Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

The problem I have with the whole thing, is that It just doesn't seem right that, say, I get into trouble or go to jail for a drug when I am completely responsible with it, and harm no one, just because there are a few idiots out there that do crazy things while on it.

Plus, you cannot put all drugs in this catagory. "Drugs" is too broad of a term. For example, coke won't make you crazy and go out and attack people. Hell, people probably attack and steal more for other reasons.


a few bad apples spoil the bunch, eh grandmaster?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
mathurin wrote: comrade,
i hate to burst your bubble but chinas ruin came mostly from banning opium, which led to war with britain, it was a trade dispute, little more

Really? I was not aware of that. If this is true, that busts his main argument, and he is ruined. Thank you Mr. Mathurin. Oh, by the way, I got your last PM. We can talk more about those Star Trek Episodes. I think we can work something out.

no, i am not ruined. sorry to disappoint grandmaster.

opium was legal in china for a long long period of time. once the british began shipping huge amounts of it into the country, and the country began to fall to shambles, the Chinese put an embargo on england and "banned" opium. england, having the most powerful navy in the world, couldn't be stopped. as such, Britain continued to ship massive amounts of opium into china, and once the population was good and ruined, china was forced to negotiate with Britain.

Actually, I still don't think this works. As it is now, I strongly believe most of the people who want to do drugs, already do. They are just at risk of getting in trouble, and many do. If drugs were legalized, I see no reason why all of a sudden everyone would suddenly want to do them, ruining the country. Most people would still be adverse to them, or scared of them, or disapprove of them. In short, I think your claim is just an exaggeration.

I have never heard anyone say "God, wish I could do some drugs...oh well, since their illegal, I just can't dag gone it." If people want to do them, all the ones I've ever seen will do them. All legalizing them would do is not throw them in jail for nothing.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:
Actually, I still don't think this works. As it is now, I strongly believe most of the people who want to do drugs, already do. They are just at risk of getting in trouble, and many do. If drugs were legalized, I see no reason why all of a sudden everyone would suddenly want to do them, ruining the country. Most people would still be adverse to them, or scared of them, or disapprove of them. In short, I think your claim is just an exaggeration.

to be honest there is no way of knowing what would happen. it's all opinion when it comes to theories like this. i admit your's has strong points, and i admit mine has weak points, but i still believe in mine, and you still believe in yours.

until time machines are invented there is no way of knowing for sure.

The Grandmaster wrote: I have never heard anyone say "God, wish I could do some drugs...oh well, since their illegal, I just can't dag gone it." If people want to do them, all the ones I've ever seen will do them. All legalizing them would do is not throw them in jail for nothing.


people could just drink? i don't see why risking jail time, damaging your brain permanently, and risking addiction are worth a buzz.

[mathurin]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
mathurin wrote: comrade,
i hate to burst your bubble but chinas ruin came mostly from banning opium, which led to war with britain, it was a trade dispute, little more

Really? I was not aware of that. If this is true, that busts his main argument, and he is ruined. Thank you Mr. Mathurin. Oh, by the way, I got your last PM. We can talk more about those Star Trek Episodes. I think we can work something out.

no, i am not ruined. sorry to disappoint grandmaster.

opium was legal in china for a long long period of time. once the british began shipping huge amounts of it into the country, and the country began to fall to shambles, the Chinese put an embargo on england and "banned" opium. england, having the most powerful navy in the world, couldn't be stopped. as such, Britain continued to ship massive amounts of opium into china, and once the population was good and ruined, china was forced to negotiate with Britain.

Actually, I still don't think this works. As it is now, I strongly believe most of the people who want to do drugs, already do. They are just at risk of getting in trouble, and many do. If drugs were legalized, I see no reason why all of a sudden everyone would suddenly want to do them, ruining the country. Most people would still be adverse to them, or scared of them, or disapprove of them. In short, I think your claim is just an exaggeration.

I have never heard anyone say "God, wish I could do some drugs...oh well, since their illegal, I just can't dag gone it." If people want to do them, all the ones I've ever seen will do them. All legalizing them would do is not throw them in jail for nothing. i can possibly agree with that, i think that the lower prices will increase usage, if only because users will be able to afford more of the drug

mostly i want to influence their decisions, directing new users towards lighter drugs, rather than a blanket legalization

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Actually, I still don't think this works. As it is now, I strongly believe most of the people who want to do drugs, already do. They are just at risk of getting in trouble, and many do. If drugs were legalized, I see no reason why all of a sudden everyone would suddenly want to do them, ruining the country. Most people would still be adverse to them, or scared of them, or disapprove of them. In short, I think your claim is just an exaggeration.

to be honest there is no way of knowing what would happen. it's all opinion when it comes to theories like this. i admit your's has strong points, and i admit mine has weak points, but i still believe in mine, and you still believe in yours.

until time machines are invented there is no way of knowing for sure.
While a healthy level of agnosticism is warranted, it is true that legality is no real barrier towards people getting drugs. Why, pray tell, would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized? Cost would be the only real change as far as buying drugs, but realistically, most people aren't averse to trying drugs because they are expensive.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: I have never heard anyone say "God, wish I could do some drugs...oh well, since their illegal, I just can't dag gone it." If people want to do them, all the ones I've ever seen will do them. All legalizing them would do is not throw them in jail for nothing.


people could just drink? i don't see why risking jail time, damaging your brain permanently, and risking addiction are worth a buzz.
First, alcohol contains all of those physical risks, and in spades. Second, alcohol has a causes a completely different buzz than other drugs, both in general terms and as for each individual. Illicit drugs give people effects that legal means cannot; that is why it is worth it for some people to do drugs.

[ja]

mathurin wrote:
and the main point you ignore is that while alcohol may cause the most crime, it is also the most abused substance
for example, white people commit the most crimes, however when looking at proportions you will see that it is not representative

unfortunatly we dont have proportions to study for drug use
but few would disagree that alcohol is abused more frequently and by more people than other drugs



I haven't missed that point. In fact it's just the opposite. I definately agree that alcohol is abused more frequently. But, acording to NIDA, in 1992, alcohol caused $19.7 billion worth of crime while illegal drugs caused $59.1 billion worth of crime. Despite the fact that more people abuse alcohol, it causes less crime because it's legal. At first, this appears damning for these illegal drugs, but when you look closer you see that most of crime caused by illegal drugs is income generating thus would be significantly reduced by legalization (since drugs would be cheaper). Furthermore, alcohol induces crime as a result of it's pharmacological properties. No other drug is known to make people more violent just by using it. Despite drugs reputation for making users violent, to my knowledge this has never been shown.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Chapter1.html#1.6

However, you make a good point. Perhaps the only reason alcohol causes more violent crime is because more people abuse alcohol. We do have the proportions of drug users to study (Thanks Brian Bennet). According to NSDUH, in 1992, about 100 million people were past month alcohol users and 13 million were users of the other major illegal substances. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month.htm
So there are 7.7:1 past month alcohol users to drug users committing violent crimes at a rate of about 5:1. I would say you are dead on. Alcohol and drugs do cause similar amounts of violent crimes per user. Certainly it's within the error of this crude approximation.


So this is where I stand. We can greatly reduce the amount of crime caused by drugs if we legalize them without significantly increasing abuse. So now I turn back to Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court of Denver, "In 1914 when drugs like cocaine were available on grocery shelves, 1.3% of the population was addicted [drugs were legal in the US before 1914]. In 1979, before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are being spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%." http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=331
Legalizing drugs wouldn't significantly increase drug abuse, but would reduce crime.

mathurin wrote:
im trying to work with you here, i recognize that certain drugs cause minimal crime, but you will not recognize that harder drugs cause plenty of crimes on their own, if nothing else theft and burglary to support the addiction, people on hard substances are crazy, i cant imagine you actually being able to deny this
I appreciate you trying to work with me. If we were world leaders and you offered me this compromise, I would take it. However we are just peons, so I may as well argue on. I hope you're not offended. I'm not picking on you. I appreciate your well thought out arguments. You're not a one-liner like so many others I've debated on this issue.

I know that drugs cause a lot of burglary and theft. The amount they cause is a direct result of their price which is a direct result of their prohibition. I think I presented a pretty good case that drugs don't cause much "crazy" behavior on their own. They are in the same ball park as alcohol. It is their high price that drives crime. Alcoholics are able to work for or beg enough money for their fix, but a junkie can't. They have to steal or mug. This is why so many drug users become "crazy."

[mathurin]

assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

[ja]

mathurin wrote: assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

Absolutely. I would also like to have that tax money used to support effective drug education and treatment.

[Prole]

ja wrote: However, you make a good point. Perhaps the only reason alcohol causes more violent crime is because more people abuse alcohol. We do have the proportions of drug users to study (Thanks Brian Bennet). According to NSDUH, in 1992, about 100 million people were past month alcohol users and 13 million were users of the other major illegal substances. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month.htm
So there are 7.7:1 past month alcohol users to drug users committing violent crimes at a rate of about 5:1. I would say you are dead on. Alcohol and drugs do cause similar amounts of violent crimes per user. Certainly it's within the error of this crude approximation.
Great analysis, but I think that it needs elaboration. Out of those 100 million alcohol users, I suspect that a far lower proportion use alcohol to the point of inebriation, compared to drug users. Alcohol, because it is a far more socially and legally acceptable drug, is used a lot more commonly in situations where becoming drunk would be inappropriate. Drug users, on the other hand, I suspect would be more commonly in situations were intoxication was both acceptable and a goal. Additionally, because alcohol is so readily available (not to say that drugs aren't easily available, but you can't get them with a meal at most restaurants), it takes little more than a glass of wine with a meal to become an alcohol user; hardly an uncommon occurance. I suspect that there are percentage-wise far fewer users who just smoke one joint a month.

There are certainly people who abuse alcohol just as there are people who abuse drugs, just as there are people who use them extremely rarely. My point, though, is that in terms of alcohol use, the latter catogory forms a much latter portion than with drug use.

Also, lumping all illicit drugs together in terms of crime causing can be misleading; heck, so can lumping all alcohol together. I am quite positive that a PCP user is far more likely to cause crime (beyond criminal drug possession, of course) than a marijuana user. Likewise, a merlot drinker is far less likely to cause violence than a Buckfast drinker. We should recognize that all drugs have different affects upon the users, and moreso, that the people who tend to use those drugs are different as well. Lumping all drugs or drug users together, whether they be a legal drug like alcohol or an illegal one, is misleading.

[The Grandmaster]

mathurin wrote: assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

Agreed. A fine solution.

[ja]

Prole wrote: ja wrote: However, you make a good point. Perhaps the only reason alcohol causes more violent crime is because more people abuse alcohol. We do have the proportions of drug users to study (Thanks Brian Bennet). According to NSDUH, in 1992, about 100 million people were past month alcohol users and 13 million were users of the other major illegal substances. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month.htm
So there are 7.7:1 past month alcohol users to drug users committing violent crimes at a rate of about 5:1. I would say you are dead on. Alcohol and drugs do cause similar amounts of violent crimes per user. Certainly it's within the error of this crude approximation.
Great analysis, but I think that it needs elaboration. Out of those 100 million alcohol users, I suspect that a far lower proportion use alcohol to the point of inebriation, compared to drug users. Alcohol, because it is a far more socially and legally acceptable drug, is used a lot more commonly in situations where becoming drunk would be inappropriate. Drug users, on the other hand, I suspect would be more commonly in situations were intoxication was both acceptable and a goal. Additionally, because alcohol is so readily available (not to say that drugs aren't easily available, but you can't get them with a meal at most restaurants), it takes little more than a glass of wine with a meal to become an alcohol user; hardly an uncommon occurance. I suspect that there are percentage-wise far fewer users who just smoke one joint a month.

There are certainly people who abuse alcohol just as there are people who abuse drugs, just as there are people who use them extremely rarely. My point, though, is that in terms of alcohol use, the latter catogory forms a much latter portion than with drug use.

Also, lumping all illicit drugs together in terms of crime causing can be misleading; heck, so can lumping all alcohol together. I am quite positive that a PCP user is far more likely to cause crime (beyond criminal drug possession, of course) than a marijuana user. Likewise, a merlot drinker is far less likely to cause violence than a Buckfast drinker. We should recognize that all drugs have different affects upon the users, and moreso, that the people who tend to use those drugs are different as well. Lumping all drugs or drug users together, whether they be a legal drug like alcohol or an illegal one, is misleading.

Thanks, Prole. I agree with you. I stuck with the past month users because that is the only data I could find on alcohol use. I lumped all drug users together because unfortunately that's the way NIDA lumps drug related crimes it so that's all I had to work with as far as data goes.

[Free Thinkr]

The Comrade wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
So you claim, with no evidence whatever. Guess which is easier for high school kids to obtain:

1. legal drug: alcohol
2. illegal drug: marijuana

#2, by far and away. Why? Because it is illegal, and thus unregulated. So, ironically, by making it illegal, we make it easier to obtain, and completely unregulated, thus reducing our ability to keep it out of the hands of children.

how am i to get evidence to something that hasn't happened yet?
You're not. What you need to stop doing is making claims with no basis.

Quote: claiming that i need to show evidence for something that hasn't happened is just looking for some way, any way, to not have to take something seriously.
No, it's asking you to support your wild-assed assertions. Asking you to base your opinions on facts isn't a huge request.

Quote: and i can assure you as a teenager i can get alcohol just as easy as i can get marijuana.
I never could. I could get weed whenever; alcohol was a little trickier.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: And legalizing drugs would change this how, exactly? Is the prohibition of drugs preventing this problem? No. Is it in any way reducing the ability for people living in the ghetto to obtain said drugs? No. Is it making the problem worse by introducing a high-profit criminal element? You bet. Is it making the problem worse by giving users and low-level dealers a criminal record, often at young age, thus hindering their ability to better themselves later in life? You bet.

So, what's the true problem here?

and how exactly is all the blame on prohibition?
All the blame isn't. My point is that prohibition worsens the existing problem of drug abuse/dependence.

Quote: people know the rules, and selling drugs happens to be breaking the law. when you willfully break the law you go to jail. end of story. prohibition is only half the equation.
Yeah, the half that turns drug use into a large-scale war on our own citizens.

Quote: it's like claiming that if you jumped off a cliff it's the ground's fault that you died, not the fact that you jumped off a cliff.
Actually, it's more like installing spikes in the ground, and claiming that the spikes will save lives by deterring people from falling off the cliff.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: How does the opium war change your opinion of it?

because it ruined china?
Are you asking me, or telling me?

Quote: oh wait i forgot, historical references aren't relevent unless you're talking about the first prohibition, in which case, they are the most relevent references available. :roll:
My point is to ask how the opium war is relevant to our current situation; how did it ruin China? What is the extent of your knowledge of the opium war?

Quote: Oh, and most importantly:

Free Thinkr wrote: You would? This sounds like a baseless assertion!
it sounds like my opinion, backed up by research into drugs and drug related issues.
What "research" is that?

Quote: oh i forgot, would you like a link that doesn't exist to a problem that hasn't happened yet?
No, I'd like you to stop making claims that are nothing more than verbiage you pulled out of your ass.

[Free Thinkr]

The Grandmaster wrote: mathurin wrote: assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

Agreed. A fine solution.
Add one more. Prohibition is an obstacle to progress; in prohibiting drugs outright, you also lose any control you have of them. I think more dangerous drugs could have a system like we have here in Indiana for kegs, where the seller must take your personal information and whatnot. With decriminalization comes regulation, and regulation is a much more effective means of curbing the ill-effects of drug abuse, IMO.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote:
While a healthy level of agnosticism is warranted, it is true that legality is no real barrier towards people getting drugs. Why, pray tell, would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized? Cost would be the only real change as far as buying drugs, but realistically, most people aren't averse to trying drugs because they are expensive.

there's no risk of penalty at all if it was legal, would be cheaper and more socially acceptable.

alcohol, for example, is socially acceptable, and legal. is it any shock that more people get in DWIs rather then DUIs?

and i know this will sound rather stupid but there is peer pressure. i know alot of people who have been asked to go smoke weed and they say no because they don't want to get in trouble. no risk of penalty, and they probably would. although this doesn't mean they'll start using coke or something, but why would marijuana be any different from any other

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: mathurin wrote: assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

Agreed. A fine solution.


and how well has heavy taxation honestly helped?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: mathurin wrote: assuming full legalization, could we at least agree to heavily tax the drugs which cause the worst affects, violence related affects, to steer new users away from them, similar to how we attempt to draw people away from tobbaco and alcohol with taxes

Agreed. A fine solution.

and how well has heavy taxation honestly helped?

Heavy Taxation on what?

[The Comrade]

Free Thinkr wrote:
All the blame isn't. My point is that prohibition worsens the existing problem of drug abuse/dependence.

prohibition makes people abuse drugs and become addicted?

As far as i know that's the individual.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Yeah, the half that turns drug use into a large-scale war on our own citizens.

irrelevant to my response.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Actually, it's more like installing spikes in the ground, and claiming that the spikes will save lives by deterring people from falling off the cliff.

atta' boy, change the analogy rather then discuss it.


Free Thinkr wrote:
Are you asking me, or telling me?

red herring


Free Thinkr wrote:
My point is to ask how the opium war is relevant to our current situation; how did it ruin China? What is the extent of your knowledge of the opium war?

how is the first prohibition relevant to our society? it was almost a century ago.

it ruined china because quite a substantial part of the population was a slave to the drug.


Free Thinkr wrote:
What "research" is that?

news articles, studies in my health and psychology books, wikipedia. anything i feel like using really.


Free Thinkr wrote:
No, I'd like you to stop making claims that are nothing more than verbiage you pulled out of your ass.

oh wow much like you do!

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

Heavy Taxation on what?

cigarettes and alcohol.

[Free Thinkr]

The Comrade wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: All the blame isn't. My point is that prohibition worsens the existing problem of drug abuse/dependence.
prohibition makes people abuse drugs and become addicted?

As far as i know that's the individual.
No. That is a problem in and of itself. I am saying that prohibition makes the problem worse. Examples include:

-gang warfare
-drug pushers (particularly on young children)
-imprisonment of users (making their situation worse, and harder to recover from)
-impure drugs causing overdoses
-shared needles spreading disease

There's 5 separate reasons why prohibition exacerbates the problem of drug abuse. Add in the fact that it has been wholly unsuccessful in curbing drug use, and a rational person is compelled to question whether prohibition should continue. Oh, yeah: and then there's the fact that it also costs taxpayers billions annually.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Yeah, the half that turns drug use into a large-scale war on our own citizens.
irrelevant to my response.
So you admit that drugs are only half the problem? ;)

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Actually, it's more like installing spikes in the ground, and claiming that the spikes will save lives by deterring people from falling off the cliff.
atta' boy, change the analogy rather then discuss it.
Your analogy is retarded. I don't disagree that drug use is a personal problem; I disagree that prohibition is an effective means of addressing it.


Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Are you asking me, or telling me?
red herring
Are you asking me or telling me? BTW, you don't seem to know what a red herring is; I suggest wikipedia.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: My point is to ask how the opium war is relevant to our current situation; how did it ruin China? What is the extent of your knowledge of the opium war?
how is the first prohibition relevant to our society? it was almost a century ago.

it ruined china because quite a substantial part of the population was a slave to the drug.
How substantial? How did that ruin the country?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: What "research" is that?
news articles, studies in my health and psychology books, wikipedia. anything i feel like using really.
Mmmm hmm.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: No, I'd like you to stop making claims that are nothing more than verbiage you pulled out of your ass.
oh wow much like you do!
What claims are those? If you're argument is that legalization is bad because usage would increase, you'd better have some actual evidence or reasoning that would support it; it's the premise of your argument. I can show that the drug war has not had a positive effect on drug usage, if you don't believe me. That's the difference between us.

[The Comrade]

Free Thinkr wrote:
No. That is a problem in and of itself. I am saying that prohibition makes the problem worse. Examples include:

-gang warfare
-drug pushers (particularly on young children)
-imprisonment of users (making their situation worse, and harder to recover from)
-impure drugs causing overdoses
-shared needles spreading disease

There's 5 separate reasons why prohibition exacerbates the problem of drug abuse. Add in the fact that it has been wholly unsuccessful in curbing drug use, and a rational person is compelled to question whether prohibition should continue. Oh, yeah: and then there's the fact that it also costs taxpayers billions annually.

all of this makes people abuse drugs and become addicted to them?

i'm still not getting how a law is making people use drugs more, and become addicted more


Free Thinkr wrote: So you admit that drugs are only half the problem? ;)

where did i claim that?


Free Thinkr wrote: Your analogy is retarded. I don't disagree that drug use is a personal problem; I disagree that prohibition is an effective means of addressing it.

and that is not what the analogy was getting at, so who's the retarded one?


i think it's you


Free Thinkr wrote: Are you asking me or telling me? BTW, you don't seem to know what a red herring is; I suggest wikipedia.

telling you. and i know what it is, thank you very much.

Free Thinkr wrote: How substantial? How did that ruin the country?

you don't seem to know what the opium wars were; i suggest wikipedia.

Free Thinkr wrote: What claims are those? If you're argument is that legalization is bad because usage would increase, you'd better have some actual evidence or reasoning that would support it; it's the premise of your argument. I can show that the drug war has not had a positive effect on drug usage, if you don't believe me. That's the difference between us.

that's merely a small part of my argument. and since i DON'T HAVE A TIME MACHINE i can't find evidence backing that up. it's opinion. as is much debate about drugs.