Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Scribbler in black, my comments in purple

How many times HAS it worked? Some people avoid drugs because they're illegal, some for health reasons and others simply because they just don't WANT to.

It has worked 92% of the time and failed 8% of the time currently.

Yes, what ABOUT the other 92%? And what bearing does that have on the legality of drugs. Surely you aren't saying ALL of those people don't do drugs because they are illegal or would take them if they became legal?

The war on drugs is a total war. It is a war that first starts with the moral and social condemnation of drugs. It starts on the family level where the family believes drugs are bad. It then goes to the social level where society agrees drugs are bad. We send out the message that drugs are bad from our elected officials, our schools, our community organizations, religious leaders, etc Then we also have the war on drugs on the airwaves and in advertising. We then have the physical war on drugs which includes jail time for doing drugs as well as seeking and destroying drug caches. Then we screen out drugs coming into this country. All of it is part of the war on drugs, and when you legalize drugs, you bring down the entire war on drugs and thus you bring down that 92% statistic dramatically.

You are focusing on something that cannot be backed up with facts, as there is no way to know WHY they don't take them. How so? Is there any way to know how many people who don't take them now, would if they were legalized?

Then you are making an argument on a subject where you cannot know the facts. That's what you are doing. You are the one making the argument for change, and you just admitted that you cannot know the facts about the situation. Therefore you are trying to change the situation without knowing the facts. That's pretty reckless, isn't it?

No, my argument is perfectly balanced, and I never said to ONLY legalize pot. I referred to the illogic of the illogic of people lumping all drugs together as an illustration of how weak it is to say "society" is against drugs as proof they should be illegal. My own personal feeling that Heroin and CRACK Cocaine are extremely bad drugs is irrelevant.

So what are you in favor of legalizing? All drugs?


No, I did NOT say that. I said the prisons are filled with people whose only crime was getting high. And you're assuming these millions of Americans could never find any if they wanted some. As I said, just because you don't know where to go doesn't mean you don't know someone who knows someone who does.

You are loosing focus on the substance of the issue and arguing semantics instead. If people are languishing in jail due to substance abuse, obviously they knew where to get those substances. As for your comment about knowing someone who knows someone, every little bit of added inconvenience on acquiring drugs helps to make drugs less attractive. That's true for any human activity, the more inconvenient it is to do it, the less people will do it.


I'd say that's a false assumption that addiction will go up if drugs are legalized. For one thing, you can't argue that for the simple fact that they are still illegal and there is no evidence to support your claim as to what will happen when they ARE legal.

You cannot say what evidence exists unless you have spent a lot of time researching this issue. Have you? One could look at data of countries that have legalized drugs and see their impact on drug use. In any case, it is pretty clear that an increased presence of drugs in society will lead to an increase in addiction. Decreased barriers to drugs and increased marketing for drugs means more people doing drugs, which means more addiction to drugs.


You also imply all drug users will become addicts. I would argue that most junkies are talked into it by pushers who give it to them free (or extremely cheap) in the hopes they WILL become addicted, and then the price goes up. These pushers exist primarily because these drugs ARE illegal.

Replacing drug dealers with a much more efficient form of drug dealing (i.e. corporate America) will only lead a more efficient consumption of drugs.

Strictly speaking they are, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with drugs. Just because they are also illegal doesn't mean hey are in any way similar. There are a LOT of things that are "forbidden fruits", some MUCH worse than others, but we are talking about drugs.

Well according to your comment here, anything that is forbidden is automatically a "forbidden fruit." I don't agree. Many people understand that drugs a "poison fruit." Drugs are seen as dirty and a way to debauch yourself, as well as a disgrace. That helps to prevent drug use.

And taking a drug is a solo activity and harms no one else. Kiddie porn and incest not only DO harm others, mentioning these quite reprehensible things is only trying to demonize drug use by association.

What about "crack babies" and children born addicted to drugs because their parents did it? What about people who might get infected with disesases because people they know do drugs?

I shouldn't need to say this, but Crack Cocaine and Heroin aren't in the same LEAGUE as Marijuana. Have you ever heard of a pothead sticking up a liquor store? Or NEEDING to?

You have not stated how many drugs you prefer to legalize even though I already asked you this.

You don't seem to understand the economics of illegal drugs. Drugs are expensive BECAUSE they are illegal. The profit margin is in the thousands of percent. I'm not going to get into how the stuff is made or how it's distributed. Suffice it to say that every time addictive illegal drugs change hands, the seller makes a LOT of money. Obviously the stuff is dirt cheap when it is first made, and it only becomes outrageously expensive when it changes hands several times, to allow for maximum profit every time. That's what makes it worth the risk to deal in illegal drugs.

I understand that perfectly well. However, as people take drugs they develop a tolerance for it and thus need more drugs to get the same high. So they continue to demand more and more drugs. At the same time, the drugs themselves are ruining their health and probably their ability to sustain their livelihood. Drugs simultaneously undermines them and leads them to consume more drugs, which will inevitably result in them running out of money but having a major demand for drugs. This will result in the committing of crimes to get drugs.


Legalization in the way I've described would take all those middlemen out of the loop and they would stay cheap. It would also, IMO, make heroin and crack a lot less popular because with other, legal drugs available, and a hell of a lot cheaper than street shit, pushers wouldn't generate enough business to make the risk worthwhile, because the PUSHERS would still have the law on their asses.

The drug dealers who sell heroin and crack would be replaced by corporations who want to sell them, and corporations are more efficient than drug dealers, so you would have an increased consumption of heroin and crack under your proposal.


And if you think I'M saying those other things are okay because of your incorrect interpretation of my reasoning I resent that highly.

If someone comes into an argument not saying explicitly what they're in favor of legalizing and what they're not in favor of legalizing, I'm not going to make any assumptions about it. I asked you and you can tell me what your position is.


You brought morality into this. Not me. But I see no difference in "morality" between knocking down a six-pack, a few shots of Scotch, smoking a joint, snorting Cocaine or taking a load of Oxycontin before doing a radio show. It's a matter of what an adult wants to do when it affects no one but himself. YOUR sense of morality doesn't give you the right to interfere with the rights of others.

Drugs are dirty and they alter people's state of mind, far moreso than alcohol. It chemically alters the way people are and warps them into an unbalanced and unstable state. That's a degraded and unnatural way for a human being to be. It's not respectable and debauched. Since it is wrong, I oppose it. A person may want to do something wrong, but that does not change that it is wrong. Things that are wrong should be opposed.

Didn't you see those figures I provided? Those were the costs for the War on Drugs and it hasn't done much. Drugs are still here and more people are taking them.

More than 10x as many people are not taking drugs. That's a greater success than the failure of people who do take drugs.

The addicts are the ones hurt by this ridiculous waste of energy and money. I've mentioned how safe and inexpensive drug availability would cut down on addiction because most of the people who would become addicts would have a choice of supply and supplier where they now have none.

How would an increase in supply and variety of drugs reduce drug addiction?

And DRUGS don't target kids, pushers do. If, as I believe, legalization would eliminate most of the pushers there would be fewer of these bastards hanging around school yards. Cut out the pushers and make drugs available in age regulated liquor stores and I think you'll have safer children right there.
The so-called "war on drugs" has done little to stop any of that.
Legal drugs wouldn't be available to young people regardless of any advertising, which would probably not exist anyway. These drugs would NOT be sold at Walmart, or even advertised.

Just like beer is not advertised?




You advocate to make drugs on the same level as beer, therefore they would be advertised just like beer. Do drugs = get a hot girl and an awesome car

Are you even listening to me? My point is that it is available to kids BECAUSE it's illegal. They sell it on the streets and NOT in pharmacies or liquor stores.
You're not getting it. Where the legal drugs would be sold would NOT ALLOW CHILDREN to buy it.

You're the one not listening to me. You seem to think that because you said kids can get it only one way that that's the end all and be all. It doesn't work that way. Like I said, if you reduce the legality of drugs to the low bar of the legality of alcohol, then you make it just as easy for kids to score drugs as they do alcohol. Now you can go ahead and keep repeating that drug dealers are the ones who get kids addicted, but that won't change the fact that legal drugs now make it easy for kids to get drugs from places which sell drugs legally, from their friends or families.

You don't know that, and if the parents were responsible, or had a clue you might try to raid the liquor cabinet they should have locked it and then kicked your ass as soon as they smelled it on you. I know MY old man would have.
And whoever sold you the booze broke the law, just like if he had sold you pot.

Yeah, I do know that. A lot of families have liquor cabinets and most keep beer in the house. Now we add drugs in the house too. That can be easily taken. I never bought beer illegally but a seller offered to give me some if I wanted it. (This is just a corner store I'm talking about). Yes, it's illegal and that's exactly my point.

There wouldn't be some wide open, drug crazed America where helicopters dropped bags of dope onto the streets. It would be regulated and the appropriate laws enforced.

Drug crazed helicopters are not necessary when all of society will do the job of distributing drugs. That means mega corporations, celebrities, family, friends, store owners and the media.

But other drugs WOULD be legal. My personal feelings about Crack and Heroin are not at issue here. It's a matter of having the right to have a drink OR take a drug if you wan to, as long as you don't abuse the rights of others.
And as long as alcohol, which IS a drug, is legal the whole morality angle is bullshit.

Oh, so you want to legalize all drugs then? That's very sad, Scribbler. That would destroy this society. Everything would deteriorate. Crime would soar, disease would be rampant, no one would do their job, society would just fall apart. Everyone would regret it, but it would be too late by then.

That's the second time you've personalized this in a VERY offensive way. I see no reason for this.

I haven't personalized anything. I have stated a fact, which I standby. You seek to destroy the anti-drug environment that I grew up in. That's a fact. I see a reason for stating the facts. If you are not comfortable with this, we can end our discussion.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

micfranklin

My brother, who is barely into politics, can make a better argument than that.

Scribbler1

WEB, as you are just rewording many of the same comments or misrepresenting my position, I feel I have been very clear in my statements and am not going to offer any rehashing of my feelings. I'll leave you with these points just to clarify one more time where I stand.
Such as:
If 92% of people don't take drugs, it does NOT mean the drug war is working. People have many reasons for not doing drugs and wouldn't take them if they were legal. You imply that without it the whole country would become drug users.

"Then you are making an argument on a subject where you cannot know the facts. That's what you are doing. You are the one making the argument for change, and you just admitted that you cannot know the facts about the situation. Therefore you are trying to change the situation without knowing the facts. That's pretty reckless, isn't it?" I argue for change because the current system DOES NOT WORK. You argue for the status quo.

"You have not stated how many drugs you prefer to legalize even though I already asked you this." Which proves you aren't reading my posts completely. I SAID all of them, even though I have a personal opposition to crack and heroin. It's not for me to decide which substances not to legalize.
Again, you go down the emotional path of implying more people will take drugs , and again, I say most people who don't use drugs do not because they don't WANT to and still won't want to if they are legalized.

"Replacing drug dealers with a much more efficient form of drug dealing (i.e. corporate America) will only lead a more efficient consumption of drugs." This shows you've completely ignored my points that legal drugs would be sold only to adults in stores only open to adults and heavily regulated by law. There is no such regulation under the present system and drug use remains the same.
"You advocate to make drugs on the same level as beer, therefore they would be advertised just like beer. Do drugs = get a hot girl and an awesome car"
Drug crazed helicopters are not necessary when all of society will do the job of distributing drugs. That means mega corporations, celebrities, family, friends, store owners and the media. "
A Coors Lite ad doesn't turn millions of Americans into alcoholics, but again, your comparison is irrelevant. You know as well as I do, that we will NEVER see advertisements for crack cocaine or heroin. The idea of making them legally available in selected places where minors already do not go is to get drugs off the streets, eliminate the pushers who CAUSE the addiction and allow responsible adults to use the "recreational" kinds of drugs the same way they NOW buy another, very legal and SOMETIMES abused drug, alcohol.

"Now you can go ahead and keep repeating that drug dealers are the ones who get kids addicted, but that won't change the fact that legal drugs now make it easy for kids to get drugs from places which sell drugs legally, from their friends or families." Since every time I toss an apple at you, you throw an orange at me I see no point to "keep saying" it's primarily the PUSHERS who make people into addicts. But it doesn't make it less true if I stop saying it. Again regulation and enforcement go hand in hand with legalization. Kids shouldn't be ABLE to get booze from liquor stores or friends and drugs should be treated the same. These things should ONLY be available from the places I mentioned and street dealers would still be punished severely for selling on the street.
Now, if you have an adult buy legal drugs for a kid, HE becomes a street dealer and he will know he will be prosecuted the same as a pusher in a schoolyard. That's a good incentive for not buying drugs for kids.

"If someone comes into an argument not saying explicitly what they're in favor of legalizing and what they're not in favor of legalizing, I'm not going to make any assumptions about it. I asked you and you can tell me what your position is." You DID make assumptions. Twice I said drugs should be legalized. Not SOME drugs. I think it's pretty self explanatory that you mean ALL when you specify no particular drug. I also stated my personal opposition to crack and heroin and stated my personal feelings are irrelevant in a discussion of WHY they should be legal.

"Drug crazed helicopters are not necessary when all of society will do the job of distributing drugs. That means mega corporations, celebrities, family, friends, store owners and the media. "As I said, there is no WAY we will see ads for "cool new crack cocaine" or "Sam Adams lite Heroin" and one of the rules the government would impose would be that drugs will not be advertised." A simple solution to your fear of mass marketing.

"Oh, so you want to legalize all drugs then? That's very sad, Scribbler. That would destroy this society. Everything would deteriorate. Crime would soar, disease would be rampant, no one would do their job, society would just fall apart. Everyone would regret it, but it would be too late by then." That's an overly emotional opinion I do not share obviously. And it IS your opinion because we haven't TRIED my way so you cannot know if it will work or not.

"I haven't personalized anything. I have stated a fact, which I standby. You seek to destroy the anti-drug environment that I grew up in. That's a fact. I see a reason for stating the facts. If you are not comfortable with this, we can end our discussion." The only thing I object to is the emotional and factually incorrect way you present your point. And when you say people like me (which INCLUDES me) want to destroy the anti-drug environment you grew up in, you are indeed making it personal. Put that together with your quote above and you're accusing ME and others of practically wanting to destroy the American way of life. I assume the "anti-drug environment" you grew up in is composed primarily of your family and friends. What I find offensive is the slightest implication that I want to, or even have any power to interfere with your environment. Legalizing drugs does NOT mean people will suddenly turn up at your door and start telling you your parents are wrong while they jab needles into your arms.

These extended and repetitive posts are starting to look like a four-hour version of "Crossfire" and the viewers are going to tune out. You need not respond, but I will summarize my position here. Please read the whole thing:

Your first mistake is assuming because I want to legalize drugs is thinking that means I want everybody to USE drugs. That ridiculous connection might make a nice campaign issue but nothing is further from the truth. I want people to use FEWER drugs, and eliminate the addicting drugs from society. By your own admission, you haven't had much contact with the world of illegals drugs. I have, and I have seen MANY good people ruined by addictive drugs such as Heroin, and I want that to STOP. With legalization and regulation, the pushers who GET these people addicted would be gone from the streets as the legal availability would be there and the pushers profits would dry up.
As I said before, pushers ONLY deal in addictive drugs such as Heroin, speed and crack and therefore these drugs are the most easily available to those who feel the escapist need to get high. Again, you will not find ONE drug addict who will tell you they took drugs for the purpose of BECOMING addicted. That's all that was available because ALL drugs are illegal. With legalization you will at least have a choice. And again the pushers, who are IMO the scum of the Earth, will find their business dry up.
I also believe hard drugs like Heroin and crack will become extremely unpopular once other drugs are available. But even if some people STILL wanted to do heroin, the regulated stores could require a medical certificate or something before they would sell it.
(And speaking of pushers, it's a little known fact that most junkies don't really get that sick from Heroin itself, the drug originally invented and trademarked by the Bayer company. It's the poisonous garbage the pushers use to CUT it with, and increase their profit, that makes people sicker.)

Contrary to your beliefs, I think the majority of Americans CAN find drugs if they look hard enough and they have enough money, so your assumption of a massive upsurge in drug use is flawed. In all honesty I feel there will probably be a spike in new users at the beginning of legalization, but that will subside once the novelty wears off. But I figure the drugs used won't be the hard drugs. One, they will still be regulated and age controlled and two, most people wouldn't want such a STRONG high the hard stuff provides. Like social drinkers they would want the buzz but still be able to function. Plus, just who in the hell WANTS to stick needles into themselves. Even diabetics hate to do that. Junkies are so sick from the tainted hard drugs they would do ANYTHING to get that fix, and needles are no problem at all.

In my opinion, most of these these pitiable junkies are the direct result of the phony "war" on drugs. Despite the Billions and Billions spent, we have no more stopped illegal drugs from entering this country than we have illegal aliens. As with anything else illegal, this "war" has created a black market, and it is ONLY in that black market that pushers thrive. Show me another effective way to deal with this, other than the same failed programs that exist today and I'll be happy to listen.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Scribbler in black, me in purple

WEB, as you are just rewording many of the same comments or misrepresenting my position, I feel I have been very clear in my statements and am not going to offer any rehashing of my feelings. I'll leave you with these points just to clarify one more time where I stand.

I'm not misrepresenting anything you say. I showed in a very straightforward way why your ideas would ruin this country.

If 92% of people don't take drugs, it does NOT mean the drug war is working. People have many reasons for not doing drugs and wouldn't take them if they were legal. You imply that without it the whole country would become drug users.

It does mean that the war on drugs is 92% effective. The war on drugs is a total war, and I listed all the fronts of that war.

I argue for change because the current system DOES NOT WORK. You argue for the status quo.

The system is 92% effective. Your change might flip the numbers around. If we take the alcohol analogy that many pro-legalization proponents use, then we should expect to see drug-use as common as alcohol-use (which is about 71%). Your changes would decrease effectiveness to about 20% if we follow the alcohol analogy.

Which proves you aren't reading my posts completely. I SAID all of them, even though I have a personal opposition to crack and heroin. It's not for me to decide which substances not to legalize.

No, I read your posts and refuted them. You can think that I didn't read your posts, nonetheless they remain refuted whether you want to think I read them or not.


Again, you go down the emotional path of implying more people will take drugs , and again, I say most people who don't use drugs do not because they don't WANT to and still won't want to if they are legalized.

There's nothing emotional in understanding that a drop in the taboo of drug use, an increase in marketing of drugs, and the increased availability of drugs will lead to increased drug use. That's just logical and common sense. It's emotional to think that all those changes WILL NOT lead to increased drug use. When you legalize drugs, you change the entire culture. People don't grow up being against drugs, they grow up being for them. You make the mistake of only looking at DEVELOPED ADULT PEOPLE and comparing them before and after legalization. You don't consider the impact it has on children growing up in a drug-legalized society. You fail to consider the impact legalization will have on the culture of future generations and the present youth.

This shows you've completely ignored my points that legal drugs would be sold only to adults in stores only open to adults and heavily regulated by law. There is no such regulation under the present system and drug use remains the same.

The fact that you continue to talk about me rather than my arguments shows an inability to engage in the shortcomings I have pointed towards in what you say. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of when you claim that I never read your points. Regardless of what fairy tales you want to tell yourself about whether or not I read your points, you will find them all addressed and their glaring weaknesses shown throughout my posts.

As for the issue you mention here, now you are looking at the people who cannot legally buy drugs, but you don't look at the people who can legally buy them. The people who can legally buy them will now buy more of them.

Also you miss my larger point that when you have corporations advertising for their products (drugs in this case) that is something everyone sees. Lastly, the increase in drug supply means an increase ease at which people can aquire them illegally as I have elaborated on earlier.


A Coors Lite ad doesn't turn millions of Americans into alcoholics, but again, your comparison is irrelevant. You know as well as I do, that we will NEVER see advertisements for crack cocaine or heroin. The idea of making them legally available in selected places where minors already do not go is to get drugs off the streets, eliminate the pushers who CAUSE the addiction and allow responsible adults to use the "recreational" kinds of drugs the same way they NOW buy another, very legal and SOMETIMES abused drug, alcohol.

If advertisements are ineffective then I wonder why companies spend billions of dollars on them every year. The advertisements will make people think doing drugs is cool, just like people think drinking is cool. This is the exact opposite of the messages we are sending to people today.

Again, you keep talking about "pushers." This is not much of an argument. Some weirdo who comes up to me on the street trying to "push" drugs on me is far less effective than my friends, family, advertisements, celebrities, etc who encourage me to do drugs. That's what it would be like if drugs were legalized.

You say that I "know" that we'll never see advertisments for heroin or cocaine. That's true, but that's because the entire legalization movement will never succeed.

Since every time I toss an apple at you, you throw an orange at me I see no point to "keep saying" it's primarily the PUSHERS who make people into addicts. But it doesn't make it less true if I stop saying it.

I don't throw you an orange. You show me a series of mistaken equations like 2+2=5, I merely scratch out the 5 and put in a 4.

Again regulation and enforcement go hand in hand with legalization. Kids shouldn't be ABLE to get booze from liquor stores or friends and drugs should be treated the same. These things should ONLY be available from the places I mentioned and street dealers would still be punished severely for selling on the street.
Now, if you have an adult buy legal drugs for a kid, HE becomes a street dealer and he will know he will be prosecuted the same as a pusher in a schoolyard. That's a good incentive for not buying drugs for kids.

TODAY kids can easily buy alcohol. I was able to easily acquire alcohol when I was below 21. Sticking with the alcohol analogy used by pro-legalization proponents, it follows that minors will have just as easy a time acquiring drugs. The situation might even be easier, since the saturation of society with drugs will lead to impaired judgement for all levels of society, including parents, siblings, friends and store owners. Impaired judgement and an indifferent attitude to breaking a law that they will view as something flexible anyway.

You DID make assumptions. Twice I said drugs should be legalized. Not SOME drugs. I think it's pretty self explanatory that you mean ALL when you specify no particular drug. I also stated my personal opposition to crack and heroin and stated my personal feelings are irrelevant in a discussion of WHY they should be legal.

If anything, I thought you meant only pot, which would have strengthened your argument. Your actual argument is weaker than I thought it was.

As I said, there is no WAY we will see ads for "cool new crack cocaine" or "Sam Adams lite Heroin" and one of the rules the government would impose would be that drugs will not be advertised." A simple solution to your fear of mass marketing.

I don't understand why you are drawing this line in the sand. It's pretty arbitrary. You just arbitrarily say let's legalize drugs, but you can't advertise for what's legal. You expect this arbitrary line in the sand that YOU draw to hold up if drugs are legalized? How long before that law gets taken down by the next wave of pro-legalization people?

That's an overly emotional opinion I do not share obviously. And it IS your opinion because we haven't TRIED my way so you cannot know if it will work or not.

Nothing emotional about it. It's the logical conclusion based upon the logic and analogies of the pro-legalization proponents. Also, I think that anyone reading this should take note of the logic of this comment, namely that we should give your way a shot because we aren't SURE that it will fail and we aren't SURE that it will create mass drug use. That's pretty nuts. lol

The only thing I object to is the emotional and factually incorrect way you present your point. And when you say people like me (which INCLUDES me) want to destroy the anti-drug environment you grew up in, you are indeed making it personal. Put that together with your quote above and you're accusing ME and others of practically wanting to destroy the American way of life. I assume the "anti-drug environment" you grew up in is composed primarily of your family and friends. What I find offensive is the slightest implication that I want to, or even have any power to interfere with your environment. Legalizing drugs does NOT mean people will suddenly turn up at your door and start telling you your parents are wrong while they jab needles into your arms.

Show me how it is factually incorrect, my statement that you want to destroy the anti-drug environment I grew up in. The anti-drug environment I grew up in included family, friends, schools, society and government who were opposed to drugs. Legalizing drugs will at least change the anti-drug position of the latter four groups.

Legalizing drugs is like knocking the columns out from beneath a building. Society is opposed to drugs and legalizing them would just blow all the support columns out from beneath society's opposition to drugs.

Your first mistake is assuming because I want to legalize drugs is thinking that means I want everybody to USE drugs. That ridiculous connection might make a nice campaign issue but nothing is further from the truth. I want people to use FEWER drugs, and eliminate the addicting drugs from society. By your own admission, you haven't had much contact with the world of illegals drugs. I have, and I have seen MANY good people ruined by addictive drugs such as Heroin, and I want that to STOP. With legalization and regulation, the pushers who GET these people addicted would be gone from the streets as the legal availability would be there and the pushers profits would dry up.

I never said that you wanted people to use drugs. I have said that whatever your intentions are, your plans would destroy American society. Your motives were never relevant to my comments, just the outcome. I have known people who used drugs. Let me think of all the times.....

* My best friend and his group of friends (about 5 of them) used pot, cocaine and perhaps acid.

* Three of the people I lived with in an apartment smoked weed

* Several of my friends in graduate school used pot

So I know people who have used drugs. I was offered pot and cocaine and I declined.

What I really think you don't get is that you DON'T SEE the war on drugs working, therefore you fail to appreciate that it's keeping 92% of Americans off of drugs. You want to make changes, but you don't see that it will be yanking out the support columns for an entire bridge in order to use the materials in those columns to make other changes.


As I said before, pushers ONLY deal in addictive drugs such as Heroin, speed and crack and therefore these drugs are the most easily available to those who feel the escapist need to get high. Again, you will not find ONE drug addict who will tell you they took drugs for the purpose of BECOMING addicted. That's all that was available because ALL drugs are illegal. With legalization you will at least have a choice. And again the pushers, who are IMO the scum of the Earth, will find their business dry up.

I wonder if you've been paying attention when you walk around in a supermarket or a mall. You will notice that when something is legal, corporate America not only sends in professional people to package and advertise, they send in RESEARCH TEAMS TO REFINE AND IMPROVE THE PRODUCT. There would be a new and more addictive drug every month. Wow, man talk about addiction, now you are talking about putting professional scientists to work and compensating them well for it, and giving them state of the art technology to create the most chemically and psychologically addictive drugs the world has ever seen. Really, you really need to think about what happens when you open up a new market and how much potential there is to make money off of drugs.

Contrary to your beliefs, I think the majority of Americans CAN find drugs if they look hard enough and they have enough money, so your assumption of a massive upsurge in drug use is flawed. In all honesty I feel there will probably be a spike in new users at the beginning of legalization, but that will subside once the novelty wears off. But I figure the drugs used won't be the hard drugs. One, they will still be regulated and age controlled and two, most people wouldn't want such a STRONG high the hard stuff provides. Like social drinkers they would want the buzz but still be able to function. Plus, just who in the hell WANTS to stick needles into themselves. Even diabetics hate to do that. Junkies are so sick from the tainted hard drugs they would do ANYTHING to get that fix, and needles are no problem at all.

In my opinion, most of these these pitiable junkies are the direct result of the phony "war" on drugs. Despite the Billions and Billions spent, we have no more stopped illegal drugs from entering this country than we have illegal aliens. As with anything else illegal, this "war" has created a black market, and it is ONLY in that black market that pushers thrive. Show me another effective way to deal with this, other than the same failed programs that exist today and I'll be happy to listen.[/quote]

Well anyone can find anything in this country. I can go out there and find some goat sex video tapes if I want to. However, what people CAN do does not address my argument. My argument says HOW HARD IS IT to find drugs. We make it as hard as possible and then that makes people want to do it less. Again, making any human activity harder makes people want to do it less. People don't like to put in lots of effort for any given task.

I think I've made pretty clear my reasons for objecting to your plans so there's no need for me to repeat them again here. As for increasing the effectiveness of the war on drugs, that is another issue, and a far less important one than preventing what we currently do have (the majority of Americans who never tried drugs and the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not regularly use them) from being completely overturned.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I was asked to come up with an idea to better fight the war on drugs. I would suggest spending money on undercover stings. Nothing scares people more than the unknown. From a drug dealer's perspective: he might be selling dope to just another customer, or maybe he's a NARC. He's got to deal with that chance every single time, and eventually he's gonna get caught.

Also, really heavy penalties and jail time on drug dealers, lesser ones on people who are using pot.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Bradgriff

Pardon me for butting in....DuBois....I brough this subject up with addicts at a Narcotics Annonymous meeting last night. What we see at the Rehab Clinic, and don't ask for sources on this because my friends wouldn't want me to use thier names, is that about 7-10% of people show a genetic presdiposition towards addiction. This means if they're not addicted to drugs they'll likely become addicted to alchohol(a deadly legal drug by the way), sex, gambling, cutting, spending money, overeating, or they'll just kill themselves possibly....No law will change that genetic component of thier behavior. The other 93-90% of society lacks that genetic flaw and the addiction stats for them are extremely low. I think this area is where you might possibly have input of value, to keep those folks from starting.

As far as the 7-10%, I don't believe any laws will prevent thier inevitable cycle of abuse, based on my expert opinion after hearing for years about the insane lengths people will go to to use if they are addicts. They're scoring just fine even though it's illegal. The cops bust one source, another enterprising person fills that void.

90-93% of the population are smart enough to either NOT buy the drugs they see on the shelf at Walmart, or be averted by the effects of those drugs, or be successful in moderating thier usage. I know pot users who are successful family folk, thier kids don't know they do it, they don't spend money on it they shouldn't. And I know lot's of people who drink responsibly too. After Prohibition was repealed alcohol consumption DID NOT skyrocket among all age brackets, and society didn't "loose" ,although I'm not quite sure what you meant by loose. Anyway....take that for what it's worth. I just hope you're receptive to other opinons as you try so hard to prove that you're 99-100% right

__________________
“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”-Barry Goldwater

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

If only 10% of the people at the Clinic are addicts, what are the other 90%?

The first thing is not to legalize drugs. I've already made my argument about this several times.

What you are saying is that people who are already addicted stay addicted. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that it's better to minimize the people who become addicted in the first place.

That's because the drugs on the Walmart shelf are not tailor made for hedonistic consumption. Legalizing drugs would put those kinds of drugs on the shelves of Walmart.

After Prohibition, alcohol consumption returned to pre-Prohibition levels and then climbed beyond them. As for "loose" it's obviously a spelling mistake and should be "lose". It appears that you knew that by your usage of the term. I've always found it to be a sign of desperation for an opponent if they have to start attacking my occasional spelling error.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

By the way, after Prohibition was repealed, average alcohol consumption among the population doubled 40 years after the repeal.

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Alcohol Prohibition

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Scribbler1

No, you showed your OPINION is that these ideas would "ruin the country". It's as simple as this. Since drugs are not legal NOW, and we have yet to try legalization, every single point you're making is based on that, an opinion, gut feeling or whatever you want to call it. Just don't call it fact. My opinion is different, and it's based on a long period of thought and observation and a belief that it COULD work. I don't ever say it's guaranteed to work, but it's better than what is in place now. If the government "drug war" DID work, we wouldn't even have this argument.
The current ways have been tried. They have been in place for a LONG time and they don't work. What I suggest has not been tried, so it's not only unfair to condemn it out of hand, it's not based on anything OTHER than emotion.
My way could be wrong too, but it deserves a try because we have to do SOMETHING. Enforcement of existing laws is just a hit or miss proposition. If we can't do anything about illegal aliens or illegal guns, what makes you think the old strategies will work against illegal drugs?
No it doesn't. With no way to prove it, it ONLY means these people do not take drugs and not WHY they don't. It doesn't cover such elements ad desire or availability. That's a lot of people you're tossing in that same basket.
You are using the same flawed logic to lump all alcohol abstainers together. The difference is, alcohol is LEGAL, yet not everyone drinks.
Drug use might just BE almost as common as alcohol use, but then you must define WHICH drugs. If somebody smokes a joint after work and his neighbor drinks a few beers, and they both are responsible citizens who hold down jobs, I see no fundamental difference.
And alcohol is legal, regulated and sold in businesses that aren't allowed to sell to children.
As I said, you CAN'T refute my position because you have NOTHING to back it up.
I already said I could be wrong, but as that is the only alternative to the same failed program it should be tried.
If you noticed, I said there would likely be a rise in drug use after legalization, but WHICH drugs? I think use of Heroin , crack and speed WILL go down dramatically, but lighter "recreational" drugs will increase with a likely downturn of liquor sales. It is deceptive and dishonest to lump all drugs in the same category, just as it is to stereotype drug users, drinkers and drug abstainers.
Yes, I AM looking at adults because, just as with alcohol, kids aren't SUPPOSED to have access. If an adult sells, or gives a child drugs the laws will bust him for street dealing, which I already said should remain illegal and heavily enforced.
Kids grow up in a society where alcohol is legal and I don't see entire generations turning into alcoholics, so it remains to be seen if your opinion is correct about that.
You are the one who brings up "end of civilization as we know it" scenarios with no basis in fact and since I AM discussing this WITH you, why would you have issue with me talking TO you about those points?
Okay, fair enough. I'll accept that you DO read all my points, but again, as this has never been tried you "refute" them with simple opinions.
I present a logical argument for TRYING it because the old way doesn't work. You have strong feelings about why you THINK they won't but your feelings hold no more water than mine because it hasn't been tried.
Once again, legalizing drugs does NOT guarantee people will flock to the liquor store to buy crack cocaine. But I believe they WILL buy the "softer" drugs, which puts them in a different category from hard, addictive drugs.
The word "drugs" itself has become a cliche. Non-specific words used to evoke emotion with no real definition. There are different drugs with different levels of risk to the user. Just like there is a difference between a bottle of wine and a bottle of 180 proof moonshine.
I didn't miss it. I dismissed it. As I already said, under the plan I envision there will be NO advertising. For 20 some-odd years the government said it was illegal to advertise whiskey on TV, and of course you don't see ANY cigarette ads. If the government can do that, they can easily prohibit advertising of drugs. Once legal, everyone will know where they can get them. There will be no brand names, no catchy jingles and no hot babes saying they love a man who does Heroin.
A Coors Lite ad doesn't turn millions of Americans into alcoholics, but again, your comparison is irrelevant. You know as well as I do, that we will NEVER see advertisements for crack cocaine or heroin. The idea of making them legally available in selected places where minors already do not go is to get drugs off the streets, eliminate the pushers who CAUSE the addiction and allow responsible adults to use the "recreational" kinds of drugs the same way they NOW buy another, very legal and SOMETIMES abused drug, alcohol.
I said this in a previous post, and I repeated it in THIS one. Under the legalization plain I picture, there won't BE advertising, PERIOD.
Again, your opinion. And I don't think "pushers" will be going after your type much anyway. You seem to me like a pretty well-adjusted, middle class (or upper middle) young man who has a decent life and has made a personal decision to not do intoxicants. Am I about right on this?
Pushers, OTOH, go after the people who are everything you're NOT. Miserable people who are down on their luck with a dead-end life and no hope on the horizon. They're in search of a way to make things seem better for a little while. Pushers LOVE that kind of guy, and they'll be right there to help the poor slob out, with a little something to take care of that misery. Probably for free too, at least in the beginning. THOSE are the parasites I see being run out of business with legalization.
That's your opinion. I hope you're wrong.
Don't bring numbers into this. If memory serves the only numbers (government numbers) came from ME.
You seem incapable of even admitting these are your opinions, based on wishful thinking about a situation that has not even been tried.
The big difference is I think it WILL work.

I'm done with this thread. It's run its course.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

superdude17*

if you want to live in a society where you have people lighting up bowls on the street, and snorting a few lines at the local red robin, fine. i don't. drugs will always be illegal in this country, and they should be. we don't need to give addicts an excuse to roam the streets openly.