

Now, I'm a good driver, and I can handle my car at speeds my mother would be a death waiting to happen at. She has trouble at the posted speed limits. That doesn't mean she is holding me hostage (or rather the state holding me hostage) by limiting the legal speed to something they deem safe for everyone.

Do you understand the difference between private and public property? If I want to drive my car on someone else's property, I have to get their permission which may include regulations. To equate public roads with private property and people is communistic.

Well, if you want to argue with all of medical science on this point feel free.

What medical science has proven addiction means an inability to stop? If that were true, no addict would stop unless restrained.

My point is you can't know whether or not you will be addicted before you try, and after that, it's too late if you are.

No, you said being addicted was an inability to stop.

A person can overcome their addiction through proper treatment and/or enough willpower, it doesn't mean addiction isn't real.

But it does mean they can stop.

As for the Canadian doctor's conclusion... I've said it several times already. Yes I think alcohol is more a problem than many illegal drugs.

But you've also claimed alcohol is safer.

That is an argument against allowing the usage of drugs to spread though.

Why? You still think millions of people should be punished because of what a pregnant woman does (assuming your speculation is correct)?

Drug addiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "addictive" personalities.

It usually does. And addiction is usually a symptom of other problems.

It is a strictly chemical thing. You've already stated you don't believe it exists in a chemical sense, so I see where you are coming from.

Where did I say that?

Of course the effects of drugs on the body can be rather extreme even in moderation. Ask the people (or rather their loved ones) who die on their first use.

People have died from aspirin.

This is a personal risk that people take when using drugs. Much like the risks a person would take when buying a car which has rated poorly in crash tests. Buy from someone you trust, accept the consequences, or don't use.

The consequences of their actions and YOUR actions. You advocate this situation...

I doubt it.

Then why use your message as an argument? If we don't exist to live via your messages, using government to force us to live by your messages is immoral.

I am talking about the message sent by government policy.

A message you want sent.

[Berzerker]

Aeson -

We have an either/or here.. either the law can allow drugs, sending a message in favor of drug use (if it had never been illegal, that message wouldn't have been implied, but now it would be), or sending a message against drugs.

So if heroin became legal, you'd think it was now a good thing to use heroin? Or did you intend that for the unwashed masses?

Did I feel we should send the second. Current policy agrees. If you want to change that, you have your say just as much as I do.

You have a say about our freedom? Then don't complain if the freedoms you cherish are voted away by people lacking the moral authority to dictate how you live. Here's a simple question: if government did not exist, would it be moral for you to go around robbing people to cage others who use drugs? Aside from the fact you'd get killed, why does the creation of "government" transform what is obviously immoral into a moral endeavor?

As soon as I only have to pay for what I get/use (and everyone else is treated the same), sure.

But until then you will keep stealing from others to pay for what you want? Would you go around murdering people until others stopped murdering?

We aren't living in a society where that would work though.

Yes, private property won't work in a democracy when a majority endorses legalised theft. Even property "owners" are merely renters with Uncle Sam being the landlord.

As it is, everyone contributes according to the law, and everyone gets their say in how that is distributed.

In other words, when Paul robs Peter and gets Mary's support, that's fine if Peter objects but is outvoted?

I personally would collect and distribute taxes much differently than they currently are, but it's up to society in general to make those choices.

"Society"? Don't you mean people? Why does one group of people get to decide what to do with your property? You do understand that slavery is based on that rationale...

I don't forget it. I was agreeing as to why it failed, and why it would 'fail' now as well. Why would I forget an ammendment and show I've done so by commenting on that ammendment?

Where did you reference an amendment and why do you now ignore the fact the Constitution was not amended to allow for drug prohibition? What happened to your emphasis of the law?

You seem to have misread, or I wasn't very clear. To be honest, I don't think you and I are reading much of anything the same way. To paraphrase:

You said alcohol was too ingrained in society having been legal for thousands of years but followed that with an acknowledgement that prohibition occured. Obviously the acknowledgement contradicts the first claim.

Supply has a lot to do with it. The US tobacco industry was big from the get go, as was grain/fruit/whatever production necessary for the fermentation of alcohol. These were established drugs for the European immigrants, and the growing conditions were right. Obviously the man made chemical drugs we have today weren't readily available until this century, many of them are new in just the last few decades.

Some of the Founders grew pot and Franklin used opium. But today they'd be put in cages for exercising their freedom...

As such, their production industries don't have the political clout that more established ones do. Also they don't have the user base.

Which means you condone freedom to the highest bidder.

That said, I think there are good reasons for anti-drug legislation.

So far, all you've offered is the speculation that drug use would increase. The irony of course is that you want to punish drug users because some of them "affect" others. Has it not dawned on you that you are affecting all of us? We are forced to pay for what you want, many of us are the victims of the increased crime resulting from your interference in our freedom, and millions are put in cages?

Of course not. No one in their right mind wants higher crime, but as has been said several times by both sides, it's a tradeoff.

Yes, a trade-off, higher crime and more dead people for an alleged and unproven decrease in drug use.

The extent of the drug war's increase in property crime isn't that big a deal to me.

Wow!

Theft hurts, but it's not even close to the problems drugs themselves cause.

And prohibition prevents these problems? Oh yeah, the trade-off according to you is decreased drug use.

Homicide rates are terrible, but keep in mind some of that is drug vs. drug violence.

And this matters?

Criminals willing to kill each other to control crime isn't a concern for me

Immoral.

though innocents do get hurt as well (which does concern me).

Oh, the criminals kill each other, the innocent only get hurt.

There are also many other factors in the homicide rate as I'm sure you understand. Just pointing to the war on drugs and saying it's the only factor is ludicrous.

I said it was the only factor? Then point to these other factors.

I think keeping drugs illegal reduces the overall impact that they have on our society.

Based on your speculation that the drug war reduces consumption. In other words, you have no proof.

As for the moral message, I just don't think it should be pro-drug, which legalizing them would be at this point.

Yes, we know you prefer the "moral" message sent by committing armed robbery on a massive scale to cage millions of innocent people to the "immoral" message of leaving people free to live their lives.

I don't think a message of "do the right thing even if it's difficult" is a bad message to send at all either.

Why is using a drug doing the wrong thing? Why is robbing people to cage millions of drug users the right thing?

Because of the hypocrisy of protecting 'legal' drug industries, the current message we are sending is something more along the lines of "take what you can and if you've got the biggest guns it's yours".

But that's the message you are sending - because "society" - the biggest guns - decided to steal and cage drug users, that's okay.

I wasn't comparing murder to drug use.

Yes you were:

"I'm sure we can agree that murder shouldn't be made legal, and only rely on education to show people that murder is wrong."

You analogised murder to drug use.

I was giving an example of how making a 'bad' thing legal doesn't decrease the occurance of the 'bad' thing. It just makes it so doing the 'bad' thing is not a crime.

Which means you think murder and drug use is bad. I can prove the former, can you prove the latter?

Judging by your next response I need to further add: in the eyes of the law. Which is, by definition, implied.

Then explain how the Nazis committed no crimes against Germans since what they did was "legal".

Legally, yes, murder becomes killing when it is legal, and is no longer a crime unless there is some other law which makes it illegal.

Which is insanity. Ever hear the phrase "crime against humanity"? Was government created to combat crime or invent crime? One need not be a philosopher to understand that murder is a crime regardless of government's existence or opinion.

That's just word definitions. It doesn't mean killing is 'good' now, just that it's not illegal.

Well now, you said legalising drugs would send the message that drug use is okay, but here you say legalising murder doesn't send the message that killing is okay/good.

"Crimes against humanity" assumes that there are certain laws (which denotes legality) which have been broken, those laws are defined/observed by the victor or the observer making the statement. They can be moral laws as well.

What law did the Nazis violate when they murdered Germans? "Moral" laws? Yes, laws that supercede government. But based on what? Freedom? Or the most guns?

Yes, certain freedom's are. You're probalby going to miss the point of the analogy again, but murder shouldn't be a 'freedom'.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Explain how murder is an act of freedom when it constitutes a constraint.

I'm sure you could list more than a few 'freedoms' that you wouldn't like everyone to have.

You haven't listed one yet.

When there are conflicting desires, there will be conflicting freedoms.

There are no conflicting freedoms, just confused people.

They can't all be free, so it is up to us to figure out a just and fair way to give precidence to some freedoms over others.

"Us"? C'mon, stop spinning, you mean some people will decide what freedoms others have - the most guns argument.

People willing to break the laws to make money are probably going to find a way to make money once the laws change.

Yup, that's freedom and capitalism.

If we allow pot (which I'd support), does that mean pot dealers will just decide to starve to death after the corporations (and their new distribution chains) move in and drive them out of business? They'll probably just switch (or in many cases, focus) on the other drugs that are still illegal.

Obviously some will and some won't, but how does this change the fact you'd rather create a massive "criminal" class to distribute drugs to adults and children rather than businesses that don't have shootouts over marketshare?

If you legalize all drugs, then where do these people get their money?

Where did they get money before prohibition? If they were engaged in other criminal behavior, crime rates would not have increased after enacting prohibition. true?

Will they become law abiding citizens, or find some other path in crime for 'easy' money?

Comparing murder and robbery to selling drugs now? Certainly you can see differing levels of "ease" in these activities. Many people who sell drugs do so because they do not see the act as immoral. That doesn't mean they would then conclude murder and robbery are no different. Btw, another disaster I should have had in my opening list is the fact that law enforcement resources are finite and that diverting, say, one half to "vice" and drugs means less is spent catching real criminals. There are murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc who are running around or released from jail far too soon because of the drug war.

First of all, you seem to have a problem with understanding analogy.

Yeah, that happens when I'm told using a drug is like randomly shooting bullets around.

I am not saying that being on drugs will make someone shoot a gun randomly. I'm saying that the effects of drugs can be random and deadly. Much like randomly shooting a gun, which is obviously random, and can be deadly, thus, the analogy.

Here is what you said:

"When you take drugs (at least certain drugs), it's not much different than randomly shooting bullets around."

I understand your "analogy" quite well.

As for harmful or deadly.... It might be a reaction to the drug which causes the user to die. It might be an addict parent which neglects/abuses their child. It might be a person on a psychotic which kills another person. Each drug is going to have different risks involved, not all are violence inducing, not all of them pose immediate health threats to the user, but they all have their effects. Some are mild enough that I wouldn't have a problem legalizing them. Drugs in general should not be legalized though.

All of which happens now and drugs are illegal, that's why I usually ask drug war pushers to list the successes of the drug war and never get an answer. But I thought you believed in personal responsibility. You are holding millions responsible for the above people.

As for random... People under the influence of drugs behave/react differently than they would have without that influence.

So if I react to fatigue by sleeping, I'll stay awake if I use pot?

Speed limits again (analogy here).

An analogy equating public property with private property. You accuse me of not understanding analogies but you don't understand that analogies are supposed to compare things that are roughly equal to begin with. You keep mixing apples and oranges...

For instance, a blind person isn't going to be able to drive a car at any speed safely, but we make the speed limits what they are because most people can drive those speeds safely, so it's within reason.

What's the speed limit at Daytona Raceway? Oh, that's private property? Think about it. I see even after I tried to explain to you the flaw with your 'analogy", you insist on using it. Okay, I'll try again - according to your "analogy", a husband and wife should not be allowed to have intercourse in the privacy of their home because they can't have intercourse in the middle of a highway. Make sense yet?

As for morality in general, if it's against your morals then sure, it's immoral. Morality is entirely subjective. When dealing with laws, ethics is what you want to reference.

There's a relevant difference between morality and ethics? And since you think morality is subjective, then murder is not immoral if the murderer says so? Do you believe armed robbery is immoral? If so, why does it become moral when you and people called "government" are doing the robbing? Does that mean you wouldn't view it as immoral if a group of people walked up and robbed you on the street? Why/how are they and you any different? The number of guns?

Again, a problem with analogy. This cage you are talking about is jail I assume. If someone else murders someone, and I am put in jail for it, then I am being put in jail for someone else breaking the law.

You're being put in a cage because someone else committed murder, the law targets murder. But your stated reasons for caging drug users is not drug use, but certain acts committed by some drug users against others. Those drug users who "affect" others (I assume in criminal ways and not just hurt feelings or we'd all be in jail). You wouldn't want to be caged because I murdered someone, yet you want to cage millions of people who use drugs if I use drugs and murder someone.

Laws are based on morality and ethics often, but it is the illegality of killing someone that makes murder punishable through the justice system.

"Often"? And what about when the laws are not based on morality (which you claim is "subjective")? If no government existed and you murdered my family, would I be justified in punishing you? Why? If no government existed and you smoked pot in your home, would I be justified in punishing you?

In the case of drug users, they are the ones breaking the law.

So what? Slaves broke the law by running away, would you put them in cages? Others helped them, would you put them in cages? Btw, the drug war is unconstitutional for several reasons, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, therefore you are breaking the law, not drug users. Furthermore, your stated reasons for supporting the "law" are that drug users hurt others, but millions of drug users don't hurt others. They are innocent of the accusation you offer in support of the law.

Regardless of whether the law is just in their eyes or not, they are the ones. They aren't being put in jail because someone else used drugs.

Yes they are, you've repeatedly said drug users are punished for violating drug laws written because of drug users who hurt others. If sober people were punished because some sober people hurt others, would you understand the immorality of what you advocate?

A more proper analogy would be if I was put in a cage for committing murder (thus breaking the law myself), but I didn't think that murder was wrong.

Lol, if you committed murder, you'd be committing the very act targeted by the law. Drug laws, by your own admission, are enacted because of criminal behavior engaged in by SOME drug users.