Drug War Disaster

[Ramo]

Regarding the supposed increase in drug users in the event of legalization, Portugal de-criminalized possession of everything from pot to crack, and there hasn't been any significant increases in drug use.

[Aeson]

In the interest of berevity.. just a few points. Most of what is being argued now just seems to be going back and for, and is rather speculative anyways.

One point where you still seem to be misreading my postition is on "moral" education as you put it. Read the initial quote you are basing that off of and notice the "or" between the two. I don't think there has to be a moral bias against drugs for there to be an educational one, and being educated about drugs doesn't mean there would even be a bias against them. I only advocated the use of education. Morality is subjective, and I only mentioned it because in some forms it bypasses any drug problems simply by keeping people from using them.

Another is your insistance that laws that restrict freedoms are unconstitutional. That is what laws are designed to do, restrict freedoms of actions which our society (through methods defined in the constitution) have deemed destructive. Any law is going to restrict freedom, be that freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to do whatever is defined by law as illegal. Some of these freedoms obviously have a direct affect on other freedoms, and that is why they are restricted. Other freedoms have less direct affects, but are still deemed necessary to restrict because of those indirect affects. The Constitution itself contains restrictions on certain freedoms.

As for any other topics, I stand by what I have said. I think you are misreading some things (or I am misreading your replies), taking them out of context, but if you really don't understand what I am saying yet (or vice versa) there isn't any point to continuing the discussion.

[Sava]

Legal drugs would mean very little drug related crime because the prohibition creates the demand to get drugs illegally...

There is no reason (at the minimum) that pot shouldn't be legal. Bah... yeah if you do it everyday its bad and u could get cancer, but eating McDonalds for 3 meals a day is worse for you. I don't see how any other person on this planet has the authority to tell anyone else what they can or can't put in their bodies for a mind-altering experience.

[Berzerker]

Aeson -

One point where you still seem to be misreading my postition is on "moral" education as you put it.

You said people needed to have a moral or educated aversion to drug use before drugs could be legalised. It sounds like you believe drugs should only be legal if people don't use drugs - a catch-22 if you ask me.

I don't think there has to be a moral bias against drugs for there to be an educational one, and being educated about drugs doesn't mean there would even be a bias against them.

You still haven't explained who will provide this education. The state? That isn't an education, it's propaganda.

I only advocated the use of education. Morality is subjective, and I only mentioned it because in some forms it bypasses any drug problems simply by keeping people from using them.

You say morality is subjective but won't support the assertion, and you're still implying drug use is immoral without proof.

Another is your insistance that laws that restrict freedoms are unconstitutional.

Where did I say that (quotes will help)? I said the drug war is unconstitutional and supported my claim in my opening post. I've also said the drug war is anti-freedom and supported that claim. Your only "rebuttal" has been that since murder is against the law, drug use can be against the law. Try telling people all religion can be outlawed because murder is against the law. They will

That is what laws are designed to do, restrict freedoms of actions which our society (through methods defined in the constitution) have deemed destructive.

Laws are supposed to be constitutional before other considerations. And these methods defined in the Constitution are not being followed, the Constitution was amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, but the Constitution was never amended to allow for drug prohibition. And you're still confusing freedom with actions that do not fall under the definition of freedom. Furthermore, not all laws restrict freedom, a law prohibiting murder prohibits an act that violates freedom. Would you tell us the Holocaust and slavery were acts of freedom? Sorry, but you cannot understand freedom if you insist on remaining ignorant of it's meaning...

Any law is going to restrict freedom, be that freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to do whatever is defined by law as illegal.

Freedom - the ABSENCE of COERCION or CONSTRAINT on CHOICE or ACTION. How can you claim the act of murder is an act of freedom when it is an obvious constraint on the victim's choice or action?

These freedoms obviously have a direct affect on other freedoms

They aren't freedoms and freedoms don't conflict, you keep saying that but won't support your assertion. I can explain how murder "conflicts" with freedom, can you explain how drug use conflicts with your freedom? And don't tell me it conflicts because a drug user might murder you, that only proves murder conflicts with freedom, not drug use. Is sobriety anti-freedom if a sober person commits murder? Of course not.

The Constitution itself contains restrictions on certain freedoms.

Yup, so where in the Constitution does it say Congress can restrict drug use? These are questions, do you have answers?

[Berzerker]

bump

[Dr Strangelove]

Golly, when I see the Supreme Court rule the Federal Drug Act unconstitutional then I'll give your arguements some credence. Until then: stay clean and have a merry christmas.

[David Floyd]

Golly, when I see the Supreme Court rule the Federal Drug Act unconstitutional then I'll give your arguements some credence.

What does the Supreme Court matter, on the question of freedom? They don't support freedom any more than Congress does.

You're trying to refute a philosophical argument with the law, and that just doesn't work - it's like justifying slavery by saying you'll oppose it once SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.

[Zylka]

I can only argue from Canada's system in saying that the drug war is fair. If you're stupid enough to criminally hurt others due to your drug use, you belong in jail. If you're arrogant enough to supply substances to clients you don't know or trust to keep their habits to themselves, you belong in jail. I'm happy now knowing that these substances (many of which they have rightly classified as dangerous to a majority of people) are prohibited, but to a point. If responsible and old enough, access to pretty much any drug in recreational quantities isn't too difficult - so why complain?

In short, drugs simply do not work with a majority of people's personalities - even if regulation brought the prices down they would still ruin most lives when used regularly by f*cking their perceptions. It is the responsibility of the users and dealers to use judgement in social association with drugs, and to bar those who shouldn't be using them from doing just that (whether from the start or continuation of use). That's why I have no problem with sending ghetto trash selling crack cocaine to people without jobs directly to prison. Big problem with the U.S. system though (as I've heard), is that said example without prior convictions can get a 25 year sentence?!

Moderation in punishment, boys

[Zylka]

...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job. The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


What does the Supreme Court matter, on the question of freedom? They don't support freedom any more than Congress does.

You're trying to refute a philosophical argument with the law, and that just doesn't work - it's like justifying slavery by saying you'll oppose it once SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.

They have and I do!

[David Floyd]

*groannnnn*

Is this what an aneuryism feels like?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Zylka
...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job. The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out.

PCP is worse. PCP induces a delerious rage in many people. When the high is over it leaves them amnestic about the whole experience.
You could argue that LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and opium are worse too. They're all potent hallucinogens.

[Sava]

Regardless of the problems associated with those hard drugs, there's no good reason pot should be illegal any more than alcohol should be.

[Zylka]

The whole PCP rage thing is a bit of a scare tactic IMO, although I wouldn't doubt it's up there with crack as one of the hardest. The scariest thing about crack is that in addicts it lasts 5 minutes (if even) before the horrific downfall of euphoria kicks in. PCP lasts much longer, but makes most users unaware zombies more than anything else - and in some cases psychotic behavior occurs. These instances of rage happen with many drugs - most especially alcohol, but they take more of a presence in urban legends with PCP because its pain killing and tranquilizing effects leave the stoned user unaware that their body is taking way too much and stressing beyond sustainability.

ie.) "Did you hear about that guy on PCP who broke through police handcuffs, braking his hands but not feeling a thing until next day?"

I'm sure there's a history of some drunk braking his wrists out of handcuffs as well, but it took less presence as he would be immediately screaming like a banshee. It should be mentioned that heroin and morphine, while having the same pain masking properties - have a submissive euphoria that keeps the users from doing pretty much anything, such as psychotic behavior. Yet, these could be my naive assumptions.

LSD etc could indeed be described as worse, as they have the ability to scar certain people permanently by triggering mental illness - but there is no severe addiction potential, especially considering it is not effective unless given breaks of several days to a week. Rage and psychotic behavior probably happen most often on these drugs, I've been banned from an area on campus doing so myself - but the confusion one might experience on these drugs most usually consists of an internal turmoil, aggressive intentions turned on yourself. I don't know why you've listed opium in the psychedelics - do you find it visual that way?

...yeah. So there are a lot of different values upon which you can rate the potential harm certain drugs will produce. Somewhere between overall and per capita, I think crack ruins the most lives.

(P.S. Overall, alcohol and tobbacco ruin the most lives - and that is non debatable)

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

I can only argue from Canada's system in saying that the drug war is fair.

You believe it's fair to imprison people based on what others have done?

If you're stupid enough to criminally hurt others due to your drug use, you belong in jail.

But the drug war doesn't just jail people who use drugs and criminally hurt others, it jails people who use drugs regardless of whether or not they criminally hurt others because of those who do hurt others. You wouldn't think it was "fair" if you were caged because someone else criminally hurt others.

If you're arrogant enough to supply substances to clients you don't know or trust to keep their habits to themselves, you belong in jail.

So the seller is now responsible for what some of the buyers do? Does that mean gun, car, knife, and alcohol sellers should be in jail because their products are used by people committing crimes?

I'm happy now knowing that these substances (many of which they have rightly classified as dangerous to a majority of people) are prohibited, but to a point.

Why? Has prohibiting drugs prevented people from using them? Happiness derived from persecuting others is immoral.

If responsible and old enough, access to pretty much any drug in recreational quantities isn't too difficult - so why complain?

Because millions of people are being put in cages, not for what they have done, but because of what others have done. And the drug war pushers are forcing the rest of us to pay for this evil.

In short, drugs simply do not work with a majority of people's personalities - even if regulation brought the prices down they would still ruin most lives when used regularly by f*cking their perceptions.

Where do you get these numbers? Roughly 80 million Americans have used illegal drugs, and roughly 3-5% may have a problem. Btw, we were not put here to have perceptions meeting with your approval, communists are into mind control.

It is the responsibility of the users and dealers to use judgement in social association with drugs, and to bar those who shouldn't be using them from doing just that (whether from the start or continuation of use).

Even if we accept the absurd notion that a dealer must evaluate each and every buyer to determine their ability to use responsibility, how can the users be responsible for other users? That's like telling alcohol users they are responsible if someone becomes an alcoholic.

That's why I have no problem with sending ghetto trash selling crack cocaine to people without jobs directly to prison.

Oh, it's a "black" thing? I've tried crack a few times, no problem at all. It's just cocaine in a free-base form.

Big problem with the U.S. system though (as I've heard), is that said example without prior convictions can get a 25 year sentence?!

Moderation in punishment, boys

People are getting life here for exercising freedom and practicing capitalism.

...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job.

Have you ever tried it? If not, maybe you're not very qualified to speak of it's effects.

The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out.

You blame the dealer now for property crimes committed by users? Then blame yourself too, the drug war inflates the costs of drugs. I guess farmers are now responsible for people who steal to buy food.

(P.S. Overall, alcohol and tobbacco ruin the most lives - and that is non debatable)

But to be overlooked by the hypocrites pushing the drug war.

Strangelove -

Golly, when I see the Supreme Court rule the Federal Drug Act unconstitutional then I'll give your arguements some credence.

You can't read the Constitution and reach your own conclusion? You need the politicians who are ignoring the Constitution to tell you if they're ignoring the Constitution?

They have and I do!

Nope, the SCOTUS has never said slavery was unconstitutional. But David Floyd exposed the flaw with your argument, and you, by your own admission, would have supported slavery if the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.

PCP is worse. PCP induces a delerious rage in many people.

The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.

When the high is over it leaves them amnestic about the whole experience.

So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.

You could argue that LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and opium are worse too. They're all potent hallucinogens

LOL! These aren't even addictive, much less a cause for violence.