Shouldn't something be done about Mexico?

[Nikolai]

That's the problem with Poly discussions, you can't discuss without people saying you're either a liar, moving goalposts, using strawmen or being a moron.

[Kidlicious]

let's hear your experience kid.

I work a 12 step program.

[loinburger]

I've known too many people like you in recovery - they know everything there is to know about everything and are more than willing to offer unsolicited advice in the most insulting terms, and yet they have dozens of one-day chips. Some of them humble themselves, some of them die.

[Berzerker]

That's not my argument. I wouldn't be blaming you for the actions of others. I'd be blaming you for your own actions or rather inaction.

But the reason you'd be blaming me is not because I had a beer, its because somebody else got drunk and did a bad thing. Its like banning religion or pot because a religious person or stoner killed someone.
You dont want that standard applied to you, so why apply it to other people?

Also, drinking a beer is different than smoking some crack or shooting up some meth or heroine.

Not too many people drink 1 beer or smoke 1 cigarette. Alcoholics aint that different and I'd bet proportionally more drive too intoxicated. Should we be jailed for drinking because of them? Thats the argument being used by opponents of legal pot and its an immoral argument.

But let's just say it's illegal to drink a beer. If we are attacked by a foreign army and face a shortage of oil the government may say people can only drive every other day instead of just saying don't waste gas. Why? Because just telling people not to waste gas doesn't work.

They aint banning oil so your analogy is already askew, but people do cut back. This nation's first flirtation with alcohol prohibition was the 1820s, too many people were getting drunk too often. They were consuming so much booze they'd drink us under the table. Other people complained, a couple states considered laws but none passed prohibition and the rate of consumption dropped enormously after raising social awareness. That quieted the prohibitionists for a few decades and then the civil war put another damper on their efforts. It wasn't until the suffrage movement (your feminist allies in the war on drugs) that we got Prohibition.

Now let's say you decide that you don't waste fuel so you drive on days that are illegal for you to drive. The police arrest you and put you in jail. In the absolute, they are responsible for you being in a cage. But the truth is you are responsible for not doing the responsible thing. What if so many people decided to break the law and the law stopped being enforced. Then each person who broke the law is responsible for the social ill. Similarly, those who drink are responsible for alcoholics drinking, drunk driving etc...

Like I said, you blame the innocent for the actions of the guilty

If we're at war the state acquires additional powers, like canceling our most basic rights if need be. The Constitution was amended to give Congress the power to regulate/ban booze and that power was repealed, the Constitution was never amended for the drug war. So the people breaking the law are the ones enforcing the drug war. And you support them...

[Kidlicious]

You're making banning hardcore drugs extremism. It isn't. Banning drugs is nothing like banning free speech, or association, or anything like that. It isn't made to enslave you. You are still free, just not to smoke crack etc...

So if you want to pretend like you're in a concentration camp that's your business, but you aren't. I would work the innocent victims angle. If you can convince me that banning drugs does more harm than good then you win, but please don't act like you are living in a concentration camp.

[loinburger]

If you can convince me

You live in a fact-free and logic-free zone - I doubt that it's possible to convince you of anything before you put the offending party on ignore

Kidicious: You don't know anything about 12-step programs!
loin: I've been in a 12-step program for over six years
Kidicious: You're on my ignore list!

[Berzerker]

If you can convince me that banning drugs does more harm than good then you win

isn't the burden of proof on you?

You support this massive intervention of our freedom and to add insult to injury you wanna make us pay for it, so why dont you convince us banning drugs does more good than harm? I cant think of anything good about the drug war, can you? I can think of all sorts of reasons why it does more harm than good. We get all the bad that goes with prohibition and nothing in return, just your belief that consumption is lower. Where's your proof of that?

[Kidlicious]

Well at least we agree that less consumption is good. Any policy that reduces consumption is a good one. Pot is legal on 3 states. It will be interesting to see the effects. I hope consumption of marijuana doesn't increase in those states. I'm sure you agree.

[rah]

Use will appear to increase regardless if it really does, because now that it's legal fewer people will lie about doing it.

[Berzerker]

Well at least we agree that less consumption is good. Any policy that reduces consumption is a good one. Pot is legal on 3 states. It will be interesting to see the effects. I hope consumption of marijuana doesn't increase in those states. I'm sure you agree.

I didn't say consuming pot was bad

[Colonâ„¢]

The policy that creates least harm is good. Usually that isn't prohibition.

[C0ckney]

That's the problem with Poly discussions, you can't discuss without people saying you're either a liar, moving goalposts, using strawmen or being a moron.

no. you said that it would be silly to ban alcohol after 1000s of years of use. i pointed out that other drugs (or rather the plants they come from) had been around for longer. then you said, "oh well those don't count". it's classic moving the goalposts. all i did was apply your logic to other things and you didn't like the result. shame.

it's stupid and counter-productive to ban both alcohol and other drugs. it makes the problems associated with use much worse and causes a huge amount of violence and criminality, which simply wouldn't exist were drugs legal.

[C0ckney]

I work a 12 step program.

ok. now explain how criminalising you would have improved your situation.

[Kidlicious]

I didn't say consuming pot was bad

We really don't need more potheads in this country. But even if pot isn't bad an increase in usage is useful information for deciding whether or not to legalize more harmful drugs.

[Kidlicious]

ok. now explain how criminalising you would have improved your situation.

I may not have ever had the trouble that I have. This may come as a shock to you but many people avoid drugs because they are illegal. Many more quit because they have gotten in trouble.