Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: The Comrade wrote: show me the positive affects on society, organized crime aside.


how will it positively affect households?
how will it positively effect education?
how will it positively effect projects?
how will it positively effect anything other then organized crime?
Try reading it; that might work.
It is Prohibition that creates the conditions which lead to a worsening of most of the problems we now see in society. Prohibition has put us all in harms way and serves only to provide a profitable market for criminals and terrorists.

Prohibition is strongly associated with: (1) increased violence (as in inner-city drive-by shootings or bombs in places like Colombia); (2) preventing the medical use of marijuana for desperately ill people; (3) keeping a small group of criminals extremely rich (it's a $300 billion industry); (4) the enormous costs of enforcement ($50 billion last year, including about $12 billion just to enforce marijuana laws alone); (5) the ruined communities and families because a breadwinner is sent to prison (at a cost of around $50 billion to house prisoners, plus an estimated $25,000 loss to the community per prisoner).



once again you didn't explain anything.


how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?


now i asked you to put organized crime aside, but rather you just ignored everything i said and repeated yourself.


now answer the questions, or i'm going to stop wasting my time, as it will clearly indicate you have no ideas or thoughts of your own, only what you see fellow posters write.

[ieatfood]

The Comrade wrote:


how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?




by legalizing drugs, what you do is destroy the black market for drugs. When drugs are legal, their price will plummet and thus there will be no profit in selling drugs illegally. Thus, drug dealers and gangsters will have nothing more to do. All the crime that is drug related will no longer occur. That is how legalization will reduce crime.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?


People won't go to jail and have their freedom destroyed for nothing.

That's the positive that matters.

[mathurin]

ill answer this in 2 ways, first in my normal voice, then in a kind of high pitched squeaky voice (all hail monty python)

but seriously, i will assume you mean all drugs that are commonly abused, including things like valium, meth and such

The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?

lower costs mean less household income spent on the "recreational usage" of drugs
of course it will also have the negative effect of increasing the amount of drugs done in the household

The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?

by letting the kids who wish to waste their life do so, schools will become a less disrupted place to learned
of course it would lower the average education level of the nation, making it more polarized, the educational haves and have nots, we are already feeling the begining affects of that though

The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?

the whole gang reduction thing, im sure you have seen it many times

The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?


spend less money on law enforcement?





still, i dont think the net effect will be a positive one
MJ and opium only is my stance, softer drugs that just make people stupid and lazy merely make those willing to become so less of a burden on the rest of us in one way, more of one in another way (too lazy to steal, but also too lazy to work)
harder drugs tend to increase violent tendencies, i have been a shoe salesman to (what i assume was) a person on meth, it was like he had some extreme form of ADD, too much energy with no direction, not a good thing

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?


People won't go to jail and have their freedom destroyed for nothing.

That's the positive that matters.


that doesn't answer the question, try again.

[The Comrade]

ieatfood wrote:

by legalizing drugs, what you do is destroy the black market for drugs. When drugs are legal, their price will plummet and thus there will be no profit in selling drugs illegally. Thus, drug dealers and gangsters will have nothing more to do. All the crime that is drug related will no longer occur. That is how legalization will reduce crime.





doesn't answer the questions. try again.

[The Comrade]

first off, thank you for actually answering the questions, rather then dodging them.


mathurin wrote:
lower costs mean less household income spent on the "recreational usage"
of drugs
of course it will also have the negative effect of increasing the amount of drugs done in the household


i was actually going to mention that. money spent on drugs would most likely go down, but then you would just have more drug use in said household, which brings along all sorts of problems.


mathurin wrote: by letting the kids who wish to waste their life do so, schools will become a less disrupted place to learned
of course it would lower the average education level of the nation, making it more polarized, the educational haves and have nots, we are already feeling the begining affects of that though

don't forget that things like welfare will increase, unemployment, and the overall degrading of the american society.

but who cares when your country falls to s**t? as long as I'm allowed to snort a few lines or a smoke a few rocks, nothing else matters.


mathurin wrote: the whole gang reduction thing, im sure you have seen it many times

but isn't a second problem of ghettos drug use and/or apathy? why get a better job to pay for your addiction when it's much cheaper and easier to attain?






mathurin wrote: spend less money on law enforcement?

and that money then goes to healthcare, welfare, homeless shelters, rehab, etc etc etc. it's not like this huge chunk of cash is just going to end up in the treasury, it's going to end up divided into other programs.






mathurin wrote: still, i dont think the net effect will be a positive one
MJ and opium only is my stance, softer drugs that just make people stupid and lazy merely make those willing to become so less of a burden on the rest of us in one way, more of one in another way (too lazy to steal, but also too lazy to work)
harder drugs tend to increase violent tendencies, i have been a shoe salesman to (what i assume was) a person on meth, it was like he had some extreme form of ADD, too much energy with no direction, not a good thing

but who cares if everything falls to hell?


as long as i have the right to ruin my body, and my mind, what really matters?

[mathurin]

i want you to know that i am in large part being a devils advocate, you asked some questions which nobody else answered properly, so while i may be able to pull one small positive item out of what i think will be a negative net affect, it doesnt change the net effect
in order for any drug legalization to work we will have to change many of our social organizations and methods

The Comrade wrote:
mathurin wrote: by letting the kids who wish to waste their life do so, schools will become a less disrupted place to learned
of course it would lower the average education level of the nation, making it more polarized, the educational haves and have nots, we are already feeling the begining affects of that though

don't forget that things like welfare will increase, unemployment, and the overall degrading of the american society.

but who cares when your country falls to s**t? as long as I'm allowed to snort a few lines or a smoke a few rocks, nothing else matters.

yes, thats why i mentioned the negative affect, which we are already experiencing, to cancel this negative affect we would have to place drug tests on all gov assistance programs

the biggest problem i see with our education is that we fail to let people fail, we have this great egalitarian ideal in america, and it generally means dumbing everything down to the level of the lazy and/or stupid, increased drug usage would increase the drop outs and in effect do what we are not doing, culling the herd

but, this would all create a type of class system, which we dont like to think of in america

The Comrade wrote:
mathurin wrote: the whole gang reduction thing, im sure you have seen it many times

but isn't a second problem of ghettos drug use and/or apathy? why get a better job to pay for your addiction when it's much cheaper and easier to attain?

as far as i know (i dont, havent been in a ghetto) gangs are one of the biggest reason ghettos stay the way they are, the only way to succeed/get out of the ghetto is to avoid gangs, but doing so places one in a bad position for many years

destroying or reducing the gangs ability to make money will reduce their buying power, and their sway over young people

ghettos will not change overnight, the apathy you speak of will not go away, at best we can keep it from spreading to a new generation

The Comrade wrote:
mathurin wrote: spend less money on law enforcement?

and that money then goes to healthcare, welfare, homeless shelters, rehab, etc etc etc. it's not like this huge chunk of cash is just going to end up in the treasury, it's going to end up divided into other programs.


i know, as i said, we would need to change our operations, drug tests on all gov assistance, people claim that it is possible to be a self reliant individual and still use drugs, all i can say is, if you are on welfare then you should not be spending money on such a frivolity



The Comrade wrote:
mathurin wrote: still, i dont think the net effect will be a positive one
MJ and opium only is my stance, softer drugs that just make people stupid and lazy merely make those willing to become so less of a burden on the rest of us in one way, more of one in another way (too lazy to steal, but also too lazy to work)
harder drugs tend to increase violent tendencies, i have been a shoe salesman to (what i assume was) a person on meth, it was like he had some extreme form of ADD, too much energy with no direction, not a good thing

but who cares if everything falls to hell?


as long as i have the right to ruin my body, and my mind, what really matters?
which is why i was saying go with opium and MJ, legalizing them will reduce the demand for other, harder drugs, remove the whole gang thing and not result in an increase in crime
again, place drug tests on gov programs to keep the lazy from them, something i think we should already do

[The Comrade]

mathurin wrote: i want you to know that i am in large part being a devils advocate, you asked some questions which nobody else answered properly, so while i may be able to pull one small positive item out of what i think will be a negative net affect, it doesnt change the net effect
in order for any drug legalization to work we will have to change many of our social organizations and methods

and is that honestly worth full drug legalization? espeically considering the negative effects that have been brought up? the two together would not change america over all. granted, there would be changes, and problems solved, but problems would merely open up in new areas.


mathurin wrote: yes, thats why i mentioned the negative affect, which we are already experiencing, to cancel this negative affect we would have to place drug tests on all gov assistance programs

the biggest problem i see with our education is that we fail to let people fail, we have this great egalitarian ideal in america, and it generally means dumbing everything down to the level of the lazy and/or stupid, increased drug usage would increase the drop outs and in effect do what we are not doing, culling the herd

but, this would all create a type of class system, which we dont like to think of in america

i agree that things are too easy, and getting rid of that "no child left behind" mentality would honestly do the country good, but at the cost of full drug legalization? i'll keep a dumbed down america, thank you.


mathurin wrote: as far as i know (i dont, havent been in a ghetto) gangs are one of the biggest reason ghettos stay the way they are, the only way to succeed/get out of the ghetto is to avoid gangs, but doing so places one in a bad position for many years

destroying or reducing the gangs ability to make money will reduce their buying power, and their sway over young people

ghettos will not change overnight, the apathy you speak of will not go away, at best we can keep it from spreading to a new generation

gangs are indeed a scourge on ghettos. drug use, however, is one of the biggest reasons why there's that "born in the ghetto, stay in the ghetto" mentality. drug abuse weighs heavily on ghettos, and ties into thigns like education and home life, which we've already covered.



mathurin wrote: i know, as i said, we would need to change our operations, drug tests on all gov assistance, people claim that it is possible to be a self reliant individual and still use drugs, all i can say is, if you are on welfare then you should not be spending money on such a frivolity

agreed.


mathurin wrote: which is why i was saying go with opium and MJ, legalizing them will reduce the demand for other, harder drugs, remove the whole gang thing and not result in an increase in crime
again, place drug tests on gov programs to keep the lazy from them, something i think we should already do

marijuana i have no problem legalizing, as i've stated before. opium however i somewhat of an issue with. when i look at things like the opium war it completely changes my opinion of the drug.

[ieatfood]

I agree with the comrade

There are things that will happen to society, culturally that cannot be easily foreseen if you leagalize all drugs

I would never advocate that.

There are easier ways to deal with gangs than legalize drugs. One way is to pass laws that are less criminal friendly and allow police to crack down on gangs without so much legal crap in the way. For example, send swat teams into every gang member's home.

The ACLU would have a fit, but what else is new.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote:
how will legalized drugs effect households in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect education in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect ghettos in a positive manner?
how will legalized drugs effect anything in a positive manner, other then organized crime?


People won't go to jail and have their freedom destroyed for nothing.

That's the positive that matters.

that doesn't answer the question, try again.

It certainly doesn't, because those questions are not relevant to whether or not something should be legal. How does this forum affect Ghettos in a positive manner? It doesn't have any difference on the Ghettos, because it's not intended to. It's merely a person exercising freedom of property. How does soda pop affect ghettos, education, in a positive manner? I seriously doubt it has any positive effect, yet it does not occur to us to ban soda pop. It isn’t intended to benefit those things…and it doesn’t need to justify its existence.

Your qrestions do not bear relevance to whether or not something should be legal.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

It certainly doesn't, because those questions are not relevant to whether or not something should be legal. How does this forum affect Ghettos in a positive manner? It doesn't have any difference on the Ghettos, because it's not intended to. It's merely a person exercising freedom of property. How does soda pop affect ghettos, education, in a positive manner? I seriously doubt it has any positive effect, yet it does not occur to us to ban soda pop. It isn’t intended to benefit those things…and it doesn’t need to justify its existence.

Your qrestions do not bear relevance to whether or not something should be legal.

completely stupid comparison grandmaster.

and my questions are relevant. they are extremely relevant. extreme individualism isn't a good thing grandmaster. try thinking of "the big picture" for a second.

[slitedeviance]

Here's a question then...

Why the hell should people be allowed cars? I mean, they are responsible for more deaths than drugs each year, they are a large contributing factor in the ecological problems on our planet if you believe those pesky scientists and their "evidence".

Surely an argument can be put foreward that as there are alternatives to car ownership (public transport, walking) then we can make do without. Cars serve no purpose short of forming part of the luxuries we enjoy. If it's causing harm then it needs to be done away with in the same way as drugs are currently illegal because of the perceived harm they cause. The Greater Good has been mentioned so surely it's in everyones interest to do away with the car...

Also, it's a fallacy to think that legalising drugs would increase cosumption by any sort of significant percentage. Drugs are freely available everywhere, around the world. The costs of medical treatment for OD'ing idiots would not rise, because the idiots already have as much skag as they want. Regulation would actually mean an end to K being cut with talcum powder, or crack scored up with weed killer. Everyones safer.

[mathurin]

slitedeviance wrote: Here's a question then...

Why the hell should people be allowed cars? I mean, they are responsible for more deaths than drugs each year, they are a large contributing factor in the ecological problems on our planet if you believe those pesky scientists and their "evidence".

Surely an argument can be put foreward that as there are alternatives to car ownership (public transport, walking) then we can make do without. Cars serve no purpose short of forming part of the luxuries we enjoy. If it's causing harm then it needs to be done away with in the same way as drugs are currently illegal because of the perceived harm they cause. The Greater Good has been mentioned so surely it's in everyones interest to do away with the car...

because people are hurt in automobile _accidents_
something has to go wrong for cars to hurt people

and non-medical drug use is inherently destructive
do you understand the difference or should i spell it out more

[ja]

Recreational use of drugs is no more inherently harmful than automobiles. Most of the damage cause by drugs is accidental too. Unknown potencies and unknown impurities (both of which are a result of prohibition) cause a great deal of the harm from illicit drugs. In fact, the 2 most toxic recreational drugs (excluding impurities and unknown potencies) appear to be nicotine and alcohol. Both are toxic and carcinogenic.

Likewise, although you'd like to divorce automobile accidents from the damage caused by cars, you cannot do this any more than you can separate drugs from thier unintended side effects. Both are the inevitable results of using the item in question. Furthermore, cars operating completely normally certainly produce many pollutants, which arguably shortens all of our life expectancies.

I've misjudged you, mathurin (in the legalizing all drugs thread). I see in this thread that you are looking at both sides of the argument. If you come to a different conclusion than me, I can't fault you for that. Perhaps if you were caught on the losing end of a nanny state law, like me, you would see things differently.

Harm caused by using drugs is harm caused by individuals, mostly to themselves. This is regrettable.

Harm caused by prohibition is harm cause by our government, entirely to it's citizens. This is unforgivable.

[mathurin]

ja wrote: Recreational use of drugs is no more inherently harmful than automobiles. Most of the damage cause by drugs is accidental too. Unknown potencies and unknown impurities (both of which are a result of prohibition) cause a great deal of the harm from illicit drugs. In fact, the 2 most toxic recreational drugs (excluding impurities and unknown potencies) appear to be nicotine and alcohol. Both are toxic and carcinogenic.

just because the side effects are unintentional does not make them accidental

using a drug outside of medical treatment causes damage
using a car in the proper manner will not damage anything (this is not the environmental section, so keep global warming out of it) the car is not inherently dangerous because improper use causes damage

are you stating that drugs of known purities can be used without medical observation do not cause damage?

ja wrote:
Likewise, although you'd like to divorce automobile accidents from the damage caused by cars, you cannot do this any more than you can separate drugs from thier unintended side effects. Both are the inevitable results of using the item in question. Furthermore, cars operating completely normally certainly produce many pollutants, which arguably shortens all of our life expectancies.

not the environment thread, smoking pot releases polutants too, dont care

i divorce them easily, by normal use no harm comes from cars, harm only occurs when someone is negligent (someone can be the engineer to the mechanic to the driver) just because statistically a car is likely to cause harm, doesnt make the car at fault

"normal" recreational use of drugs is harmful, if such harm could be avoided then i have no doubt it already would be

ja wrote:
I've misjudged you, mathurin (in the legalizing all drugs thread). I see in this thread that you are looking at both sides of the argument. If you come to a different conclusion than me, I can't fault you for that. Perhaps if you were caught on the losing end of a nanny state law, like me, you would see things differently.

Harm caused by using drugs is harm caused by individuals, mostly to themselves. This is regrettable.

Harm caused by prohibition is harm cause by our government, entirely to it's citizens. This is unforgivable.

i can kind of agree with this
what i want:
legalization of what i term "laziness" drugs, MJ and possibly opium, so far as i know they damage only the user, unlike what i would call violent drugs, PCP meth and perhaps cocaine, drugs that make people want to get up and do something, all too often this something involves illegal activities

i want to couple this with already needed changes to government aid programs, making users ineligible for such programs unless they clean up (perhaps in gov clinics) and removing the persistent welfare situation to a type of training system (this is something i intend to write a thread on later) built to give the poor the tools they need to escape from poverty, and not to endlessly support their sloth, more reduction of the nanny state

inshort, leaving the violent drugs illegal will reduce the crime resulting from drugs, and legalizing the lazy drugs will reduce the usage of violent drugs, by presenting a legal alternative. its not a win, but is less of a lose

hopefully i will write that thread later

[ja]

mathurin wrote: using a drug outside of medical treatment causes damage Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? Why isn't it harmful if it's medicinal. Does eating a cup-cake cause damage...perhaps only if you're not hungry when you eat it?

mathurin wrote: are you stating that drugs of known purities can be used without medical observation do not cause damage? Yes. For all intents and purposes there is no law of nature that states recreational use of a drug causes damage. Sometimes they cause damage. Sometimes they don't. You really took those D.A.R.E. classes to heart, didn't you?

mathurin wrote: ...using a car in the proper manner will not damage anything (this is not the environmental section, so keep global warming out of it) the car is not inherently dangerous because improper use causes damage....
....not the environment thread, smoking pot releases polutants too, dont care

i divorce them easily, by normal use no harm comes from cars, harm only occurs when someone is negligent (someone can be the engineer to the mechanic to the driver) just because statistically a car is likely to cause harm, doesnt make the car at fault

"normal" recreational use of drugs is harmful, if such harm could be avoided then i have no doubt it already would be Well the car/drug analogy debate is getting pretty abstract. You only wish to carry on the debate about this analogy in the manner that benefits your argument. You dismiss shortened lifespan caused by automobiles because the mechanism of action falls under the category of another forum. So be it. You acknowledge unintended damage from one as inherent and the other you justify away by saying "something has to go wrong." You have defined away the damage of one by imposing an arbitrary scope to the debate. If you can justify that to yourself, fine. I'm willing to stop wasting my time on the car analogy argument.

[mathurin]

ja wrote: mathurin wrote: using a drug outside of medical treatment causes damage Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? Why isn't it harmful if it's medicinal. Does eating a cup-cake cause damage...perhaps only if you're not hungry when you eat it?


medical treatments are not administered to get you high, they are given to counteract, or at very least hide, other damages in your body

so, for example, if my leg is crushed under a car, i will be given morphine, i have limited control over the morphine (they give you a button, but it has an upper limit) to prevent abuse, the morphine hides the damage from my body/mind so i dont go into shock or roll around in agony and cause more damage
the damage done by the drug is less than the good done in most medical situations
only bad doctors give out drugs to get people high, getting high is not a good enough excuse to use a substance

ja wrote:
mathurin wrote: are you stating that drugs of known purities can be used without medical observation do not cause damage? Yes. For all intents and purposes there is no law of nature that states recreational use of a drug causes damage. Sometimes they cause damage. Sometimes they don't. You really took those D.A.R.E. classes to heart, didn't you?


i just know that self administration of addictive substances leads to addiction, which leads to abuse
you really think you have your use under control dont you?

ja wrote:
mathurin wrote: ...using a car in the proper manner will not damage anything (this is not the environmental section, so keep global warming out of it) the car is not inherently dangerous because improper use causes damage....
....not the environment thread, smoking pot releases polutants too, dont care

i divorce them easily, by normal use no harm comes from cars, harm only occurs when someone is negligent (someone can be the engineer to the mechanic to the driver) just because statistically a car is likely to cause harm, doesnt make the car at fault

"normal" recreational use of drugs is harmful, if such harm could be avoided then i have no doubt it already would be Well the car/drug analogy debate is getting pretty abstract. You only wish to carry on the debate about this analogy in the manner that benefits your argument. You dismiss shortened lifespan caused by automobiles because the mechanism of action falls under the category of another forum. So be it. You acknowledge unintended damage from one as inherent and the other you justify away by saying "something has to go wrong." You have defined away the damage of one by imposing an arbitrary scope to the debate. If you can justify that to yourself, fine. I'm willing to stop wasting my time on the car analogy argument.

actually i avoided the subject because i dont want to have another environmentalist debate, especially not in this forum, you know, the kind where we totally disagree about the impact of automobiles, it bogs down the debate, however, if you want we can go this route, i just get bored with it

i tell you what, find some deaths directly resulting from automobile exhaust and i will find some deaths directly resulting from drug use

suicides dont count btw, if you want to die the method doesnt matter
you game?


and what did you think of my proposal/idea/whatever on legalizing the "lazy" drugs

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

It certainly doesn't, because those questions are not relevant to whether or not something should be legal. How does this forum affect Ghettos in a positive manner? It doesn't have any difference on the Ghettos, because it's not intended to. It's merely a person exercising freedom of property. How does soda pop affect ghettos, education, in a positive manner? I seriously doubt it has any positive effect, yet it does not occur to us to ban soda pop. It isn’t intended to benefit those things…and it doesn’t need to justify its existence.

Your qrestions do not bear relevance to whether or not something should be legal.

completely stupid comparison grandmaster.

and my questions are relevant. they are extremely relevant. extreme individualism isn't a good thing grandmaster. try thinking of "the big picture" for a second.

What if something doesn't benefit education and the ghettos, but really has no effect on them whatsoever? Should it be made illegal by default?

The Comrade wrote: marijuana i have no problem legalizing, as i've stated before. opium however i somewhat of an issue with. when i look at things like the opium war it completely changes my opinion of the drug./

Then how's about coke? Can we get a high five for coke?

[Free Thinkr]

ieatfood wrote: well, since i don't believe in free will...
...nothing you say or do means anything. After all, you can't help saying it, and everyone else can't help ignoring it.