Drugs

[Tipsy]

Well, a pack of joints a day, we do not smoke, nor are the joints we smoke as big as a cigarette. It also lacks the chemicals and carcinagens in cigs too.

Comparing joints to cigarettes and saying one is worse than the other, regardless of its’ validity, is not going to hold any weight with me because I wouldn’t mind seeing them both made illegal. Should we make everything less harmful than tobacco legal? Perhaps instead of making less harmful substances legal we should make more harmful substances such as tobacco harder to obtain.

Of course it has it's cons, every drug, legal or illegal is the same way. But you don't od on weed, you get cancer from weed, and it doesn't turn you into an animal

So what is the permanent physical consequence of smoking marijuana? Is there anything that outweighs the studies saying it "increases risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema" or that it "increases risk of cancer of the head, neck, and lungs?" Maybe you’ll have your fun with it and so forth.

As a side note, I am talking about the recreational use of marijuana, I would have no problem with the regulated medical use of marijuana if it is the best thing out there to help the person.

BTW, can you cite any studies showing serious long term health affects?

The two quotes about the increases of the negative physical consequences come from here: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/
You can also find more information and even a toll free number if you want to ask a real life person about it.

But we didn't listen to everything. Where in the Constitution does it list among the duties of the federal government, to protect us from ourselves?

The use of the general welfare clause is what would fit here but that is wide open to any interpretation, even amongst legal experts, the reason why I never pushed at it. Plus it would be a pointless debate because both sides have enough on each side to show that it is plausible, but not enough to disprove the other side. Though I am well aware that it is probably one of the most used defenses to government actions.

Then again, since the AS has been sort of slow, I might as well go into a debate. The other argument I could use would be the one that criminalizing the use of drugs is to protect the rights of others. If you become an addict, another possible long term consequence mentioned in that study, I will be one of many people paying for your welfare, we will be paying for your time in prison if you get caught, we will be paying for the money spent on the programs rehabilitating you, and so forth. That is just icing on the cake though, the cake is the crime that comes out of drug use.

Here is a survey, though a few years old, done by the United States Bureau of the Census of federal and state prison about if they were under the influence of drugs when they committed their crime. And some of the conclusions they came to were:

"Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; of those incarcerated for robbery, 27 percent of State prisoners and 27 percent of Federal prisoners admitted committing their offense to get money to buy drugs (table 3). In 1997, 19 percent of State prisoners and 16 percent of Federal inmates said that they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These numbers represent a slight increase from the 1991 figures."

And:

"The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence. Assessing the nature and extent of the influence of drugs on crime requires that reliable information about the offense and the offender be available and that definitions be consistent. In the face of problematic evidence, it is impossible to say quantitatively how much drugs influence the occurrence of crime."

The article basically concludes drug use increases both violent and non-violent crime.

Note: The whole article can be found here http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/ncj181056.pdf

Then you can see that people not under the influence of an illegal drug are less likely to commit crimes than people without.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf

Due to a storm outside I am going to have to cut off my post here. Feel free to take a look at the links becaus there is a lot more information than what I posted.

 

[CelestialBadger]

paying for your welfare

First of all marijuana isn't addictive, so this is moot. But yeah, I think we can all agree that people who do drugs are usually all on welfare.

paying for your time in prison if you get caught

That's extremely circular logic. You're saying that drugs should be illegal because society has to pay for prison fees...? Wrong.

"Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; of those incarcerated for robbery, 27 percent of State prisoners and 27 percent of Federal prisoners admitted committing their offense to get money to buy drugs (table 3). In 1997, 19 percent of State prisoners and 16 percent of Federal inmates said that they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These numbers represent a slight increase from the 1991 figures."

Organized crime wouldn't be able to regulate the price of legalized drugs. Which would make that point moot as well.

And as I already say, try some sites that aren't .gov

 

[Tipsy]

First of all marijuana isn't addictive, so this is moot. But yeah, I think we can all agree that people who do drugs are usually all on welfare.

That's extremely circular logic. You're saying that drugs should be illegal because society has to pay for prison fees...? Wrong.

Notice how that was as I put it in my post, the icing on the cake, and not part of the actual argument (cake). Feel free to read my entire posts from now on to avoid these mistakes.

Organized crime wouldn't be able to regulate the price of legalized drugs. Which would make that point moot as well.

And as I already say, try some sites that aren't .gov

Legalizing drugs would make crime worse, atleast that is what has happened in other countries. And just for you, I will use a non-.gov source.

In Great Britain:
"With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.

As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53

A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56"
Crime increased.

In the Netherlands:
"Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65"
Crime Increased.

In Switzerland:
"Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70"
Crime Increased.

I think I can sum all of this up very easily: Due to what has happened in other countries, it is very likely that if drugs are legalized crime will increase.

Crime will increase. I am against an increase in crime.

This can all be seen here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

 

[CelestialBadger]

Feel free to read my entire posts from now on to avoid these mistakes.

Oh, I read your entire post. But feel free to keep acting like an arrogant prick. A good strategy would be to explain how the general welfare clause actually supports your argument instead of just mentioning it and then claiming that it's your main point.

Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56

So let's see...when medical heroin was legal crime rose? That seems similar to the ketamine situation in the US. Good job on drawing no clear analogies and proving absolutely nothing.

Moving on to this Netherlands stuff...Here are a couple links to a website that doesn't even deal with drug data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl/Crime&b_define=1
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

Let's see...comparatively suicide rates are higher in all age brackets in the United States. Property crime rates (which your "druglibrary.org" specifically mentioned - by the way, that website looks like a 3rd grader's HTML project. Just thought I'd point that out.)? Higher in the United States. I took the liberty of getting US population estimate for 1999 (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html) so that I could compare the crime per capita estimates.

It works out to:
Netherlands: 80.1/1000=.0801=8.01%
United States: 23,677,800/272,500,00=.0869=8.69%

So again, the crime per capita is higher in the United States. Yeah, I know my source is pretty old (1999), but SHIT! looks like that postdates yours (1988) with no trouble.

Oh, and I may as well throw this into the mix as well:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/DutchPolicyAndCrimeStatistics.html
SHIT! Postdated again. Could it be that your data is faulty because it's almost 20 years ago?

 

[Tipsy]

A good strategy would be to explain how the general welfare clause actually supports your argument instead of just mentioning it and then claiming that it's your main point.

Well what I stated was that:

"The use of the general welfare clause is what would fit here but that is wide open to any interpretation, even amongst legal experts, the reason why I never pushed at it. Plus it would be a pointless debate because both sides have enough on each side to show that it is plausible, but not enough to disprove the other side. Though I am well aware that it is probably one of the most used defenses to government actions."

If you can disprove that there is a controversy over this topic and any argument here will prove to be inconclusive then go ahead.

So let's see...when medical heroin was legal crime rose? That seems similar to the ketamine situation in the US. Good job on drawing no clear analogies and proving absolutely nothing.

The point to that was that if it is legalized there is going to be a black market for it. For example, we have the legal right to buy guns, we can go to a gun store and buy them. Yet there is still a black market for guns in the United States and introducing a new and easier to access source will just make it grow.

Moving on to this Netherlands stuff...Here are a couple links to a website that doesn't even deal with drug data:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl/Crime&b_define=1
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

Let's see...comparatively suicide rates are higher in all age brackets in the United States. Property crime rates (which your "druglibrary.org" specifically mentioned)? Higher in the United States. I took the liberty of getting US population estimate for 1999 (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html) so that I could compare the crime per capita estimates.

It works out to:
Netherlands: 80.1/1000=.0801=8.01%
United States: 23,677,800/272,500,00=.0869=8.69%

So again, the crime per capita is higher in the United States. Yeah, I know my source is pretty old (1999), but SHIT! looks like that postdates yours (1988) with no trouble.

Oh, and I may as well throw this into the mix as well:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/DutchPolicyAndCrimeStatistics.html
SHIT! Postdated again. Could it be that your data is faulty because it's almost 20 years ago?

And without drugs the Netherlands would have less crime and an even bigger margin between its' crime rate and the one with the United States. My sources have shown a direct correlation between drugs and an increase of crime, specifically the pdf's. You have pointed out the Netherlands has a lower crime rate, yet you still fail to present any argument being made on your part because just by saying that the Netherlands has a lower crime rate than the United States doesn't show anything due to there being many factors other than drugs that explain crime rates. Drugs, as shown in the pdf files, are just one of the many factors that increases crime. To use your words, your lack of an argument ‘proves absolutely nothing’.

 

[CelestialBadger]

If you can disprove that there is a controversy over this topic and any argument here will prove to be inconclusive then go ahead.

This is a ****ing bulletin board. No arguments are going to be conclusive. But I guess we'll never know since you refuse to tell us what your argument even is...

By the way, I'd like to cite this passage of the Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" and say that it is my main argument in favor of legalizing drugs. I'd rather not go into much detail because the Constitution is open to interpretation. Also it makes my arguments seem stronger if I leave them extremely vague.

The point to that was that if it is legalized there is going to be a black market for it. For example, we have the legal right to buy guns, we can go to a gun store and buy them. Yet there is still a black market for guns in the United States and introducing a new and easier to access source will just make it grow.

If drugs were legal the government would be able to regulate the price, not organized crime. Why would you buy more expensive drugs from the mob instead of buying legal cheaper drugs? Your logic is so ****ed up. I wonder if your brain works correctly.

specifically the pdf's

Now, first of all your pdf is from the United States department of justice. Again, drugs are illegal here, so it's completely moot. An alternate way to look at those statistics would be that people who commit crimes are more likely to use drugs. So you've proven that if you're already involved in crime you're probably more likely to start doing drugs too. Good job. Moot again.

And without drugs the Netherlands would have less crime and an even bigger margin between its' crime rate and the one with the United States.

This relies on the assumption that the Dutch are inherently less criminally minded than Americans....which is essentially a logical fallacy.

Sigh...growing bored pointing out all of the flaws in your logic.

 

[Forged]

Yet there is still a black market for guns in the United States and introducing a new and easier to access source will just make it grow.

Could that be because
1.Not all guns are legal
2.You have to have a permit to own a pistol

 

[Tipsy]

If drugs were legal the government would be able to regulate the price, not organized crime. Why would you buy more expensive drugs from the mob instead of buying legal cheaper drugs? Your logic is so ****ed up. I wonder if your brain works correctly.

We shall pretend for a second that the government regulates drugs. No matter how hard the government tries some people will end up getting addicted to whatever drug. These people will do anything in their power to get the drugs they are addicted to. True, maybe some of these people will be able to maintain a steady flow of income even though I doubt many companies would hire an addict. With or without legalization, the issue of crime related to drugs still stands.

Now, first of all your pdf is from the United States department of justice. Again, drugs are illegal here, so it's completely moot. An alternate way to look at those statistics would be that people who commit crimes are more likely to use drugs. So you've proven that if you're already involved in crime you're probably more likely to start doing drugs too. Good job. Moot again.

Perhaps you should bother reading the pdf’s next time you talk about them, or if you already did, try comprehending them. You should specifically notice how it separates the types of use into three groups: drug defined offenses, drug-related offenses, and drug-using lifestyle. The first one would be the part about how having drugs, distributing drugs, and manufacturing drugs, and then it goes to mention that it will focus on the second two, not the one about how it is illegal to have, distribute, or manufacture drugs. Then you read the information provided and it is proven that people that use drugs are more likely to commit crimes than people that do not. Read the pdf’s and try comprehending them before you post another response that lacks any sense at all.

This relies on the assumption that the Dutch are inherently less criminally minded than Americans....which is essentially a logical fallacy.

Or maybe you could use the logic of when drugs are illegal in the Netherlands the crime rate was lower and when drugs were decriminalized the crime rate went up. To make it simple for you to understand:
Illegal Drugs – Decrease Crime
Legal Drugs – Increase Crime

It could also rely on things such as the Dutch police force per 100,000 people is more than double the number of United States policemen per 100,000 people. We have 236 police officers per 100,000 while the Dutch have 585 per 100,000 people. Perhaps things such as doubling the size of our police force might impact our crime rate.

My logic has nothing to do with who is more criminally minded.

Sigh...growing bored pointing out all of the flaws in your logic.

Sigh, growing bored of waiting for you to make any points against my argument.

Could that be because
1.Not all guns are legal
2.You have to have a permit to own a pistol

Maybe it was an analogy that begged to be nitpicked, but then again it was the best one I could think of. I decided just to explain it what I meant above.

 

[Forged]

Illegal Drugs – Decrease Crime
Legal Drugs – Increase Crime

the 18th and 21st amendment both come to mind here.

 

[c9h13no3]

Good to see nothing's changed. The morons are still ever-present, the guys with any sort of intelligence are few & far between (and very stubborn), and Roach is still into Manson.

/me goes back to obscurity

 

[Forged]

No matter how hard the government tries some people will end up getting addicted to whatever drug.

Right just like how some people are addicted to alcohol, however alcoholism is not really a rampant problem.

Legalizing drugs and setting an age limit would make it much harder for drugs to fall in to the hands of children. I could get cocaine easier as a 14 year old than I could alcohol. Simplly because I did not know anyone that was 21 and willing to by me beer when I was 14 years old. However I did know kids who had older brothers that sold drugs. Eliminate the need for drug dealers and you make it much harder for kids to get drugs.

Teenagers and people that did drugs as teenagers are generally the ones that are addicted to hard drugs. They make immature child like decisions that **** up their entire life. At this point in my life I could easilly score heroin but I choose not to. Not because it is illegal, just because I really just don't want to do heroin. I would imagine most people are like that, so a splurge in the market and making heroin legal isn't really going to create more heroin users. It might even decrease the amount of people using heroin because it keeps the teenagers from doing it.

 

[Tipsy]

the 18th and 21st amendment both come to mind here.

There is quite a difference between the drug prohibition and the alcohol prohibition. During the alcohol prohibition it was not illegal to consume alcohol unlike the drug prohibition where it is. There is also that most people have a social acceptance of alcohol, which has a much longer history in western society than currently illegal drugs. The second one just showing it is harder to enforce something that a large percentage of the population disagrees with. On the other hand, a large majority favors keeping the currently illegal drugs illegal.

Alcohol prohibition did also work in lowering the use of alcohol. By the time federal prohibition started 36 of the then 48 states had already made alcohol illegal. This had lowered the rate of alcohol per year from 2.6 gallons per person to 1.96 in 1919 due to states starting prohibition, and even lower during the federal prohibition. In 1934, the year after alcohol prohibition had ended, the alcohol rate was at .97 gallons per person. Alcohol rates are now around three times as high as after alcohol prohibition.

The argument that alcohol prohibition ‘spawned’ organized crime is completely untrue as well. Homicide rates, for example, rose more in the span of 1900 – 1910 than during all of prohibition. Not to mention organized crime was already firmly established in cities before the start of alcohol prohibition.

Right just like how some people are addicted to alcohol, however alcoholism is not really a rampant problem.

Legalizing drugs and setting an age limit would make it much harder for drugs to fall in to the hands of children. I could get cocaine easier as a 14 year old than I could alcohol. Simplly because I did not know anyone that was 21 and willing to by me beer when I was 14 years old. However I did know kids who had older brothers that sold drugs. Eliminate the need for drug dealers and you make it much harder for kids to get drugs.

Teenagers and people that did drugs as teenagers are generally the ones that are addicted to hard drugs. They make immature child like decisions that **** up their entire life. At this point in my life I could easilly score heroin but I choose not to. Not because it is illegal, just because I really just don't want to do heroin. I would imagine most people are like that, so a splurge in the market and making heroin legal isn't really going to create more heroin users. It might even decrease the amount of people using heroin because it keeps the teenagers from doing it.

Over the past 15 years, the number of illegal drugs users as a whole has dropped over half to only 6% of the total population of the United States. If we treat the right now illegal drugs like we do tobacco, which despite clear claims that it has negative effects on you, over 25% of Americans smoke and cigarette use amongst people below the age of 18 is on the rise. At the moment there are over 48 million people addicted to nicotine and about 12 million people addicted to alcohol, while there are only 5 – 6 million people addicted to illegal drugs. Making the currently illegal drugs legal would most likely follow the same path as tobacco is taking now and it will become more available to people under whatever age limit would be set on drugs. I personally don’t want to see the number of currently illegal drug addicts rise to meet alcohol and tobacco addiction levels. This, if anything, should show you that until alcohol and tobacco are actually reasonably controlled, it would be crazy to consider adding more recreational drugs.

 

[Tempest Storm]

So what is the permanent physical consequence of smoking marijuana? Is there anything that outweighs the studies saying it "increases risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema" or that it "increases risk of cancer of the head, neck, and lungs?" Maybe you’ll have your fun with it and so forth.

Increased risk? Is that it? There's an increased risk of mew dying in a car crash while driving to work, than when sitting at home. Should I just, not drive, or do anything with any risk?

The use of the general welfare clause is what would fit here but that is wide open to any interpretation, even amongst legal experts, the reason why I never pushed at it. Plus it would be a pointless debate because both sides have enough on each side to show that it is plausible, but not enough to disprove the other side. Though I am well aware that it is probably one of the most used defenses to government actions.

General welfare does not extend into my home. I want to smoke dope in my home, that is my right, and it is nobody else's business.

The government has no right to tell me that I can't use a paticular plant for private use. The government can't come into my home and tell me what I can and can not put in my body.

If you become an addict, another possible long term consequence mentioned in that study, I will be one of many people paying for your welfare,

1. Weed in not physically addictive.

2. Fix the welfare system. I get my shit just fine without help from The Man.

we will be paying for your time in prison if you get caught,

...not if it was legal...DUH!!! You just touched on one of the best reason to make it legal. To cleam up the prison system of ppl who don't need to be in there, so we can jail pedophiles and murders instead of tokers.

But for some reason, you think it's better than drug users are locked up instead of using that space of more dangerous ppl to society.

we will be paying for the money spent on the programs rehabilitating you

Again, not if it were legal...

, and so forth. That is just icing on the cake though, the cake is the crime that comes out of drug use.

how about the crime that comes from drug prohibition. Just like the alcohol prohibition gave rise to Al Capone and his elk, the drug prohibition has produced hundreds of cartels, all around the world. Drug prohibition funds these cartels, and the gangs and is the true cause of these drugs crimes.

If drugs were regulated, instead of prohibited, these cartels would loose the majority of the money that comes froms drugs. Drug prices would go down, ppl would buy from the government rather than dealers and they would lose most of there business.

"Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; of those incarcerated for robbery, 27 percent of State prisoners and 27 percent of Federal prisoners admitted committing their offense to get money to buy drugs (table 3). In 1997, 19 percent of State prisoners and 16 percent of Federal inmates said that they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These numbers represent a slight increase from the 1991 figures."

And:

"The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence. Assessing the nature and extent of the influence of drugs on crime requires that reliable information about the offense and the offender be available and that definitions be consistent. In the face of problematic evidence, it is impossible to say quantitatively how much drugs influence the occurrence of crime."

I'ld bet you that none of these ppl smoked pot. They were stealing and robbing and doing all this shit to support coke or heroin or meth habits.

Besides, you can't determine drugs cause the crime. Ever think that criminals are just more likely to do drugs than. I mean, it would be the badass criminal thing to do. Not that all druggies are criminals, just criminals like drugs.

btw, you might want to find a better source than the government. It'ld be stupid to just believe anyone who clearly has and agenda to promote. And when the studies always coincide with the agenda, it's a good sign they're bullshitting you.

The article basically concludes drug use increases both violent and non-violent crime.

Note: The whole article can be found here http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/ncj181056.pdf

Then you can see that people not under the influence of an illegal drug are less likely to commit crimes than people without.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf

Due to a storm outside I am going to have to cut off my post here. Feel free to take a look at the links becaus there is a lot more information than what I posted.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tipsy]

Increased risk? Is that it? There's an increased risk of mew dying in a car crash while driving to work, than when sitting at home. Should I just, not drive, or do anything with any risk?

And yet the positive consequences don't outweight negative consequences. The illegal drugs that we are talking about hurt your body even in the best case scenario. If you are asking for my suggestion about what you should do about risk is avoid it to a practical standard. Want to have fun? Find a safe way that won't automatically hurt your body. Want to drive? Drive safely. It is all about being pratical.

General welfare does not extend into my home. I want to smoke dope in my home, that is my right, and it is nobody else's business.

Some legal experts agree they can based on the constitution, some believe they can’t. No matter how long we debate this point it will be inconclusive, and that is the reason why even though I think the government should be able to protect us from ourselves, I am using a different argument (which can be seen answering the next quote).

The government has no right to tell me that I can't use a paticular plant for private use. The government can't come into my home and tell me what I can and can not put in my body.

However, the government does have an undisputed right to protect their citizens from having their rights infringed on by others. The legalization of drugs has been shown to increase both violent and non-violent crimes as has been shown both by studies and by the results of other countries testing it. Two examples, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are shown below answering another one of your quotes. (Where the ‘*’ is)

1. Weed in not physically addictive.

It is addicting, that is a fact. Is is physically addicting, mentally addicting, etc, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that it is addiccting. I am not saying it is as addictive as addictive as cocaine or even a legal drug such as alcohol (if you are going to once again compare tobacco/alcohol to currently illegal drugs see the bottom half of post #72). Multiple studies agree with me and “more than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year.†Marijuana is addictive, even though you may not feel the withdrawal symptoms immediately due to how long THC stays in your body.

2. Fix the welfare system. I get my shit just fine without help from The Man

Fix the welfare system and then we are still paying for people to fix their drug habits.
(Refer to ‘*’)

...not if it was legal...DUH!!! You just touched on one of the best reason to make it legal. To cleam up the prison system of ppl who don't need to be in there, so we can jail pedophiles and murders instead of tokers.

But for some reason, you think it's better than drug users are locked up instead of using that space of more dangerous ppl to society.

Actually I don’t think they should be in jail just like I believe everyone who is not a direct threat to others around them shouldn’t be in jail either. I made a rant on our prison system awhile ago and if you feel like it you can read it here:
http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=97829

I would personally rather see them sent to drug rehabilitation centers, for the users and a punishment that actually fits the crime for the sellers and manufacturers. I don’t see how us having a terrible prison system has anything to do with legalizing drugs. If anything this point should show that our prison system needs to be revamped. Also, you have once again put words in my mouth without even asking or looking up what I think of our prison system.

Again, not if it were legal...

For reference, this quote is referring to rehabilitation programs.
*

So when drugs are legalized people magically no longer get addicted? Not to mention the private drug rehabilitation centers do receive federal funding and would still exist and receive federal funding regardless of if the now illegal drugs are legalized. Either way we will still be paying for it.

Then again notice how the people paying (and the other things) for this was ‘the icing on the cake’, as I put it, and not the actual argument (cake).

how about the crime that comes from drug prohibition. Just like the alcohol prohibition gave rise to Al Capone and his elk, the drug prohibition has produced hundreds of cartels, all around the world. Drug prohibition funds these cartels, and the gangs and is the true cause of these drugs crimes.

If drugs were regulated, instead of prohibited, these cartels would loose the majority of the money that comes froms drugs. Drug prices would go down, ppl would buy from the government rather than dealers and they would lose most of there business.

Besides, you can't determine drugs cause the crime. Ever think that criminals are just more likely to do drugs than. I mean, it would be the badass criminal thing to do. Not that all druggies are criminals, just criminals like drugs.

Results from other countries tend to disagree with if drugs are legalized that crime will go down. As I posted earlier:

*
In the Netherlands:
"Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65"
Crime Increased.

In Switzerland:
"Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense. "70"
Crime Increased.

Two good examples.

I think I can sum all of this up very easily: Due to what has happened in other countries, it is very likely that if drugs are legalized crime will increase.

Crime will increase. I am against an increase in crime.

I'ld bet you that none of these ppl smoked pot. They were stealing and robbing and doing all this shit to support coke or heroin or meth habits.

 

[Tempest Storm]

And yet the positive consequences don't outweight negative consequences. The illegal drugs that we are talking about hurt your body even in the best case scenario. If you are asking for my suggestion about what you should do about risk is avoid it to a practical standard. Want to have fun? Find a safe way that won't automatically hurt your body. Want to drive? Drive safely. It is all about being pratical.

No, it's about being free. You know, a lot of people that die from drugs, die being of prohibition. People OD being because of inconstant purity in the drugs. One week they need 1cc of heroin to get off, the next they need 5 being the shit's diluted. Because it's outlawed and there is no regulation.

Whatever harms drug consumption causes over time to the user is far outweighed by the exceeded harms caused by prohibition. If left alone, they would have a death rate of any number of perscription drugs.

Not to mention the increased crime rate caused by prohibition, and the countless lives destroyed by our government in the last 30 years. Someone can get over an addiction, but they can't get over a conviction.

So when drugs are legalized people magically no longer get addicted? Not to mention the private drug rehabilitation centers do receive federal funding and would still exist and receive federal funding regardless of if the now illegal drugs are legalized. Either way we will still be paying for it.

You're already paying for it. To the tune of 18$ billion a year in DEA funding. And that's just the DEA. That's not state iniatives, DARE programs, various congressional peices, anti-drug media marketing, time, manpower, ect. All those resources, when we have millions of undocumented people coming in across the border each year, and we have Osama planning his next attack, spent locking up crackhead, and busting kids with pot.

We're all paying for it.

Plus, you forget the industrial aspects of cannabis. Hemp in one of the most industrious plants in the world. Paper, cloth, food, medicine, fuel, and textiles can all be made from cannabis.

As for addiction rates if legalized, my links below show that people become less addicted as drugs are legalized and regulated. Instead they are illegal, and pushers can sell them to whoever they want, including kids.

That's why it's easier for kids to get pot than it is for them to get cigarettes.

Some legal experts agree they can based on the constitution, some believe they can’t. No matter how long we debate this point it will be inconclusive, and that is the reason why even though I think the government should be able to protect us from ourselves, I am using a different argument (which can be seen answering the next quote).

The Constitution is prety clear on the issue. The federal government is limited by the Constitution. It can only do the things that it has been designated to do. Police power is not one of them. That's up to the states.

And general welfare does not extend into ones home unless their activity directly affects the general welfare. Private drugs use does not do that.

However, the government does have an undisputed right to protect their citizens from having their rights infringed on by others. The legalization of drugs has been shown to increase both violent and non-violent crimes as has been shown both by studies and by the results of other countries testing it. Two examples, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are shown below answering another one of your quotes.

I find it funny how you speak about infringing the rights of other when you care nothing about the users rights.

Your studies are off. You wouldn't have by any chance quoted a guy named Barry Mccaffery, would you?

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/071598-3.htm
http://www.peele.net/mccaffrey/mccaffrey.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/oped-04.html
http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/drug_czar_lies_about_the_dutch_a.htm

It is addicting, that is a fact. Is is physically addicting, mentally addicting, etc, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that it is addiccting. I am not saying it is as addictive as addictive as cocaine or even a legal drug such as alcohol (if you are going to once again compare tobacco/alcohol to currently illegal drugs see the bottom half of post #72). Multiple studies agree with me and “more than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year.” Marijuana is addictive, even though you may not feel the withdrawal symptoms immediately due to how long THC stays in your body.

You don't know marijuana. Pot is addicting in the way the video games are addicting. It's a mental addiction that can be broken by anyone with a bit of will power. However, there is no physical addiction.

I'ld like to see some citation for your last 2 sentences though.

I think I can sum all of this up very easily: Due to what has happened in other countries, it is very likely that if drugs are legalized crime will increase.

It will decrease, and let me explain why. Prohibition creates crime. First off, it makes criminals out of the users, usually people who are otherwise good, law abiding citizens.

Second, when you make something illegal, without stopping demand, you create a black market, and drugs is a lucrative market for all types of people. Rich people wanting to get richer, poor people trying to make a way for themselvesm, people who just need some quick money, and people who want to be millionaries when they're 20. There's about as much money in drugs, as there is in oil. All thanks to prohibition.

End prohibition, and you end a billion dollar black market that just about every street gang in America, like the Crips and Bloods, use to fund their exploits. No more pushers pushin to kids. No more inflated prices of drugs, which means far less people needing to steal and kill and commit various other crimes to support their habit. No more drug cartels. No more drug smugglers. And all the violence they cause.

Prohibition, like it did with alcohol, only cause more problems than they very thing you're prohibiting.

Moderator Note:
The following was edited in from double post:

Oh, and sorry this took so long...

I just kinda forgot about the topic

 

[Tipsy]

No, it's about being free.

And I believe we have the right to do whatever we want until it infringes upon the rights or hurts in a large way others.

You know, a lot of people that die from drugs, die being of prohibition. People OD being because of inconstant purity in the drugs. One week they need 1cc of heroin to get off, the next they need 5 being the shit's diluted. Because it's outlawed and there is no regulation.

Whatever harms drug consumption causes over time to the user is far outweighed by the exceeded harms caused by prohibition. If left alone, they would have a death rate of any number of perscription drugs.

Not to mention the increased crime rate caused by prohibition, and the countless lives destroyed by our government in the last 30 years. Someone can get over an addiction, but they can't get over a conviction.

You're already paying for it. To the tune of 18$ billion a year in DEA funding. And that's just the DEA. That's not state iniatives, DARE programs, various congressional peices, anti-drug media marketing, time, manpower, ect. All those resources, when we have millions of undocumented people coming in across the border each year, and we have Osama planning his next attack, spent locking up crackhead, and busting kids with pot.

Which is exactly why this whole ‘war on drugs’ needs to be completely revamped. It’s success is questionable, its’ inefficiency is clear, the obvious ‘lets just throw money at it’ mentality can be seen with it. What we are doing now is clearly just plain ineffective.

However, that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Let’s look at the two other things you talk about. We have countless people not crossing the boarder. Let’s tighten up the boarders. That will both stop undocumented people from coming and help control the illegal drug trafficking. Let’s more strictly inspect imports so both any type of illegal weapon or items used for terrorist attacks will be stopped along with illegal drug trafficking.

Just because I agree with the cause doesn’t mean I agree with how the cause is being persued.

We're all paying for it.

Plus, you forget the industrial aspects of cannabis. Hemp in one of the most industrious plants in the world. Paper, cloth, food, medicine, fuel, and textiles can all be made from cannabis.

If these industries are regulated and the cannabis is used for ‘paper, cloth, food, etc’ and not free flowing drugs into society then I see no problem with allowing these.

As for addiction rates if legalized, my links below show that people become less addicted as drugs are legalized and regulated. Instead they are illegal, and pushers can sell them to whoever they want, including kids.

That's why it's easier for kids to get pot than it is for them to get cigarettes.

This is another reason showing how a half assed and terribly inefficient prohibition is worse than no prohibition at all. This is a clear argument for the complete reform of how illegal drug trafficking needs addressed.

The Constitution is prety clear on the issue. The federal government is limited by the Constitution. It can only do the things that it has been designated to do. Police power is not one of them. That's up to the states.

And general welfare does not extend into ones home unless their activity directly affects the general welfare. Private drugs use does not do that.

I’ll explain it. It comes down to interpretation. You can either use strict constructionism as you are, or you can use loose constructionism as I do. Both are perfectly acceptable and neither is wrong, it is the interpretation of the document.

I find it funny how you speak about infringing the rights of other when you care nothing about the users rights.

We can do anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Your studies are off. You wouldn't have by any chance quoted a guy named Barry Mccaffery, would you?

Those link speak of the guy that “claimed that the Netherlands has much higher rates of murder and other crime than the United States.†That is not in dispute. I am claiming that drugs increase the crime rate as my quotations from above have stated. Does this mean that it makes our crime rate lower than theirs? No, there are numberless other things influencing the crime rate.

For example, let’s pretend the crime rate in the Netherlands is 2 and the crime rate in the United States is 4. The Netherlands legalizes drugs and their crime rate goes up to 3, and ours stays at 4. Though drugs are legalized, our crime rate is still higher. As a side note, these numbers are not directly related to actual crime rates and are just here for the example.

You don't know marijuana. Pot is addicting in the way the video games are addicting. It's a mental addiction that can be broken by anyone with a bit of will power. However, there is no physical addiction.

I'ld like to see some citation for your last 2 sentences though.

I don’t exactly have the link to where I originally got that quote, but from a quick google search I came up with: http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm

It will decrease, and let me explain why. Prohibition creates crime. First off, it makes criminals out of the users, usually people who are otherwise good, law abiding citizens.

Second, when you make something illegal, without stopping demand, you create a black market, and drugs is a lucrative market for all types of people. Rich people wanting to get richer, poor people trying to make a way for themselvesm, people who just need some quick money, and people who want to be millionaries when they're 20. There's about as much money in drugs, as there is in oil. All thanks to prohibition.

End prohibition, and you end a billion dollar black market that just about every street gang in America, like the Crips and Bloods, use to fund their exploits. No more pushers pushin to kids. No more inflated prices of drugs, which means far less people needing to steal and kill and commit various other crimes to support their habit. No more drug cartels. No more drug smugglers. And all the violence they cause.

Prohibition, like it did with alcohol, only cause more problems than they very thing you're prohibiting.

Prohibition does create crime, I will admit that. However, I will also admit that completely ending prohibition of drugs creates more. The two choices that we are looking at right here both have negative consequences. But I will be choosing the lesser of the two evils which is prohibition. If instead of fighting against prohibition we fought for reformation of the organizations enforcing prohibition much more good would come from it. When comparing prohibition and the end of prohibition, prohibition is clearly the better of the two choices to have the last amount of crime.

 

[Tempest Storm]

And I believe we have the right to do whatever we want until it infringes upon the rights or hurts in a large way others.

And private drug use affects the public in the same way as a guy drinking a couples beers after work with his dinner.

Which is exactly why this whole ‘war on drugs’ needs to be completely revamped. It’s success is questionable, its’ inefficiency is clear, the obvious ‘lets just throw money at it’ mentality can be seen with it. What we are doing now is clearly just plain ineffective.

And how would you revamp it in a way that would not only fix the current abuses and injustices, but also stop actual drug use?

However, that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Let’s look at the two other things you talk about. We have countless people not crossing the boarder. Let’s tighten up the boarders. That will both stop undocumented people from coming and help control the illegal drug trafficking. Let’s more strictly inspect imports so both any type of illegal weapon or items used for terrorist attacks will be stopped along with illegal drug trafficking.

All good things, but securing the border won't stop drugs from coming in. There's still the Canadian border which is mostly unfenced wilderness that's easier to cross than a blazing desert. Usually faster too.

It wouldn't stop drug trafficing in the least. It'ld tighten supply, drive up costs and the cartels will still make billions, and figure out how to utilize other methods of trafficing.

Not to mention, tighten the borders as much as you want, still won't stop smuggling. You'ld be surprised what a good smuggler can hide.

Just because I agree with the cause doesn’t mean I agree with how the cause is being persued.

This cause is more dangerous than the drugs themselves.

If these industries are regulated and the cannabis is used for ‘paper, cloth, food, etc’ and not free flowing drugs into society then I see no problem with allowing these.

Yet our government fights hemp law reform all the way. Once a crop that was manditory for all settlers to grow is now criminalized because of what? Some non-existant harm to society.

This is another reason showing how a half assed and terribly inefficient prohibition is worse than no prohibition at all. This is a clear argument for the complete reform of how illegal drug trafficking needs addressed.

Yet later on in your post, you state that you would rather have the current, ineffective, corrupt and abusive system over something new and that does work.

Amsterdam is not the crime center of the universe like your "studies" portrayed it to be.

We can do anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

But prohibition does infringe on our rights. Our right to privacy. Our right to pursue happiness. Our right to practice religion without government interference. And our freedom of choice.

Those link speak of the guy that “claimed that the Netherlands has much higher rates of murder and other crime than the United States.” That is not in dispute. I am claiming that drugs increase the crime rate as my quotations from above have stated. Does this mean that it makes our crime rate lower than theirs? No, there are numberless other things influencing the crime rate.

But it isn't. Those claims are false. The links provide the actual numbers. Our murder rate is 8x theirs. They have less people in prison than we do. They have fewer percentages of addicts than we do.

Their system is acomplishing the goals that the failed war of drugs was intended to fulfill.

For example, let’s pretend the crime rate in the Netherlands is 2 and the crime rate in the United States is 4. The Netherlands legalizes drugs and their crime rate goes up to 3, and ours stays at 4. Though drugs are legalized, our crime rate is still higher. As a side note, these numbers are not directly related to actual crime rates and are just here for the example.

Except their crime rate is one of the lowest in Europe.

Prohibition does create crime, I will admit that. However, I will also admit that completely ending prohibition of drugs creates more.

You keep saying that, but you keep forgetting to show how it creates more crime, and furthermore, how it creates more crime than prohibition creates.

The two choices that we are looking at right here both have negative consequences. But I will be choosing the lesser of the two evils which is prohibition.

Funny you would call a path that has destroyed countless lives "less evil" than a substance that couldn't possibly hope to ruin as many lives as the drug war has.

If instead of fighting against prohibition we fought for reformation of the organizations enforcing prohibition much more good would come from it.

But more would come if we did away with it altogether. Prohibition does not work, plain and simple. It didn't work with alcohol, it hasn't worked with drugs in 30 years, what makes you think it'll ever work?

When comparing prohibition and the end of prohibition, prohibition is clearly the better of the two choices to have the last amount of crime.

Unfotunately for you, the statistics don't agree with you.

 

[Tipsy]

And private drug use affects the public in the same way as a guy drinking a couples beers after work with his dinner.

Which is exactly why I have been saying, "...until alcohol and tobacco are actually reasonably controlled, it would be crazy to consider adding more recreational drugs."

And how would you revamp it in a way that would not only fix the current abuses and injustices, but also stop actual drug use?

All good things, but securing the border won't stop drugs from coming in. There's still the Canadian border which is mostly unfenced wilderness that's easier to cross than a blazing desert. Usually faster too.

All boarders need to be secured. If a guy with some drugs makes it across the boarder illegally, couldn't it have just as easily been a guy with a container of anthrax or lewisite? We shouldn't be tightening the boarder just for drugs, but for our security. Stopping or largely diminishing the supply of illegal drugs crossing the boarder should just be a side effect.

It wouldn't stop drug trafficing in the least. It'ld tighten supply, drive up costs and the cartels will still make billions, and figure out how to utilize other methods of trafficing.

Not to mention, tighten the borders as much as you want, still won't stop smuggling. You'ld be surprised what a good smuggler can hide.

This cause is more dangerous than the drugs themselves.

The idea would be to use some sort of technology that would be able to detect illegal drugs (along with other substances), many of which are already being developed and some of which already exist that can detect some illegal drugs. It is to make it so that they are no longer hiding it from searches, but attempting to hide it from something that no matter where they put it on them or in their belongings it will be detected.

Yet our government fights hemp law reform all the way. Once a crop that was manditory for all settlers to grow is now criminalized because of what? Some non-existant harm to society.

And I disagree with our policies. That happens a lot. As for the 'non-existent harm', it is quite existent and has been shown.

Yet later on in your post, you state that you would rather have the current, ineffective, corrupt and abusive system over something new and that does work.

I would rather have the extreme of complete prohibition over the extreme of complete legalization. This doesn't mean either is my first choice, it just states that complete prohibition is my choice over complete legalization.

Amsterdam is not the crime center of the universe like your "studies" portrayed it to be.

I don't believe my studies have portrayed that at all. The studies have shown that drugs cause crime to increase. Claiming that the studeis show Amsterdam as the crime center of the universe is an absurd exaggeration.

But prohibition does infringe on our rights. Our right to privacy. Our right to pursue happiness. Our right to practice religion without government interference. And our freedom of choice.

We can persue our happiness until it infringes upon the rights of others. Increasing crime infringes on the rights of others. As for freedom of religion, we have the right to do that until it infringes on the rights of others.

But it isn't. Those claims are false. The links provide the actual numbers. Our murder rate is 8x theirs. They have less people in prison than we do. They have fewer percentages of addicts than we do.

Perhaps that would be true if drugs weren't the only thing that influenced crime. Completely ignoring everything but drugs when comparing crime rates between two countries doesn't shown anything. My studies have shown that when a country (or portion of) goes from having drugs be illegal to drugs being legal the crime rate increases. Basically everything remains a constant other than drugs use. With those comparisons though, there are basically no constants and almost everything is ignored other than drugs. As for addiction, lowering the amount of drugs in the United States will lower the amount of addictions.

Their system is acomplishing the goals that the failed war of drugs was intended to fulfill.

The War on Drugs has helped more than complete legalization will in regards to crime. However, a competent way of stopping drugs, which I support, will work vastly better than either of these.

Except their crime rate is one of the lowest in Europe.

And that in what way addresses the example? You not only miss the entire point of it (crime rate can go up with the crime rate still being lower than the crime rate of the US), but miss the note of "...these numbers are not directly related to actual crime rates and are just here for the example."

You keep saying that, but you keep forgetting to show how it creates more crime, and furthermore, how it creates more crime than prohibition creates.

The studies have clearly shown that.

Funny you would call a path that has destroyed countless lives "less evil" than a substance that couldn't possibly hope to ruin as many lives as the drug war has.

I consider the lesser of two evils the one that does less harm. As complete prohibition helps society more than it hurts it as has been shown very clearly in the studies in the aspect of crime lowering, it is the lesser of two evils.

But more would come if we did away with it altogether. Prohibition does not work, plain and simple. It didn't work with alcohol, it hasn't worked with drugs in 30 years, what makes you think it'll ever work?

Because there is a clear distinction between this drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition as I have pointed out:

"There is quite a difference between the drug prohibition and the alcohol prohibition. During the alcohol prohibition it was not illegal to consume alcohol unlike the drug prohibition where it is. There is also that most people have a social acceptance of alcohol, which has a much longer history in western society than currently illegal drugs. The second one just showing it is harder to enforce something that a large percentage of the population disagrees with. On the other hand, a large majority favors keeping the currently illegal drugs illegal.

Alcohol prohibition did also work in lowering the use of alcohol. By the time federal prohibition started 36 of the then 48 states had already made alcohol illegal. This had lowered the rate of alcohol per year from 2.6 gallons per person to 1.96 in 1919 due to states starting prohibition, and even lower during the federal prohibition. In 1934, the year after alcohol prohibition had ended, the alcohol rate was at .97 gallons per person. Alcohol rates are now around three times as high as after alcohol prohibition.

The argument that alcohol prohibition ‘spawned’ organized crime is completely untrue as well. Homicide rates, for example, rose more in the span of 1900 – 1910 than during all of prohibition. Not to mention organized crime was already firmly established in cities before the start of alcohol prohibition."

As for why do I think it can work? I think it can work when the policies are changed and competent leadership is put into place.

Unfotunately for you, the statistics don't agree with you.

Actually, they do.

 

[Full-Torqe]

Drug | Reaction Information
==============================================================================
Marijuana | Not known for dangerous reactions. MJ is habit-forming for
| some users.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------
LSD | Not known for dangerous reactions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphetamines | Amphetamine overdosage probability is dramatically increased.
| Strongly discouraged. Speed is addictive.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine | Same as Amphetamines. Cocaine is addictive.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------
Heroin or | No dangerous reaction, but the stimulant effect of MDMA may
other opiates | mask the opiate's sedative effect and increase the likelihood
| of overdose. The opiates are addictive.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco | Not known for dangerous reactions. Tobacco is highly
| addictive and carcinogenic.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol | Same danger as opiates, also can dangerously exacerbate the
| dehydration that MDMA normally causes. Not recommended.
| Alcohol is habit-forming for some users.
--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------


Taken from http://www.erowid.org/

They explain very well the pro's and con's of certain drugs.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Which is exactly why I have been saying, "...until alcohol and tobacco are actually reasonably controlled, it would be crazy to consider adding more recreational drugs."

How would you control them anymore?

You seem to think that legalizing drugs would "add" them to society. You seem to forget that drugs are everywhere. In any city in America, you can find just about every drug out there if you know where to look. Drugs are readily available to society as it is.

Legalization would allow us to regulate their usage. Regulate it like tobacco. That's why it's easier for a 13 year old to get crack, than it is to get tobacco or alcohol. Prohibition makes it easier for kids to get drugs.

All boarders need to be secured. If a guy with some drugs makes it across the boarder illegally, couldn't it have just as easily been a guy with a container of anthrax or lewisite? We shouldn't be tightening the boarder just for drugs, but for our security. Stopping or largely diminishing the supply of illegal drugs crossing the boarder should just be a side effect.

I agree, but stopping the borders won't stop drugs. There are still the oceans, and the skies. Not to mention domestic drug production. Marijuana, acid, meth, ecstacy, and many other chemical drugs are produced here. Completely seal off both borders, and drugs will still get in.

The idea would be to use some sort of technology that would be able to detect illegal drugs (along with other substances), many of which are already being developed and some of which already exist that can detect some illegal drugs. It is to make it so that they are no longer hiding it from searches, but attempting to hide it from something that no matter where they put it on them or in their belongings it will be detected.

Such a device would most likely face serious Constitutional issues. Not to mention that such a device would be manufactered to fool the drug machines. You under-estimate what billions of dollars and determination can do.

And I disagree with our policies. That happens a lot. As for the 'non-existent harm', it is quite existent and has been shown.

There are harms and risks involved with everything. I've proven that the harm caused by drugs is dwarfed in comparison to the harm from prohibition.

I don't believe my studies have portrayed that at all. The studies have shown that drugs cause crime to increase. Claiming that the studeis show Amsterdam as the crime center of the universe is an absurd exaggeration.

Your studies make claims, nothing more. You have no link to them, you've shown no other studies, and the ones you have provided simply claim that crime rates rose, without explaining why.

We can persue our happiness until it infringes upon the rights of others. Increasing crime infringes on the rights of others. As for freedom of religion, we have the right to do that until it infringes on the rights of others.

To increase crime, you have to commit crime. Now I agree commiting crime violates ones rights, but getting high in your house does not increase crime, nor does it violate anyones else's rights. It doesn't even affect anyone else.

You keep making this hollow claim, over and over again, but you continually neglect to show just how using drugs violates someone elses rights, or even harms society.

Now if someone commits a crime while high, punish them, just like you'ld punish a sober guy that commits a crime. Why punish someone just because they get high, and don't hurt anybody?

The War on Drugs has helped more than complete legalization will in regards to crime. However, a competent way of stopping drugs, which I support, will work vastly better than either of these.

I've shown, and explained just how prohibition increases crime. You've not shown one way that prohibition decreases crime, or the legalization increases crime.

And that in what way addresses the example? You not only miss the entire point of it (crime rate can go up with the crime rate still being lower than the crime rate of the US), but miss the note of "...these numbers are not directly related to actual crime rates and are just here for the example."

Not just America, but Europe too. And probably a vast many other countries too. Now maybe they just have a naturally low crime rate, but you'ld think Amsterdam, the drug Mecca of the world, would be crawling with crime. All those addicts running around commiting obscure crimes, violating people's rights left and right.

You'ld also think that they, who give heroin addicts heroin, and allow tokers to stone themselves silly, would have more addicts of these substances than us, but they don't.

Any lifetime use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995):
29% in the Netherlands;
34% in the U.S.;
41% in the U.K.
(Sources: Netherlands Institute of Health and Addiction, U.S. National Institute for Drug Abuse; Council of Europe, ESPAD Report)

Heroine addicts as a percentage of population (in 1995):
160 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
430 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport;
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/drug_czar_lies_about_the_dutch_a.htm

The studies have clearly shown that.

In the Netherlands:
"Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65"

The facts are that the Dutch policy regarding drugs, which is actually quite far from complete legalization, reduce drug use, and reduce drug-related crime.

Here's your alternative to prohibition.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n600.a05.html/all
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n655.a05.html/all

The actual Dutch policy on drugs.

http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_TCP=tcpAsset&id=175A6D3F70164607A386D43B61DC135FX2X42819X14

In Switzerland:
"Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.

I doupt those numbers, but if they are tue, I can explain why. You don't legalize drug use in just a park. Then you have everyone that uses drugs in that park, the peaceful stoner, and coked-out Hell's Angel at the same place. That's just asking from trouble. Instead, if drug use had been allowed in their homes, then there wouldn't have been this problem.

I consider the lesser of two evils the one that does less harm. As complete prohibition helps society more than it hurts it as has been shown very clearly in the studies in the aspect of crime lowering, it is the lesser of two evils.

You apparently aren't aware of the atrocities commited by America in other countries because of the drug war. "Plan Colombia" is a prime example. Among hiring mercenaries to kill drug lords and their sympathizers, the government engages in chemical warfare. We fly around and spray coca, marijuana, and poppy fields with an industrialized version of "Round-Up", made by the same company. Like crop spraying, they just dump it out, on everything.

They spray people, legal crops, food crops, livestock, houses, and wildlife. This shit poisons the animals, the birds, insects, everything. It gets in the rivers, the wells, in the gound, ruins the fields for years and poisons the water supplies. Land can't be used for decades. Takes years just for the grass to come back, and you couldn't eat anything out of that ground anyway. This shit gives you rashes, boils, serious respiratory problems. These people cough blood after these sprayings. It doesn't kill adults, but babies aren't so lucky. And you just know something like this gives you cancer.

What about he harm to them?

Not to mention, we're really the ones responsible for the drug cartels and the the violence, corruptions, and destruction they bring to their countries. We gave them a market. A market that we could take away at the drop of a dime. Might not destroy them, as they've gone international by now, but at least they wouldn't be able to sell to their biggest costumer anymore.

Because there is a clear distinction between this drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition as I have pointed out:

"There is quite a difference between the drug prohibition and the alcohol prohibition. During the alcohol prohibition it was not illegal to consume alcohol unlike the drug prohibition where it is. There is also that most people have a social acceptance of alcohol, which has a much longer history in western society than currently illegal drugs. The second one just showing it is harder to enforce something that a large percentage of the population disagrees with. On the other hand, a large majority favors keeping the currently illegal drugs illegal.

Alcohol prohibition did also work in lowering the use of alcohol. By the time federal prohibition started 36 of the then 48 states had already made alcohol illegal. This had lowered the rate of alcohol per year from 2.6 gallons per person to 1.96 in 1919 due to states starting prohibition, and even lower during the federal prohibition. In 1934, the year after alcohol prohibition had ended, the alcohol rate was at .97 gallons per person. Alcohol rates are now around three times as high as after alcohol prohibition.

Partially because of the drug war. You think so many people would drink when they could smoke, or at least drink so much.

Alcohol prohibition still failed though, and it did lead to many more problems than it solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

The argument that alcohol prohibition ‘spawned’ organized crime is completely untrue as well. Homicide rates, for example, rose more in the span of 1900 – 1910 than during all of prohibition. Not to mention organized crime was already firmly established in cities before the start of alcohol prohibition."

They did? And where did you get this information from? Do you deny that organized crime grew during prohibition, that Al Capone would have become as powerful and big as he did even if prohibition never happened, that gang related violence didn't go up during that era?

As for why do I think it can work? I think it can work when the policies are changed and competent leadership is put into place.

Like the Netherlands?

Actually, they do.

More hollow claims.