Former UN drugs Czar says: "Drugs are bad mmkay"

[Brian Shanahan]

So you've come around. You agree that the severity of substance abuse is increased by legalization.

No infact your the one coming around, you've already argued that alcahol is not addictive, as Kadazzle has quoted. Also you've just tried to twist my arguement into something unrecognisable. What I was saying it is an absurd situation to be arguing a health reason for prohibition when you don't bat an eyelid at far greater health risks whish are legal.

The opposite you say? Would you like to illustrate this point? Are you saying that there isn't a black market for even highly unregulated cigarettes?

Well looking at this report from the BBC, about 19.2% of the tobacco sold in Britain is smuggled into Britain at the moment going bit the £2.5bn lost revenue estimate (I know it says "as many as a third", but the tax calculations will be far more reliable than a blind guess). So lets see gaining revenue from 80% of drugs sold in the UK. Will that be better than the current situation?

Why yes, indeed it will, and infinitely so. Why? Currently no revenues are raised from the drugs trade in the UK as it's illegal, unregulated, and untaxed!

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Orange Seeds]

No infact your the one coming around, you've already argued that alcahol is not addictive, as Kadazzle has quoted. Also you've just tried to twist my arguement into something unrecognisable. What I was saying it is an absurd situation to be arguing a health reason for prohibition when you don't bat an eyelid at far greater health risks whish are legal.

Let me make this very clear to you, because you are not getting it.

1. Those "greater health risks whish are legal"[sic] are alcohol and tobacco, correct?
This raises the question of why these two particular drugs are such a problem compared to others. what commonality do they share that other dangerous drugs do not? The most obvious is that they are legal and widely available. It is highly intuitive that something widely available will be used more, and something used more will have higher gross quantities of health problems.

It is simple probability that if there is a 20% chance of something, A, and A has an n of 100, then we'll have 20 cases of A. If there is a 50% chance of B, but B has an n of 10, then we'll only have 5 cases of B. If B had a larger population, say 100 just like A, then lo and behold B is a far greater risk.

So what I am trying to avoid is higher gross quantities of health and social problems that are brought about by making a dangerous substance widely available. Simple isn't it.

Further, in order to argue against the legalization of something such as Heroine, I am not beholden to also advocate for the criminalization of tobacco. They are two separate topics. Saying "you can't argue against Heroine usage when your society has legal access to nicotine" is absurd and stupid.

Well looking at this report from the BBC, about 19.2% of the tobacco sold in Britain is smuggled into Britain at the moment going bit the £2.5bn lost revenue estimate (I know it says "as many as a third", but the tax calculations will be far more reliable than a blind guess). So lets see gaining revenue from 80% of drugs sold in the UK. Will that be better than the current situation?

Why yes, indeed it will, and infinitely so. Why? Currently no revenues are raised from the drugs trade in the UK as it's illegal, unregulated, and untaxed!

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

You haven't demonstrated anything. Would you care to argue against my points on why revenues will be insufficient to cover costs? I made them three posts ago and you ignored them completely. They make this post of yours irrelevant until addressed.

Imagine a world where heroine addiction is half as common as nicotine addiction, you would have a largely unemployable, anti-social, unhealthy and therefore tax dependent population of 10%. Even a three of four percent shift in employment rates is sufficient to turn a thriving economy into a recession. If your tax revenues are coming from people's welfare checks then you are de facto losing revenue.

If you can argue that the majority of opiate addicts can live normal and productive lives then I might be inclined to soften my position. Or you can show that drug use won't increase in positive correspondence to availability. I don't think you can demonstrate either.

 

[CaptainF]

Drugs were all legal before the 20th century prohibition adventures. Society didn't collapse.

If you support keeping drugs illegal, you support:

#Innocents dying in militaristic anti drug raids, often times when the raids find no drugs at all, or an amount for personal use
#The devastation of much of the third world due to drug funded militias, and U.S. efforts to eradicate coca, poppy and marijuana plants by spraying toxic pesticides indiscriminately over vast tracts of land.
#The horribly racist drug prosecution system in the U.S., where by it's been proven again and again that even though white folks use more drugs more often, black people go to jail for drugs in vastly disproportionate numbers.
#Putting non-violent drug offenders in prison with some of the most hardened, violent criminals.
#The enrichment of brutally violent drug cartels around the world, and thus the destabilization of many many countries which have been in essence bought off by said cartels.
#Ruining people's lives permanently over small, personal use amounts of drugs. This includes families, and lots of young people who will forever have trouble finding a job due to drug convictions.

I could on for a while, but you get the picture.

 

[Berzerker]

Drugs were all legal before the 20th century prohibition adventures. Society didn't collapse.

If you support keeping drugs illegal, you support:

#Innocents dying in militaristic anti drug raids, often times when the raids find no drugs at all, or an amount for personal use
#The devastation of much of the third world due to drug funded militias, and U.S. efforts to eradicate coca, poppy and marijuana plants by spraying toxic pesticides indiscriminately over vast tracts of land.
#The horribly racist drug prosecution system in the U.S., where by it's been proven again and again that even though white folks use more drugs more often, black people go to jail for drugs in vastly disproportionate numbers.
#Putting non-violent drug offenders in prison with some of the most hardened, violent criminals.
#The enrichment of brutally violent drug cartels around the world, and thus the destabilization of many many countries which have been in essence bought off by said cartels.
#Ruining people's lives permanently over small, personal use amounts of drugs. This includes families, and lots of young people who will forever have trouble finding a job due to drug convictions.

I could on for a while, but you get the picture.

but we reduced consumption... I think... Didn't we?

The drug war is hypocrisy at its most vile

people are punished for using drugs because of what other drug users did... If people who dont use drugs were punished because of what somebody else did they'd be screaming bloody murder. Hypocrites

 

[Brian Shanahan]

but we reduced consumption... I think... Didn't we?

The drug war is hypocrisy at its most vile

people are punished for using drugs because of what other drug users did... If people who dont use drugs were punished because of what somebody else did they'd be screaming bloody murder. Hypocrites

Frankly it's worse, personally prohibition was brought in for politicians to look tough on those hippies/mods (delete as per appropriate side of the Atlantic) who are destroyin our beautiful country. Now it stays because politicians want to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" (as per one of the biggest killers of modern times).

 

[innonimatu]

In other news, pope says satan is bad...