Drugs

[MrktMkr1986]

Define harmful. Yes despite the fact that they are addictive I think they should be legal.

Harmful = damaging to mental / physical health; adverse

No I didn't. That black market already existed. It exists now and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

If production is eliminated, then there wouldn't be a black market.

Actually legalizing drugs would decrease the number of people in jail, since lots of people are in jail for drug use.

Most people in jail for multiple offensives (whether they include drugs or not). Most people who are in jail for comparatively minor offensives (such as possession etc.) are given treatment.

Direct parallels with alcohol here. By this reasoning alcohol should be illegal. But it's not, because people have to take responsibility for their actions.

They usually don't, though -- otherwise 17,000 people would have survived in 2003 -- and no, not all of the 17,000 were drunk. Most of them were innocent.

TOTALLY OFF!!!!

Using drugs does not inherently infringe someone else's rights. If I go sit in a room somewhere and get high, that does not infringe your rights at all. If I rape you, that infringes your rights. See the difference? This is an easy one. I'm really surprised you would make this argument. It's completely absurd. You can't seem to separate the crime of crushing someone to death from the non-crime of getting high. Dope does not inspire people to crush other people. It doesn't even inspire them to get in a car. People choose to get in cars while they're drunk and crush someone - that's the person's fault and they should be penalized for it. I in no way, on any of these boards have advocated making it ok to crush someone with their car and I would not advocate that it is ok to rape or shoot someone. It's completely ridiculous. That quote pissed me off.

Sorry it "pissed" you off but I was trying to make a reference to drugs such as GHB, ketamine, and rohypnol. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Yes, it's a bad thing that we don't know how many people use drugs when they're illegal. But it casts a shadow over your numbers that say more people use it when they are legal. The fact is that nobody knew how many were using it when it was illegal.

Really? Then what would prompt the Alaskan Supreme Court to recriminalize marijuana in the late 80s and early 90s (after they tried legalization in 1975)? I'm very curious as to how one would explain this. In my opinion, they realized the costs outweighed the benefits of legalization -- which is what I've been trying to say the whole time.

Sure there may be benefits to legalization -- I don't doubt that. However, the costs outweigh the benefits (and anyone who says otherwise should be able prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with legalization). I have not heard ONE possible negative concerning legalization from proponents...

That doesn't sound a little over the top to you?

Over the top? Yes. In my opinion, though, the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Of their own free will.

That's rather emotionless...

I don't see crime rising because of cigarettes.

You don't see cigarette-related deaths decreasing either.

Pot isn't even addictive.

Yes it is. I will concede (something most of you are not willing to do) that not all people who use the drug will become addicted. However, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug compulsively, they're addicted -- plain and simple. About 150,000-175,000 annually are enter into some sort of treatment for marijuana addiction. I will go so far to say that anyone who says marijuana is not addictive is either misinformed, or lying to themselves in order to justify their use of the drug.

I've already explained why legalizing drugs would reduce crime, you agree with it and now you're trying to link them again.

I told you where I agreed with them and where I did not.

Addicts are ONLY hurting themselves.

Can you demonstrate to me how? I've given you example as to how addicts can hurt others. All I've been hearing is the same rhetoric over and over again -- it's time for an explanation.

Nobody has a right to control someone else's behavior (because everyone has rights).

Even if it means saving their life? If your child's "behavior" leads them to lean precariously over a ledge (or by an open window), are you just going to allow that because it's your child's "right" to go wherever he/she wants?

Just because she's your wife or mother, doesn't mean you're entitled for her to behave a certain way, it's her life.

You're absolutely right, Dan. It is her life. I am not entitled for her to behave in a certain way. However, that does not mean that her behavior will not affect me.

It should tell you something that the adults are advocating legalization and the kids are not.

Did you hear the story about parents who forced their children to panhandle for them in order to support their heroin addiction? I think I can see why some adults are advocating legalization. If I were a junkie, I would want legalization as well.

​

 

[Danoff]

Harmful = damaging to mental / physical health; adverse

It's a cost/benefits analysis conducted by each individual who chooses whether or not to do drugs. It's not for you to decide.

If production is eliminated, then there wouldn't be a black market.

You can't eliminate production. It's not gone now, and you propose no way to eliminate it. Again, this is not a difference between what you advocate and what I do, so it's a non-issue.

Most people in jail for multiple offensives (whether they include drugs or not). Most people who are in jail for comparatively minor offensives (such as possession etc.) are given treatment.

Multiple drug offenses isn't any worse than one.

They usually don't, though -- otherwise 17,000 people would have survived in 2003 -- and no, not all of the 17,000 were drunk. Most of them were innocent.

Taking responsibility for your actions is not the same thing as not committing a crime. The murders in these cases are hopefully locked behind bars where they can't commit future crimes.

Sorry it "pissed" you off but I was trying to make a reference to drugs such as GHB, ketamine, and rohypnol. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

"Sorry... but" is not much of an apology. You basically indicated that what I was advocating was the same thing as advocating that people be allowed to commit violent crimes - even though you know that's not what I'm saying... I don't see how that helps the discussion.

Sure there may be benefits to legalization -- I don't doubt that. However, the costs outweigh the benefits (and anyone who says otherwise should be able prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with legalization). I have not heard ONE possible negative concerning legalization from proponents...

Drug use may increase. I'll concede that, but who cares? Let people use drugs if they want to.

Over the top? Yes. In my opinion, though, the benefits would outweigh the costs.

For caffeine control? What benefits are there? I can only think of costs. (Not that you can use a cost/benefits approach to something like civil liberties)

That's rather emotionless...

Why should I care about people who choose to kill themselves with cigarettes?

You don't see cigarette-related deaths decreasing either.

Again, people choose to smoke. Let them.

Yes it is. I will concede (something most of you are not willing to do) that not all people who use the drug will become addicted. However, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug compulsively, they're addicted -- plain and simple. About 150,000-175,000 annually are enter into some sort of treatment for marijuana addiction. I will go so far to say that anyone who says marijuana is not addictive is either misinformed, or lying to themselves in order to justify their use of the drug.

I will save that marijuana is not addictive to the best of my knowledge. I have never used the drug and therefore not trying to justify my use of it. Name the addictive chemical in marijuana.

Can you demonstrate to me how? I've given you example as to how addicts can hurt others. All I've been hearing is the same rhetoric over and over again -- it's time for an explanation.

I've refuted your examples, and you've conceded (below). Yet you still seem to think that you've made your case.

Even if it means saving their life? If your child's "behavior" leads them to lean precariously over a ledge (or by an open window), are you just going to allow that because it's your child's "right" to go wherever he/she wants?

It's different with children. If an adult's behavior leads him to lean precariously over a ledge then he should be allowed to. Is this how you see the adult American public? As children who need to be controlled and taught by people (you) who know better?

You're absolutely right, Dan. It is her life. I am not entitled for her to behave in a certain way. However, that does not mean that her behavior will not affect me.

True, but as you said ^^^, there is nothing that can morally be done about that.

Did you hear the story about parents who forced their children to panhandle for them in order to support their heroin addiction? I think I can see why some adults are advocating legalization. If I were a junkie, I would want legalization as well.

So I'm a junkie now? I don't use drugs, never have. How do you account for adults like myself who advocate drug legalization?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It's a cost/benefits analysis conducted by each individual who chooses whether or not to do drugs. It's not for you to decide.

Multiple drug offenses isn't any worse than one.

Who said anything about multiple drug offenses?

"Sorry... but" is not much of an apology. You basically indicated that what I was advocating was the same thing as advocating that people be allowed to commit violent crimes - even though you know that's not what I'm saying... I don't see how that helps the discussion.

I did no such thing.

Drug use may increase. I'll concede that, but who cares? Let people use drugs if they want to.

Sure -- and let people commit suicide if they want to as well?

For caffeine control? What benefits are there? I can only think of costs.

You see no benefits at all? And you wonder why I consider Libertarians extreme?

(Not that you can use a cost/benefits approach to something like civil liberties)

Why not? Are individual civil liberties more important than anything and everything else?

Why should I care about people who choose to kill themselves with cigarettes?

If not for the emotion, at least for the economics.

Again, people choose to smoke. Let them.

...and people choose to commit suicide... Let them?

I will save that marijuana is not addictive to the best of my knowledge.

So I take it the fact that 150-175k people are treated annually for marijuana addiction means absolutely nothing. Just another statistic...right?

I have never used the drug and therefore not trying to justify my use of it. Name the addictive chemical in marijuana.

If I remember correctly, the THC that binds to the brains receptors can cause a psychological dependence on the feelings the user gets by smoking it.

It's different with children. If an adult's behavior leads him to lean precariously over a ledge then he should be allowed to.

Whether or not the person has the capacity to understand the ramifications of their actions?

Is this how you see the adult American public? As children who need to be controlled and taught by people (you) who know better?

Don't be ridiculous -- I know what you're hinting at. Not that I would've expected any better given your political beliefs.

So I'm a junkie now? I don't use drugs, never have. How do you account for adults like myself who advocate drug legalization?

What is the real reason why you want drugs to be legalized? Perhaps I am not understanding your motives (which is why we keep getting into these trivial quote wars).

personally I think that drugs only speed up evolution, idots die...

How thoughtful. Would you say the same thing if it were someone close to you?

This whole freedom thing is new to you right ? How would the US has ever been formed if everyone thought as you do ?

I also know what you're hinting at -- that won't work either.

 

[smellysocks12]

If I go sit in a room somewhere and get high, that does not infringe your rights at all. If I rape you, that infringes your rights. See the difference?

Maybe if you have to try it out for him to realize what your point is! 👍

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Maybe if you have to try it out for him to realize what your point is! 👍

Very original.

 

[smellysocks12]

If production is eliminated, then there wouldn't be a black market.

You CAAAAAAN'T eliminate production by making it illegal. Destroy one plantation which only means that the price goes up and the other remaining drug dealers make more money, which makes them produce more.


Stop playing sim city, you can't just eliminate something by a push on a button without having to violate many people's rights. You'd have to reinforce the law the way they do in Singapore... a police state....would you want that? NO.

 

[Danoff]

Who said anything about multiple drug offenses?

If I read it right, that’s what your statistics show.

I did no such thing.

You should reread what you wrote.

Sure -- and let people commit suicide if they want to as well?

Absolutely. It’s my life, why shouldn’t I be allowed to end it?

You see no benefits at all? And you wonder why I consider Libertarians extreme?

I see no benefits to regulation of caffeine usage. I don’t think that’s extreme at all.

Why not? Are individual civil liberties more important than anything and everything else?

No. But I don’t see how that follows.

If not for the emotion, at least for the economics.

Do they owe me their productivity? No. I can’t get upset about their lung cancer for my own pocketbook or for their loss. Because they brought it on themselves and that was their freedom.

...and people choose to commit suicide... Let them?

Yup.

So I take it the fact that 150-175k people are treated annually for marijuana addiction means absolutely nothing. Just another statistic...right?

People claim to be addicted to lots of stuff. But I don’t buy the whole psychological addiction thing.

If I remember correctly, the THC that binds to the brains receptors can cause a psychological dependence on the feelings the user gets by smoking it.

Psychological dependence is just another way of saying that they don’t want to quit because they like it. Physical addiction is the only addiction I care about (and even that I don’t care much about).

Whether or not the person has the capacity to understand the ramifications of their actions?

Are we talking retards? children? or just people who didn’t think things through?

Don't be ridiculous -- I know what you're hinting at. Not that I would've expected any better given your political beliefs.

It’s what you sound like when you start saying things like caffeine usage should be regulated. You seem to know what’s best for everyone else and society. You seem to know that people don’t actually want to use drugs, and that people actually want to work harder so that their kids can wear more expensive clothes.

What is the real reason why you want drugs to be legalized? Perhaps I am not understanding your motives (which is why we keep getting into these trivial quote wars).

The real reason I want drugs to be legalized is because it should be free. Society telling you that you can’t put chemicals of your choice into your own body is wrong, morally and logically.

I do not use illegal drugs (not that this matters to the discussion) at all, nor have I used them ever. I do drink soda (caffeine) and have taken antibiotics as well as other medicine.

The real reason I want drugs to be legalized is not for me, but for those who want to use them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You CAAAAAAN'T eliminate production by making it illegal.

Show me exactly where I said the only way to eliminate production is to make it illegal... Don't jump to conclusions.

Destroy one plantation which only means that the price goes up and the other remaining drug dealers make more money, which makes them produce more.

Sure it does. That's exactly why Maybach sells 500,000 cars @ $12,000 and Honda sells 400 Civics for $387,000.

Stop playing sim city,

You're just full of jokes today! You're on a roll!

you can't just eliminate something by a push on a button without having to violate many people's rights.

You place individual liberties above all else. Why? Granted, I believe individual liberties are important -- but when it comes to legalizing something that is already illegal (in most places) -- that is extreme.

You'd have to reinforce the law the way they do in Singapore... a police state....would you want that? NO.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Since when do we go from total personal freedom to police state? Have you never heard of "compromise"? Is there no "middle-ground" between the two. History has shown that countries with the best economies have a mix of both capitalistic and socialist policies -- like Japan and the United States. Countries that are socialist -- not so good. Countries that are capitalist -- not so good.

 

[Danoff]

Countries that are capitalist -- not so good.

Some solid examples please?

I believe individual liberties are important -- but when it comes to legalizing something that is already illegal (in most places) -- that is extreme.

So everything that is illegal should remain illegal? At that rate, eventually everything will be illegal.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Kinda jumping into this blind but... (not picking on you ledhed, yours just sparked my reply)

This whole freedom thing is new to you right ? How would the US has ever been formed if everyone thought as you do ?

There is no such thing as true freedom and never will. The world might not be so pretty.

the government aint supposed to be your daddy. When you leave the house your on your own.Adults are supposed to make descisions for themselves. It all boils down to that one thing. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Keyword... Supposed to

Behavior is one reason why we must have our "hands held" a.k.a the government. The sad part is some people are not adults (even though their age may say so) and don't know what responsibility is. Unfortunately, things not always black and white (I still have trouble grasping that) but more in grey areas.

Respect and responsibility seem like they are endangered species to me sometimes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm going to have to cut this short as I have a class to go to in a few minutes. I will edit and finish responding to posts later.

If I read it right, that’s what your statistics show.

I wasn't talking about multilpe drug offenses. I was talking about general offenses. These can include things as "minor" as speeding, to as extreme as murder. They are very few people in jail on possession -- they are almost always given treatment.

You should reread what you wrote.

I will later.

Absolutely. It’s my life, why shouldn’t I be allowed to end it?

Do you have parents? A wife? You claim you're not obligated to them -- fine. Did you take into account their feelings before you made your decision to off yourself?

I see no benefits to regulation of caffeine usage. I don’t think that’s extreme at all.

It is. Everything has a benefit and a cost.

No. But I don’t see how that follows.

...later...

Do they owe me their productivity? No. I can’t get upset about their lung cancer for my own pocketbook or for their loss. Because they brought it on themselves and that was their freedom.

If everyone held that same attitude what purpose (besides money) would there be for doctors, nurses, teachers, volunteers. The notion that "their problem is not my problem" is very __________. <<< later

Yup.

That's very cold.

People claim to be addicted to lots of stuff. But I don’t buy the whole psychological addiction thing.

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ...later...

Psychological dependence is just another way of saying that they don’t want to quit because they like it. Physical addiction is the only addiction I care about (and even that I don’t care much about).

...later...

Are we talking retards? children? or just people who didn’t think things through?

All of the above except for children. We've already established that you believe children are different than adults (though the party platform says otherwise -- I digress... ).

It’s what you sound like when you start saying things like caffeine usage should be regulated. You seem to know what’s best for everyone else and society. You seem to know that people don’t actually want to use drugs, and that people actually want to work harder so that their kids can wear more expensive clothes.

...later... That is a very useful quote.

The real reason I want drugs to be legalized is because it should be free. Society telling you that you can’t put chemicals of your choice into your own body is wrong, morally and logically.

I do not use illegal drugs (not that this matters to the discussion) at all, nor have I used them ever. I do drink soda (caffeine) and have taken antibiotics as well as other medicine.

The real reason I want drugs to be legalized is not for me, but for those who want to use them.

If freedom is your only argument, I know exactly how I'm conclude this post...

...later...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Some solid examples please?

I have to go to class -- Chile.

So everything that is illegal should remain illegal? At that rate, eventually everything will be illegal.

That is incorrect.

 

[smellysocks12]

Sure it does. That's exactly why Maybach sells 500,000 cars @ $12,000 and Honda sells 400 Civics for $387,000.

I'm sure more civics are being sold daily than Maybachs... but besides that cars can't be compared with drugs. Due to drugs being illegal the supply is the bottleneck so prices will go up when supply gets less. The production of cars depends on demand, unless you're talking about classics like the Ferrari F40.

You place individual liberties above all else. Why? Granted, I believe individual liberties are important -- but when it comes to legalizing something that is already illegal (in most places) -- that is extreme.

The way things are, isn't always the best option.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Since when do we go from total personal freedom to police state? Have you never heard of "compromise"? Is there no "middle-ground" between the two. History has shown that countries with the best economies have a mix of both capitalistic and socialist policies -- like Japan and the United States. Countries that are socialist -- not so good. Countries that are capitalist -- not so good.

It has to be one or the other because it's illegal, once you make it legal you can sit around a table and discuss it. To cease production only an incredibly controlled police state can make sure that there is no drugs at all. Death penalty is on drug importing into Singapore, and even there people still risk it due to the high price they can get there for drugs.

Besides that I believe the USA is one of the most capitalist countries in the world, maybe Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the only ones being more capitalist. If you're going to mention a country which has capitalism mixed with a socialist background any European country would be a more suitable one to mention.

 

[Danoff]

Do you have parents? A wife? You claim you're not obligated to them -- fine. Did you take into account their feelings before you made your decision to off yourself?

Should I have to? Yes it's good to consider others, but should we use this as a reason to pass a law here? Must I be forced by law to consider them? If that's the case, then you're claiming I do have a legal obligation to them - which I do not. My life is not owned by them, it is owned by me. I control it, nobody else has an right to it.

If everyone held that same attitude what purpose (besides money) would there be for doctors, nurses, teachers, volunteers. The notion that "their problem is not my problem" is very __________. <<< later

Totally untrue. Doctors, nurses, and teachers all provide very important services that are highly valued in the market.

That's very cold.

You know, I think it's very cold for you to tell me that I have no right to end my own life.

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ...later...

You dodged my criticism of it.

All of the above except for children. We've already established that you believe children are different than adults (though the party platform says otherwise -- I digress... ).

Actually it doesn't. Here's an excerpt from the party platform.

The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

Solutions: We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.

Some solid examples please?

I have to go to class -- Chile.

Here's what I found about Chile's social security system:

Chile's Social Security Lesson For The U.S.

by José Piñera

José Piñera is Chile's former secretary of labor and social security and is co-chairman of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization.

America's Social Security system will go bust in 2010. As political leaders scramble to save it, they've overlooked an obvious free-market solution that works. They need only look at Chile.

Pay-as-you-go social security systems destroy the link between contributions and benefits, between effort and reward. Everyone tries to minimize what he puts into the system while trying to maximize through political pressure what he can get out of it. That's why pay-as-you-go plans are going bankrupt all over the world.

Chile faced that problem in the late '70s. As secretary of labor and social security, I could have postponed the crisis by playing at the edges, increasing payroll taxes a little and slashing benefits a little. But instead of making some cosmetic adjustments, I decided to undertake a structural reform that would solve the problem once and for all.

We decided to save the idea of a retirement plan by basing it on a completely different concept -- one that links benefits and contributions.

Chile allowed every worker to choose whether to stay in the state-run, pay-as-you-go social security system or to put the whole payroll tax into an individual retirement account. For the first time in history we have allowed the common worker to benefit from one of the most powerful forces on earth: compound interest.

Some 93% of Chilean workers chose the new system. They trust the private sector and prefer market risk to political risk. If you invest money in the market, it could go up or down. Over a 40-year period, though, a diversified portfolio will have very low risk and provide a positive rate of real return. But when the government runs the pension system, it can slash benefits at any time.

The Chilean system is run completely by private companies. We now have 15 mutual funds competing for workers' savings.

The whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise environment.

We guaranteed benefits for the elderly -- we told those people who had already retired that they had nothing to fear from this reform. We also told people entering the labor force for the first time that they had to go to the new system.

Today, all workers in Chile are capitalists, because their money is invested in the stock market. And they also understand that if government tomorrow were to create the conditions for inflation, they would be damaged because some of the money is also invested in bonds -- around 60%. So the whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise environment.

There have been enormous external benefits: the savings rate of Chile was 10% of gross national product traditionally. It has gone up to 27% of GNP. The payroll tax in Chile is zero. Of course we have an estate tax and an income tax, but not a payroll tax. With full employment and a 27% savings rate, the rate of growth of the Chilean economy has doubled.

That does not mean that we do not have any problems in Chile, but I believe that a society based on individual freedoms -- economic, social and political -- is a much more prosperous and lively society.

Could something like this be done in the U.S.? People have said it's utopian and that nobody in the establishment would support privatization, but I believe the situation is changing.

Recently, I was invited by Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Securities. Basically, everyone agreed that a system like this is much more consistent with American values than a system created by a Prussian chancellor in the 19th century.

Of course, that does not mean that the reform will be done in the next month or the next year. I believe there's still a lot of education yet to go. But there's also a great opportunity here, and I think it's a very responsible thing to give your children and grandchildren.

So everything that is illegal should remain illegal? At that rate, eventually everything will be illegal.

That is incorrect.

If everything illegal remains illegal, then since new things are constantly becomeing illegal, eventually everything will be. It's mathematical.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Dan, before I go into my rant... you are aware that the CATO Instuitute is politically-biased, right?

Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace

Sounds a lot like Libertarianism to me.

As such, I do not believe anything that website has to say.

I'm sure more civics are being sold daily than Maybachs... but besides that cars can't be compared with drugs. Due to drugs being illegal the supply is the bottleneck so prices will go up when supply gets less.

Obviously Civics are being sold more than Maybachs. I said that to make a point. Cars and drugs can be compared -- they're both products (besides, this is simple supply and demand). Higher priced cars are sold in lower volume because the demand is usually lower (i.e. less people can afford it). Lower priced cars are sold in bigger numbers because the demand is usually higher -- and more people are able to afford it. Since when does a brand new Maybach cost $12,000? If it did, nearly everyone would have one -- and the same goes with drugs. Making it legal will make it cheaper -- and making it cheaper will increase demand/consumption.

 

[smellysocks12]

Obviously Civics are being sold more than Maybachs. I said that to make a point. Cars and drugs can be compared -- they're both products (besides, this is simple supply and demand). Higher priced cars are sold in lower volume because the demand is usually lower (i.e. less people can afford it). Lower priced cars are sold in bigger numbers because the demand is usually higher -- and more people are able to afford it. Since when does a brand new Maybach cost $12,000? If it did, nearly everyone would have one -- and the same goes with drugs. I know you're not going to buy a Civic for $380,000 (though some probably would). Making it legal will make it cheaper -- and making it cheaper will increase demand/consumption.

No, that's exactly my point. The demand/supply/price relation of drugs and cars can't be compared. Maybe a few people will buy cocain because they can afford it, but most cocain addicts aren't rich. The rich cocain users often aren't the ones causing the drug-related problems in the streets.

Price doesn't make the user with drugs. You can't get addicted to cars (unless your name is Jay Leno). A Maybach costs half a million because they are expensive to make, the price of drugs is high due to a low supply. People will buy Maybachs when they are cheap because it is something better they already have and it won't hurt them. With drugs it's the other way around, if someone doesn't use it, a lower price won't encourage him to use it either.


Over here in the Netherlands they incredibly increased the taxes on alcohol, did that lower the demand for alcohol? No it didn't at all, people are just willing to spend more on it. It's the same with drugs.

 

[emad]

Obviously Civics are being sold more than Maybachs. I said that to make a point. Cars and drugs can be compared -- they're both products (besides, this is simple supply and demand). Higher priced cars are sold in lower volume because the demand is usually lower (i.e. less people can afford it). Lower priced cars are sold in bigger numbers because the demand is usually higher -- and more people are able to afford it. Since when does a brand new Maybach cost $12,000? If it did, nearly everyone would have one -- and the same goes with drugs. Making it legal will make it cheaper -- and making it cheaper will increase demand/consumption.

A civic (or any other reasonably priced car) is a necessity. A Maybach is a desire. THAT is the ultimate difference.

Making it cheaper and legal will increase consumption, but not to a huge extent. Keep this in mind - the findings of these studies that show the consumption of drugs in countries where they're banned are almost guaranteed to be skewed. The reason being is that drugs are illegal - admitting to using them would mean admitting to committing a 'crime' which can get you barred in jail for 3 to 5 years depending on the state you are in. If I was being interviewed or being given a questionairre, I can almost guarantee that I'll deny ever having used it as will many other people. Make it legal and it's no longer a taboo subject. People can more freely admit to doing it and they won't face any scrutiny or legal pressure from anyone.

 

[Danoff]

Sounds a lot like Libertarianism to me.

As such, I do not believe anything that website has to say.

No hold on a second. Just because they're libertarian doesn't mean they're wrong. It doesn't mean they're publishing false information.

...or are you saying anyone who is libertarian is not to be believed?


The cato institute does fantastic research. They're very scholarly about their work. Don't just dismiss it because you disagree with their politics.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No hold on a second. Just because they're libertarian doesn't mean they're wrong. It doesn't mean they're publishing false information.

You misunderstood me. I never said they publish false information. I'm saying the information they publish will be in favor of YOUR arguments. If that's the kind of game we're going to play, I can think of PLENTY of Conservative websites to source to counter many of their claims -- but my goal was to try to rely on UNBIASED information.

...or are you saying anyone who is libertarian is not to be believed?

I would NEVER say anything like that. I believe Libertarians to be highly intelligent and usually highly educated people. Many of their beliefs, however, do not appeal to me (or many people for that matter).

The cato institute does fantastic research.

I don't doubt that! Not even for one second. However, the research that is provided is NOT FAIR AND BALANCED. It does not show BOTH SIDES of the story -- it only uses its information to advance their Libertarian beliefs (which is why I refuse to use them as a source). I'm not saying you can't use them as a source, but I have unbiased information that proves that Chilean economics is the closest to Libertarianism as you can get -- and the NEGATIVE aspects of their policies.

They're very scholarly about their work. Don't just dismiss it because you disagree with their politics.

Again, I do not doubt that their work is scholarly. However, their work is clearly biased in favor of a Libertarian attitude. That would be like me pulling up a quote from the "National Review". It wouldn't be fair.

No, that's exactly my point. The demand/supply/price relation of drugs and cars can't be compared. Maybe a few people will buy cocain because they can afford it, but most cocain addicts aren't rich. The rich cocain users often aren't the ones causing the drug-related problems in the streets.

So by making cocaine cheaper, you think that will help things along?

Price doesn't make the user with drugs. You can't get addicted to cars (unless your name is Jay Leno). A Maybach costs half a million because they are expensive to make, the price of drugs is high due to a low supply. People will buy Maybachs when they are cheap because it is something better they already have and it won't hurt them. With drugs it's the other way around, if someone doesn't use it, a lower price won't encourage him to use it either.

Perhaps. But current users will be encouraged.

Over here in the Netherlands they incredibly increased the taxes on alcohol, did that lower the demand for alcohol? No it didn't at all, people are just willing to spend more on it. It's the same with drugs.

How much is an "incredible increase" in taxes? 30%? 60%?

A civic (or any other reasonably priced car) is a necessity. A Maybach is a desire. THAT is the ultimate difference.

A Civic is not a necessity -- capitalism obviously has you taking things for granted (or maybe you grew up with rich parents). A car is a privilege regardless of cost. Some people cannot afford to pay for insurance or in my case repair costs. The comparison between cars and drugs was simply because they both follow the rules of supply/demand.

Making it cheaper and legal will increase consumption, but not to a huge extent.

In the country where the nearest gas station is 60 miles away from the next gas station -- sure. In the inner cities where drugs use is more frequent (and easier to obtain) I don't think so. There is big difference between a primary social environment and a secondary social environment.

Keep this in mind - the findings of these studies that show the consumption of drugs in countries where they're banned are almost guaranteed to be skewed. The reason being is that drugs are illegal - admitting to using them would mean admitting to committing a 'crime' which can get you barred in jail for 3 to 5 years depending on the state you are in. If I was being interviewed or being given a questionairre, I can almost guarantee that I'll deny ever having used it as will many other people.

You are aware that these surveys are anonymous, right? Unless the survey specifically asks for your name, there is no way to tell who the survey is coming from.

Make it legal and it's no longer a taboo subject.

You're right -- which would increase consumption. Certain things need to stay taboo in an effort to protect individual liberties.

 

[HID45]

Drugs, hmmm... Not my cup of tea. Don't use them, don't want them. don't need them. Still, as drugs are major source of criminalism I support maximum penalties for drug possession and abuse.

 

[emad]

A Civic is not a necessity -- capitalism obviously has you taking things for granted (or maybe you grew up with rich parents). A car is a privilege regardless of cost. Some people cannot afford to pay for insurance or in my case repair costs. The comparison between cars and drugs was simply because they both follow the rules of supply/demand.

You live in New York - a place with an excellent public transit system. Move to Houston and you will find it completely impossible to go from place to place without a car because their transit system covers only certain areas of downtown. And this is one of the largest cities in the US. Even a bicycle isn't enough because of how big and spread out the city is. My town is similar in that it's spread out. While there is a transit system here, the bus stops are sparsely spaced and the schedules are very lacking - In most cases, you'll have to wait outside for 30 minutes to an hour in a remote location for your bus to arrive. Then you'll walk for 20 minutes in -30C weather to get to your home from your bus stop. I stand by what I said. A car is a necessity in most areas.

In the country where the nearest gas station is 60 miles away from the next gas station -- sure. In the inner cities where drugs use is more frequent (and easier to obtain) I don't think so. There is big difference between a primary social environment and a secondary social environment.

In a small town, it may be harder to purchase, but seeds aren't hard to come by. A few searches on the internet will find you a plethora of reputable places that will ship them out to you so you can have your own plant in your own home. Regardless of the city and it's size, I can almost guarantee that there will be some marijuana floating around.

You're right -- which would increase consumption. Certain things need to stay taboo in an effort to protect individual liberties.

The hell you talking about "protecting individual liberties"? If anything, that's restricting them by not allowing me to do as I please with my life. It's not causing harm to anyone but myself. I'm not blowing smoke into people's faces. I'm sitting in my back yard having a few tokes and watching a dvd after. Why is that illegal?

Marijuana was banned in the 1930s - a time when people were poorly educated and science was nowhere near what it is today. The substance was banned under false pretenses and the opposition to it created some of the wildest lies imagineable. Don't believe me? Watch the movie Reefer Madness. Written in the '30s as a propaganda film to help ban Marijuana.

 

[Danoff]

Still, as drugs are major source of criminalism I support maximum penalties for drug possession and abuse.

Why?

...and drugs are not a major source of criminal activity - people are. Drugs don't cause people to become criminals. People become criminals of their own free will.

So why do you support maximum penalities for something that doesn't affect you at all?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why?

...and drugs are not a major source of criminal activity - people are. Drugs don't cause people to become criminals. People become criminals of their own free will.

So why do you support maximum penalities for something that doesn't affect you at all?

The hell you talking about "protecting individual liberties"? If anything, that's restricting them by not allowing me to do as I please with my life. It's not causing harm to anyone but myself. I'm not blowing smoke into people's faces. I'm sitting in my back yard having a few tokes and watching a dvd after. Why is that illegal?

If I give money to a terrorist organization (say for example, a terrorist organization that plots to fly airplanes into the Freedom Tower right after completion), am I committing treason? I may not be the one in cockpit of the private plane that's about to crash into the building, but I sure as hell had something to do with the finances. Do you see the connection I am trying to make? YOU may not be the one harming someone directly -- but that does not mean that drugs do not harm people.

Marijuana was banned in the 1930s - a time when people were poorly educated and science was nowhere near what it is today.

Funny you should mention that. The theory of evolution can be dated back to 18th and 19th century science. Just because it's old that makes the theory invalid? Freudian psychology is the basis for much of the psychology we use today. Just because he was drug addict (yes, it was legal back then) and his theories are nearly over a century old, does that make everything we learned about psychology invalid? Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced that age ALWAYS has anything to do with the validity of education and science. Sometimes, yes it does -- but not always as I have shown above.

The substance was banned under false pretenses and the opposition to it created some of the wildest lies imagineable.

Why go through all the trouble to tell people something is bad? Why spend millions of dollars every year to discourage people from using narcotics? Who do you think benefits from the criminalization of drugs?

Give me a break...

Don't believe me? Watch the movie Reefer Madness. Written in the '30s as a propaganda film to help ban Marijuana.

What's with proponents and this damn movie? Can't you come up with any other source instead of some stupid B&W film from the Great Depression? Granted, I'll still watch the movie as soon as I get the chance -- but I seriously doubt it'll be as "enlightening" as your trying to make it out to be.

Drugs, hmmm... Not my cup of tea. Don't use them, don't want them. don't need them. Still, as drugs are major source of criminalism I support maximum penalties for drug possession and abuse.

Exactly right.

 

[emad]

Why go through all the trouble to tell people something is bad? Why spend millions of dollars every year to discourage people from using narcotics? Who do you think benefits from the criminalization of drugs?

Drug dealers. $10 for just under 1 gram of a weed that could potentially crop up in a person's back yard.

What's with proponents and this damn movie? Can't you come up with any other source instead of some stupid B&W film from the Great Depression? Granted, I'll still watch the movie as soon as I get the chance -- but I seriously doubt it'll be as "enlightening" as your trying to make it out to be.

Because that stupid movie marked the beginning of the anti-marijuana movement. That stupid movie is the reason most of this started in the first place. That stupid movie had more half assed lies with no basis in it than anything I've ever seen - including michael moore movies. That movie is also what caused people to go around the country preaching about the evils of marijuana.

This quote is from the first two minutes of the film it gets far, FAR worse.

The film you are about to witness may startle you. It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasise the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly-increasing numbers. Marijuana is that drug - a violent narcotic - an unspeakable scourge - The Real Public Enemy Number One!!

It's first effect is sudden, violent, uncontrollable laughter; then come dangerous hallucinations, space expands - time slows down, almost stands still... fixed. Ideas come next, conjuring up monstrous extravagances the total inability to direct thoughts, the loss of all power to resist physical emotions...leading finally to acts of shocking violence...ending often in incurable insanity.

The scenes and incidents, while fictionalized for the purposes of this story, are based upon actual research into the results of marijuana addiction.

All we have now is prohibition. Drug dealers are reaping crazy profits and none are going to the government for obvious reasons. People are going to prison for years at a time for simple possession charges. People are being forced into rehab centers paid for by your tax dollars so that they can be helped taken off of a drug they were never addicted to in the first place. Don't you dare give me the "thc is addictive" crap. It never has been, and it never will be. Even heavy users of marijuana (1 gram or more per day) never have problems when they need to stop for weeks or months at a time. It's all in whether or not the person him/herself wants to stop. If they choose to stop, there is nothing to stop them, and nothing to make that process difficult. This isn't a chemical addiction where the body becomes accustomed to the chemical and craves it. It's all whether or not you want to crave it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Drug dealers. $10 for just under 1 gram of a weed that could potentially crop up in a person's back yard.

That makes absolutely no sense. The government would legalize drugs in an effort to create drug dealers?

Because that stupid movie marked the beginning of the anti-marijuana movement.

Really? Reefer madness came out in 1936. Marijuana was made illegal in Turkey in 1890. Marijuana was also outlawed in the following states in the following years:

California = 1915
Texas = 1919
Louisiana = 1924
New York (thankfully) = 1927

Greek dictators cracked down on the use of pot in 1920. In 1928, Great Britian banned the use of marijuana. And finally in 1934 the Chinese government took steps to eliminate the cultivation of and criminalize marijuana. The movie may have been instrumental in the widespread criminalization in the United States of pot AFTER it was released (given the fact that in 1937 pot was taxed so heavily no one could afford it) -- but why is that a bad thing? Apparently a few US states and other countries realized what I've been trying to say the whole time. THE COSTS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.

That stupid movie is the reason most of this started in the first place.

No it isn't... and I proved why. You still have not given me a reason why the government (US or foreign) would want to criminalize drugs. The theory that weed was banned in certain US states because Mexican immigrants were targets may/may not be true -- but how would you explain the criminalization of pot in OTHER COUNTRIES?

That stupid movie had more half assed lies with no basis in it than anything I've ever seen - including michael moore movies.

What's your point given the fact that other countries were moving towards criminalization?

That movie is also what caused people to go around the country preaching about the evils of marijuana.

That's why it was banned in New York almost an entire DECADE before the movie was released. That makes sense.

All we have now is prohibition. Drug dealers are reaping crazy profits and none are going to the government for obvious reasons.

If the benefits outweigh the costs, why is it still illegal? If legalization has been tried in the United States, why has it moved back towards criminalization?

People are going to prison for years at a time for simple possession charges.

Hypothetical situation: Should I go to jail if I carry a tape with evidence relating to my financial involvement with the 9/11 attacks. It's simple possession. I never ACTUALLY committed any PHSYICAL crimes...

People SHOULD go to jail for "simple possession".

People are being forced into rehab centers paid for by your tax dollars so that they can be helped taken off of a drug they were never addicted to in the first place.

So you're telling me 160,000 people every year are lying about their addictions to get into rehab... classic.

Don't you dare give me the "thc is addictive" crap. It never has been, and it never will be.

Keep telling yourself that. Better yet, tell that to the 160,000 people who check themselves into rehab for marijuana addiction. At least they are willing to admit that they have a problem.

Even heavy users of marijuana (1 gram or more per day) never have problems when they need to stop for weeks or months at a time.

If you're going to lie about something, at least back it up with evidence. Studies show that heavy users DO experience withdrawal symptoms if they quit suddenly.

It's all in whether or not the person him/herself wants to stop.

How can you stop if you're addicted to something?

If they choose to stop, there is nothing to stop them, and nothing to make that process difficult.

Except for the withdrawal symptoms of course.

This isn't a chemical addiction where the body becomes accustomed to the chemical and craves it. It's all whether or not you want to crave it.

An addiction is an addiction -- whether it's chemical or "all in someone's head".

 

[ledhed]

You have not a clue..withdrwl symptoms from pot ? If you only knew how foolish you sound . So called "facts" as you are posting are a major reason why people think the government if full of crap about pot . repeating false statements backed by faulty research still wont make it true . Reguardless how many time you repeat it. You really should go back and read on the history of pot prohibition in the US . The "why" along with the when . The fact that anyone can grow pot and its extremely hard to TAX and regulate is a major reason why its been prohibited along with RELIGION in some countries..TURKEY ? You gotta be kidding me..Because others are doing stupid crap is not a good reason for the US to join them . BTW your arguments are extremely hollow and sound like propaganda sound bites from the 50 's . Its almost like watching a Monty Python skit. You still have not addressed why beer is legal and pot is not. Try that on ..until you do the rest of your arguments are supercilious .

California = 1915
Texas = 1919
Louisiana = 1924
New York (thankfully) = 1927

Interesting you bring this up..every one of these passed legislation to address percieved dangers from MINORITYS and immigrants .
Chinese
Mexicans
Blacks
Blacks and others.
Big black buck gonna get high and rape why lilly white daughter..or worse gonna wanna marry her. That TYPE of danger.

 

[Danoff]

You still have not addressed why beer is legal and pot is not.

👍

It's addictive too, by his definition.

withdrwl symptoms from pot ?

👍 never heard of that before.

Again, I do not doubt that their work is scholarly. However, their work is clearly biased in favor of a Libertarian attitude. That would be like me pulling up a quote from the "National Review". It wouldn't be fair.

Feel free to quote the national review. I'm certain that it's a decent source of information.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

BTW your arguments are extremely hollow and sound like propaganda sound bites from the 50 's .

I'm not even going to comment on what your arguments sound like.

You still have not addressed why beer is legal and pot is not. Try that on ..until you do the rest of your arguments are supercilious .

Obviously you haven't been thoroughly reading my posts -- only picking at certain pieces here and there. Alcohol is legal for one reason and one reason only. Social acceptance. Do I think it's right? No. By saying alcohol is more dangerous than pot, you're not making a good argument in favor of the legalization of marijuana -- you're making an argument in favor of the criminalization of alcohol.

Interesting you bring this up..every one of these passed legislation to address percieved dangers from MINORITYS and immigrants .
Chinese
Mexicans
Blacks
Blacks and others.
Big black buck gonna get high and rape why lilly white daughter..or worse gonna wanna marry her. That TYPE of danger.

I'm not going to comment on that either.

It's addictive too, by his definition.

Yes, it is. And you're still making a case for the criminalization of alcohol.

never heard of that before.

Even though approximately 160,000 people annually seek help for marijuana addiction.

Feel free to quote the national review. I'm certain that it's a decent source of information.

OK, but it is a "right"-leaning website...

The fact that anyone can grow pot and its extremely hard to TAX and regulate is a major reason why its been prohibited

Anyone can buy tobacco seeds and rolling paper too...

Saying "the fact that anyone can grow pot and its extremely hard to TAX and regulate is a major reason why its been prohibited" is just plain wrong -- especially given the existance of cigarettes.

 

[Danoff]

Ok Brian,

So what I'm getting from you is that alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited - which I think marginalizes your argument as quite extreme (not that my argument is any less extreme).

So what about the lesson we learned from the prohibition?

Anyway this is the game we play. There really are only two ways this makes sense. Either it's all illegal (which is government intervention in private life in a HUGE way) or it's all legal (which is much easier to deal with).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok Brian,

So what I'm getting from you is that alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited - which I think marginalizes your argument as quite extreme (not that my argument is any less extreme).

Correct.

So what about the lesson we learned from the prohibition?

In theory it was good -- it was the way it was implemented that caused all of the problems. Statistics show both benefits and costs relating to Prohibition. The reason why Prohibition ended (poor implementation in my opinion) is because the costs outweigh the benefits. I maintain that if it had been implemented differently, it could have worked -- and to everyone's benefit.

Anyway this is the game we play. There really are only two ways this makes sense. Either it's all illegal (which is government intervention in private life in a HUGE way) or it's all legal (which is much easier to deal with).

It still sounds as if you place personal liberty above all else -- and no, making all drugs legal will not make things easier to deal with.