Drug prohibition is useless

[{|}$~\]

1. a spelling nazi is a term for someone that hounds people's spelling mistakes.

2 that was not my argument, that was me telling you to stop doing so and debate the issues

3 you failed to debate the issues

4 I can't lose as there is no game being played

5 would you kindly respond to my questions?

1. A spelling nazi is a term for someone that hounds people's spelling mistakes.

2 That was not my argument, that was me telling you to stop doing so and debate the issues.

3 You failed to debate the issues.

4 I can't lose as there is no game being played.

5 Would you kindly respond to my questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's Law

 

[Shadylookin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_Nazi

 

[{|}$~\]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Equating orthographic precision with the murder of 10,000,000 human beings is very insensitive.

 

[Shadylookin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Equating orthographic precision with the murder of 10,000,000 human beings is very insensitive.

I find both things to be very annoying and bothersome if that means anything.


Now will you kindly debate about the issues in the thread. You can start by answering my previous questions.

 

[BasketCase]

Meh, I'm still waiting for him to explain why we should bother banning drugs that are no riskier than a wide variety of other recreational activities.

Here's one: because they can kill people besides the user.

I'm all cool with dangerous recreational activities such as the one I partake of: rock climbing. If I miss a hold, break the rope because I didn't check it before climbing, and take a digger, it's nobody's fault but my own. I can't kill anybody else. Well, unless I land on another climber.


Drugs deprive the user of the ability to think sensibly (hell, that's the reason most people use them!). That makes the user a hazard to other people. Yes, including good old "harmless" cannie. Hop in your car and go for a trip while you're trippin', and you're just as dangerous as a drunk driver.


The essential question and problem with drug prohib (and it's a sticky one) is that you're trading one hazard for another. Legalize, and more people are going to use, and more people are going to get killed. Ban, and more people will get killed by gang violence instead of the drugs themselves. If the U.S. banned alcohol again, I'll gladly bet my life that the U.S. murder rate would NOT climb to 250,000 a year. (Dear God, I hope I didn't make a typo there!!! )

Some people will argue the point I boldfaced just above. For those people, I pose a question: considering that the death rate for MJ, coke, and heroin are virtually identical (i.e. in the stats I found, MJ deaths were four figures--coke and heroin were ZERO), how do you explain the fact that drugs MORE dangerous than MJ....killed fewer people?

It's not an easy one.

Edit: actually, coming up with possibilities is easy. Proving that banning a drug is NOT a possible answer to that final question--that's hard.

 

[{|}$~\]

Here's one: because they can kill people besides the user. Drugs deprive the user of the ability to think sensibly. That makes the user a hazard to other people. Yes, including good old "harmless" cannie.

My point exactly.

 

[Shadylookin]

Here's one: because they can kill people besides the user.

the drugs can only kill the user.

I'm all cool with dangerous recreational activities such as the one I partake of: rock climbing. If I miss a hold, break the rope because I didn't check it before climbing, and take a digger, it's nobody's fault but my own. I can't kill anybody else. Well, unless I land on another climber.

you can kill people below you

Drugs deprive the user of the ability to think sensibly (hell, that's the reason most people use them!). That makes the user a hazard to other people. Yes, including good old "harmless" cannie. Hop in your car and go for a trip while you're trippin', and you're just as dangerous as a drunk driver.

that's why driving while intoxicated is illegal. it's why if they can't handle their habbits and harm others they go to jail.

The essential question and problem with drug prohib (and it's a sticky one) is that you're trading one hazard for another. Legalize, and more people are going to use, and more people are going to get killed.

this hasn't shown true for countries that have legalized drugs

Ban, and more people will get killed by gang violence instead of the drugs themselves. If the U.S. banned alcohol again, I'll gladly bet my life that the U.S. murder rate would NOT climb to 250,000 a year. (Dear God, I hope I didn't make a typo there!!! )

the US can't ban alcohol again with anything short of a constitutional ammendment. Besides we don't need anymore al capones

Some people will argue the point I boldfaced just above. For those people, I pose a question: considering that the death rate for MJ, coke, and heroin are virtually identical (i.e. in the stats I found, MJ deaths were four figures--coke and heroin were ZERO), how do you explain the fact that drugs MORE dangerous than MJ....killed fewer people?


It's not an easy one.

Edit: actually, coming up with possibilities is easy. Proving that banning a drug is NOT a possible answer to that final question--that's hard.

maybe it's because most people don't want to do heroin? you could give it away legally and free and i bet most people wouldn't take it.

 

[{|}$~\]

That's why driving while intoxicated is illegal. It's why if they can't handle their habits and harm others they go to jail.

Intoxicated people don't realize they'll be prosecuted if they harm people. They often don't realize they are harming people. They often don't realize they are too intoxicated to drive.

 

[skadistic]

Intoxicated people don't realize they'll be prosecuted if they harm people. They often don't realize they are harming people. They often don't realize they are too intoxicated to drive.

You dont realize when you absolutly wrong. And stop butchering peoples posts.

 

[{|}$~\]

You don't realize when you are absolutely wrong. And stop butchering people's posts.

About what am I absolutely wrong? How am I "butchering" people's posts?

 

[skadistic]

[sic]About what [sic]am I [sic]absolutely[sic] wrong[sic]? [sic]How am I[sic] "butchering" [sic]people's [sic]posts[sic]?[sic]

[sic]


Your wrong to assume you can speak for drug users and how they think. Have you been high? No by your own admition. So you don't in the least understand what its like to be high or how one thinks while high. Your igronant beyond all get up on the matter.

 

[{|}$~\]

[sic]

If I had used drugs, would you call me a hypocrite?

 

[skadistic]

If I had used drugs, would you call me a hypocrite?

No I would call you a lier. But if you had used drugs you would be singing a diffrent tune.

And if you have an issue with my grammer and spelling deal with it. Your constant [sic] is annoying and extreamly rude.

 

[Shadylookin]

Intoxicated people don't realize they'll be prosecuted if they harm people. They often don't realize they are harming people. They often don't realize they are too intoxicated to drive.

wrong. I've been drunk before and I still knew it was wrong to drive or go on a killing spree. and even though some 70million or so americans have used drugs at one point in time we have never had 70 million murders

 

[Winston Khan]

So why so few people admit it?
From the opium problems in China, the alcohol prohibition in America to our days "war on drugs", nothing good came from it.
Our acccepted economic theories can even tell us what would happen if we would succesfully destroy current producers, the street prices would went through the roof, Joe Average would start growing coca in his winter-garden and Otto Normalverbraucher would start cooking methamphethamines in his basement.
So why keep on with an thousandfold proven to be unsuccesful policy?

I know my post is provocative, but I'm really interested in a controverse and serious discussion of this topic, so please refrain from trolling!

Have a look at the problems facing the Cannabis User in the UK at the moment. http://www.howardmarks.info/forums/topicView.asp?FID=16&TID=318.

This is only highlighting the fact that Drugs are soon to be fazed out! Personally I think taxing (currently illegal) Drugs and making them freely avaliable is the way forward.

Don't quote me on this , but I was told, the current price of an ounce of Skunk over here is astronimcally £180, normally £135.

 

[{|}$~\]

No, I would call you a liar. But if you had used drugs you would be singing a different tune.

If I had used drugs, admitted to having done so, and advised you not to do so, would you consider me a hypocrite?

 

[skadistic]

If I had used drugs, admitted to having done so, and advised you not to do so, would you consider me a hypocrite?

IF you had stopped [sic] I'd have continued conversing with you.
But you want to be a spelling/grammer nazi and as such I'm done with you.

 

[BasketCase]

the drugs can only kill the user.

Tobacco and alcohol each kill surprising numbers of non-users (roughly on the same scale as guns do!).

you can kill people below you

HEY!!! I did that joke first!

that's why driving while intoxicated is illegal. it's why if they can't handle their habbits and harm others they go to jail.

People demonstrate around a quarter million times a year that they can't handle the responsibility when they're sober.

Kind of a moot point, however. Prohibition will probably never be tried again in the U.S., and that's pretty much the end of it.

Legalize, and more people are going to use

this hasn't shown true for countries that have legalized drugs

I disagree. I've seen many such studies, and they give conflicting results. One of the problems being that it's extremely difficult to know how many people were using before the goods were made legal.

With everything else (speeding, rape, murder, guns, etc), if we want to reduce the incidence of it, we make a law against it. I find it curious that the same people who advocate legalizing drugs usually favor a ban on guns--specifically because they think it will reduce the use of guns. They shouldn't kid themselves--the only difference between guns and drugs is that guns hurt more when you stick them up your nose. If a ban works for reducing guns, it will work with drugs.

the US can't ban alcohol again with anything short of a constitutional ammendment. Besides we don't need anymore al capones

My point was that the additional number of Al Capones will be killing far fewer people a year than the drugs.

maybe it's because most people don't want to do heroin? you could give it away legally and free and i bet most people wouldn't take it.

And I bet that the number of people who would take it, would be higher than the number of people doing so now.

 

[Shadylookin]

Tobacco and alcohol each kill surprising numbers of non-users (roughly on the same scale as guns do!).

No people that break the law and drive drunk kill people, people that smoke and expose their children to the second hand smoke eventually kill people.

People demonstrate around a quarter million times a year that they can't handle the responsibility when they're sober.

what are we going to do not give people driving licenses?

Kind of a moot point, however. Prohibition will probably never be tried again in the U.S., and that's pretty much the end of it.

alcohol is no less dangerous than marijuana

I disagree. I've seen many such studies, and they give conflicting results. One of the problems being that it's extremely difficult to know how many people were using before the goods were made legal.

well it's safe to say once the substance became legal the netherlands did not collapse as a society I'm not sure why the United States would.

With everything else (speeding, rape, murder, guns, etc), if we want to reduce the incidence of it, we make a law against it. I find it curious that the same people who advocate legalizing drugs usually favor a ban on guns--specifically because they think it will reduce the use of guns.

I don't advocate the banning of guns. Why do you want to reduce the incidents of drugs use it's of no concern to you? rape, murder, and getting shot at hurts you some pothead lighting up somewhere in his house doesn't.

They shouldn't kid themselves--the only difference between guns and drugs is that guns hurt more when you stick them up your nose. If a ban works for reducing guns, it will work with drugs.

When was i ever against guns? What do you think I use on all those cfcers that just mysteriously stop posting one day

My point was that the additional number of Al Capones will be killing far fewer people a year than the drugs.

al capones are a greater threat to our society than a taxed and regulated industry.

And I bet that the number of people who would take it, would be higher than the number of people doing so now.

that stats haven't shown that, but even if that were true what's the point? god forbid people accept personal responsibility for their personal lives. if you start smoking crack you're probably going to die soon that's the risk you take.

 

[{|}$~\]

@skadistic:
Godwin's Law