Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civver_764, Jun 2, 2011.
But many of them breed before getting themselves removed....
I'm bored. Let's necro a thread!
Tell that to people accidentally shot in all those no-knock raids where they don't find any drugs at all, or the family of some pothead shot over a $20 bag of weed...yeah, a real life saver.
Except, animals have brains too!
So, since you have "exhaustively" researched the drug war, perhaps you are familiar with how wildly successful Portugal's drug decriminalization has been?
Or did you miss that in your studies, Mr. armchair academic?
The drug war and all it's militant insanity kills far more people and ruins far more lives than any illegal drug ever could.
Yeah, Carl Sagan totally screwed his brain. So did Francis Crick, for that matter. Steve Jobs? Man, what a burnout that guy is, founding a company worth billions and all.
One of the main reasons why humanity civilized itself was in order to get drunk.
Nice self-aggrandizement by the way. Are you always this arrogant? Wait, nevermind I know the answer to that one.
Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Well you didn't need the UN Global Commission to point out common sense, but it does help.
What's so sad about this is how the UN itself has an office on "Drugs and Crime" and how the UN has previously thrust itself into stamping out the drug trade. Why don't they start at the one place they can help it and abolish their own agency?
Are they smoking crack in the UN? War on drugs is more important for the world then the war on terror!
It's sort of like how many many studies commissioned by the US federal government since the 1970's have concluded that marijuana is harmless and the drug war is a failure, yet we keep playing the same wasteful, destructive game of whack-a-mole.
It's a failure. A wasteful, hurtful, hateful failure.
Hypocrisy is a trademark of politics, isn't it?
Do you mean in many government's opinions?
I hope so.
-The Drug War costs us about 60 billion a year in all the lost growth and enforcement/incarceration costs.
-The Drug War is directly responsible for the profitability of drugs. As such, addicts' cravings aren't the reason behind this murder, but the governments prosecuting the War are. Why? If we legalise the drugs, I doubt the companies selling them would be going out killing people. It is the legal status, not the cash, that is causing the issues here.
-I'd be willing to bet many of our illegal immigration issues are directly a result of the chaos the War has caused. Just because it's not a government being fought doesn't mean it can't displace countless people.
-Numerous European states have legalised/decriminalised a variety of drugs and... what's this? They haven't imploded. How can this be?
-Where there's demand, supply will follow. Until people don't crave drugs anymore, there will always be providers. Why have illegal providers who butcher people, when we could have respectable drug companies do it? They can be taxed and regulated, and people could buy marijuana or cocaine just like we do alcohol and tobacco.
-The state has no bloody right to tell us what to do with our own personal lives, for that matter. Sure, one could say drugs might increase crime... but so can alcohol! And we all know how lovely alcohol prohibition worked.
-Oh. Several drugs, including marijuana, are LESS addicting, and LESS dangerous, than alcohol and tobacco! Marijuana's banning just is ridiculous. Never mind, a large part of its banning was lobbying by textile manufacturers, who didn't wanna compete with industrial hemp. Can we smell the lies now?
I will. It's worth it. Your paragraph above is meaningless--the number of people hurt or killed in anti-drug raids is only meaningful when compared against the number of people hurt or killed by drugs themselves.
Legal drugs hurt/kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Illegal drugs, which are usually much more potent and dangerous than legal drugs, do not. Therefore: the Drug War prevents really dangerous drugs from hurting/killing people--at the hundreds-of-thousands-of-people-each-year level.
That's a loaded question. It assumes Portugal's decriminalization policy was successful. It was not. Portugal's REHAB program was successful. As are, indeed, almost all rehab programs everywhere else in the world. Drug education, prevention, and recovery programs are almost always highly successful at reducing drug problems. Portugal's turnaround was the result of its rehab program, and there's no justification for giving the credit to decriminalization.
Yes, there are people who can necro dead threads......but I'm one of the few who can actually breathe life into them and give them meaning.
...sounds to me like a reason to ban alcohol and tobacco.
But we all know how wonderfully that turned out.
Same problem again--meaningless without being compared. No, bans on tobacco and alcohol don't turn out perfectly. They never do. That doesn't mean anything.
Which is "less wonderful", drugs or the Drug War? And do you have some numbers to prove it?
Umm... you just said it's okay to prevent drugs provided the banning keeps more people from dying from it. If we ban alcohol and tobacco, SURELY that would reduce the people who die from them? How do you know that more people would die if other drugs were legal than if they weren't?
But, quite frankly, why does the state have any business telling us what we do in our private lives? It's wrong to be able to smoke pot once a week, but it's okay to keep the vast majority of your paycheck even when your fellow Americans are starving? What?
Well, we can determine that some drugs have a case for liberalisation:
Seems kind of funny marijuana's not as harmful or addicting yet is criminalised. At the very least, we should have mandatory hospitalisation instead of this moral authoritarianism.
Though a lot of the reason behind the ban of marijuana, as I recall, was industrial hemp could be a competitor. The economic higher ups may not control politics entirely, but they certainly can influence it.
Ever since Portugal liberalised its policies, violent crime has gone down. They haven't fully legalised it, but it shows that our current approach is kind of silly.
As for actual legalisation, I don't have the statistics from the Netherlands, but I haven't really heard of a surge in crime since their liberalisation, only tourism.
I can readily see the costs of Prohibition - the trillions over time. The massacres and fear. The corruption.
As for the benefits of liberalisation, we can establish that a change to using hospitals rather than prisons sounds better than what we have at least.
While a bit of an anecdote, any police officer the issue has been brought up with has said they'd rather break up a pot party than an alcohol party. Drunks are easily riled up and can become aggressive; pot smokers tend to be docile.
Ultimately, for me, I see that Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. Why should we assume it works with other drugs? Never mind Prohibition is very insulting and assumes that we're all drug addicts waiting to happen, with no self-control. Why is it okay for the government to be our nanny in this case but not provide healthcare?
Great, the UN has just wasted more money so they can tell us something we already know.
Yeah, but now the UN said it. That means politicians can pretend to endorse it while completely ignoring it. Just like the UN Binding Resolutions!
Exactly. However, note the word I underlined. Banning something like cocaine prevents more people from being hurt/killed by cocaine than are hurt/killed by drug raids. And yes, if we ban alcohol or tobacco, that would reduce the number of people who die from them.....but, and this is the part you left out, by how much?
Personally, with alcohol and tobacco: I don't care. American culture being what it is right now, bans on tobacco and alcohol will not happen in the U.S. any time soon; regardless of whether or not such bans should happen, they won't. So I'm not going to bother worrying about it.
Because that same rule holds true with everything else. Dangerous stuff that's legal almost always kills more people in the long term. When people want to stop something from hurting people, what do they do with it? They ban it.
You did just that. In your very next sentence, no less:
How we Americans spend our money is part of our private lives. Yet, unless I misunderstood you, you don't seem to have a problem with taking money from rich people to help poor people. The very same people who want drugs legalized out of concern for privacy, suddenly stop caring about privacy when it comes to dipping into the pockets of rich people to "make them pay their fair share" or whatever the current slogan is.
They do the same thing with guns vs. drugs. The same people who want to BAN guns in order to prevent guns from killing people, are trying to LEGALIZE drugs--their reason being, in order to prevent drugs from killing people. The logical disconnect there is just unbelievable. Cue cheesy joke: the only real difference between cocaine and a shotgun is that a shotgun hurts more when you shove it up your nose.
That doesn't make a case for decriminalizing. A tug of war can always be won two ways. The above disconnect can be resolved either by legalizing weed or banning it. Yes, I agree that many hypocrisies exist in politics--the fact that hypocrisy exists does not imply an answer to how it should be solved.
The two merely happened at the same time. Which doesn't mean anything. Prove specifically that the one caused the other.
The NIDA has already provided extensive proof (forty years of it) that rehab programs reduce drug use. What actually happened in Portugal is this: Portugal's rehab programs reduced drug use. Less drug use resulted in less crime. (just because you see a fire truck show up every time you see a house on fire, doesn't mean fire trucks cause fires.....)
Surpiiiiise! The Netherlands only decriminalized cannabis--their policy on other drugs, especially hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin, is even tougher than that in the United States! Plus, the Netherlands is also doing the same thing Portugal did: rehab programs. Which, as I already said (with source) are successful. False cause and effect again. It's not the decrim that reduced the Netherlands' drug problem, it's the rehab.
Source, with verifiable numbers. Or it didn't happen.
Don't bother. I've looked myself, many times, and can never find reliable statistics. How many shootings with Tommy guns? How much violence and corruption? Been there, done that, couldn't find an answer.
Unrelated side note: the desire to escape the dismal reality of the Depression was what actually caused people to turn against Prohibition, a program that was widely approved by the voters when it was first implemented. People wanted to get smashed in order to forget the Depression for half an hour at a time.
That's how we know it's false. Sadly, I'm not joking--I lost all trust in the U.N. a long time ago.
Very well, I'll give you that.
Indeed. Why would I consider the right to choose what to do with your life to be more valuable than the right to keep every penny you earn?
Drugs don't inherently hurt anyone besides the user(sans maybe their family but there's no right to not have your feelings hurt). Economics is a whole other bag of fish on the other hand. Letting someone starve because the market hasn't given them a job makes no sense, as there are not enough jobs for everyone. Charity doesn't cut it, they can't grow their own food(never mind growing your own food is going back to the Stone Age).
I'd rather we all be fed than we all get to keep 90% of our paycheck, sorry.
Good thing I'm not anti-guns. However, I'll turn this on you: don't countries with less guns have a lower murder rate? Surely, banning guns would be good for society?
Indeed, and just because the status quo exists doesn't mean that is how it should be. Just because guns, alcohol and tobacco enjoy popularity doesn't mean we shouldn't consider eliminating them.
Telling me what I already know.
Even so, has their crime rate spiked? If cannabis is so horrid, it surely would have caused chaos, especially with all that new tourism...
Easy. Apparently the money raised from cut enforcement costs/tax revenue from drug legalisation would be 60 billion per year. Apply across several decades. Bam. Easily a trillion. Going from 1971, you have 40 years. We only need to spend/lose 25 billion a year to reach the magic number.
Plus, the fact Latin America's been ripped apart by it surely has made immigration numbers swell, and in turn, how much we need to spend on social services.
How do you know this?
I'd just like to point out that this is pretty shoddy math. Firstly, you aren't taking into account inflation and fluctuations in drug prices, which would be key to any measure of costs or tax revenue. Secondly, demographics changed quite a lot these past 40 years; law enforcement costs would've been lower in the 1970s than now, due to increased population.
EDIT: In addition, some of that law enforcement money would still have to be spent on drug-related issues, even if marijuana was legalized. The reason is that people are STILL GOING TO GROW AND DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA, even if legal businesses and growers are available. People who actually grow the stuff would sell it directly to their customers (tax evasion will occur, because individual growers won't collect marijuana taxes out of mere civic duty). And you can't simply ban unauthorized growers, because you can easily grow marijuana in your backyard or in a greenhouse. Thus, you would still need the police cracking down on unauthorized growers and distributors, as well as their buyers.
See? Each of us does have circumstances under which we don't consider personal privacy a priority. People merely disagree on which ones.
So it's not actually privacy itself that is important, is it.....? No. It's the issue behind the privacy that a person considers important, and that's different for everybody. Liberals are okay with invading privacy for some reasons; conservatives are okay with invading privacy for other reasons. Therefore privacy itself is unimportant, and should not be brought up as an argument for legalizing.
I'm setting aside the rest of your post for now (otherwise the above will get buried in a gigantic quotefest). I disagree with most of what you wrote, but the above bit is more important, and the rest of your stuff can wait for later.
Can you name one particular to myself?
Separate names with a comma.