Drug Legalization - Page 30 - Political Forum

The Libertarian · 08-14-2007, 07:01 PM

The Netherlands model is concrete evidence disproving your theory that legalization will somehow make more addicts.

The Libertarian · 08-14-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

But I'm not the one who wants to change the law. You have to prove that making drugs legal will not increase the drug addiction rate. Otherwise nobody is going to take the risk. The Netherlands model does not apply for several reasons namely the fact that cocaine is not mentioned, guns are not available, ghettos probably don't exist and the Netherlands does not share a border with a country full of drugs. No, it's because they don't have as large a demand. Meaning there is less supply, simple. When you support laws that cause most of the crime in America, are a violation of human rights, etc. etc. First YOU have to come up with a valid reason why we are doing it. Just because I can't prove there won't be more addicts is irrelevant, as even if there is a few more addicts, the problems caused would be no where remotely close to the problems that exist under prohibition.

As you noted the demand in the US may be hire, but American's have more money now do they? I wouldn't be surprised if in the Netherlands drug are just as expensive there legally as they are here illegally since they pay three times as much for gas and food.

No, drugs would still be much much cheaper if legal.

Bradgriff · 08-14-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Clearly prohibition causes more problems than it solves.

Not so fast there Lib....have you ever wondered why this thread is so long?....it's because you people all think you're right and everybody else is wrong....and....it's nearly all theoretical, prohibition isn't a good comparison...So I keep hearing long winded versions of "Drugs should be illegal because there will be bloodshed all over Iraq if we legalize them and I'm right because of all these links I found that say I'm right"......or...... "Take the criminal behavior out of the drug dealers by legalizing what they do, and thats' right because of these links I've found that say I'm right"

Truth is....these things always balance out because for every 100 of us, 7-10 of us will ruin our own lives with addictive behavior, then I will try to help them. The other 90-93 will live normal lives without ruining themselves with drugs, it's that simple, ask any addiction specialist doctor, ask any AA member, ask any NA member. All the rest is someone jacking you with rhetoric to get you to agree with legalization....or illegalization.

Respectfully

Judge Dredd · 08-14-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

I know, that's why I told you to take your communist theories elsewhere.

Not to play devil's advocate as I defend people's right to take narcotics. But what he's proposing is not communism. But fascism.

The differance between fascism and communism is motivation.

Judge Dredd · 08-14-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Neither are accurate. Your point of view is more like anarchism then mine is to fascism or communism.

Great, now you've made the universe implode by implying something so contradictory as Judge Dredd: the anarchist!

iTaliAN_ICe · 08-14-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd

Great, now you've made the universe implode by implying something so contradictory as Judge Dredd: the anarchist!

Lol.

Good one, your honor.

Scribbler1 · 08-14-2007, 09:59 PM

Dredd, would you mind SIZING those photos before you post them. It blows the page all to hell.

Alun · 08-15-2007, 12:59 AM

The Libertarian, you should really learn how to use these forums. I'm already disinclined to reply because your arguments are incoherent; having to copy+paste everything you say for a meaningful reply just makes it less likely you'll be taken seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Oh no, the drug cartels and drug gangs would go out of business. What a shame.

...that isn't what I said at all. I said that addictive behavior would mean less people would be productive; I don't think cocaine mixes with heavy machinery or legal contracts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Funny, I am the one supporting controlling these harmful substances, you are supporting drug anarchy.

What?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

If you aren't going to explain yourself, why do you reply?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Rehab for drug dealers? That doesn't make sense at all. All that will do is allow them to operate and make as much as they want without fear of prison. Ridiculous.

No, minor pushers; not all dealers. The people who are chained to the dealers by their own drug use, and pay for it by shuttling drugs to the masses, would be examples of minor pushers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

If you send the addicts and the dealers to the same place and give them nothing to entertain themselves, what happens?Once they get out they continue(atleast the dealer will).

No, man. They just keep dealing the drugs in prison. Criminals can be worse when they come out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeT

Do you believe that irresponsible people don't face the consequences of their actions when they lose their families, livlihoods, freedom, and health?

I think a main aim of the "War on Drugs" needs to be cutting off the problem at the source and deterring initial contact to addictive substances, rather than punishing massive numbers of people for using substances. There are more choices available than simply legalizing everything.

The Libertarian · 08-15-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alun

The Libertarian, you should really learn how to use these forums. I'm already disinclined to reply because your arguments are incoherent; having to copy+paste everything you say for a meaningful reply just makes it less likely you'll be taken seriously.. I have no idea what you are talking about. ..that isn't what I said at all. I said that addictive behavior would mean less people would be productive; I don't think cocaine mixes with heavy machinery or legal contracts. Since there is no reason to believe there will magically be more addicts this is irrelevant. What? By supporting prohibition, you support drug anarchy. They are far from being controlled. Any child can purchase drugs without ID.If you aren't going to explain yourself, why do you reply? Because I hate having to repeat myself throughout the thread. No, minor pushers; not all dealers. The people who are chained to the dealers by their own drug use, and pay for it by shuttling drugs to the masses, would be examples of minor pushers. And how the hell would you plan on enforcing this? No, man. They just keep dealing the drugs in prison. Criminals can be worse when they come out. Yes, but allowing them to deal drugs is just ridiculous. I think a main aim of the "War on Drugs" needs to be cutting off the problem at the source and deterring initial contact to addictive substances, rather than punishing massive numbers of people for using substances. I agree about not punishing users, but there is really no point in trying to "get rid of drugs" by the source as it is structurally impossible. There are more choices available than simply legalizing everything.

Yes, but reforming drug policy is merely tinkering with a failed system. Only by their complete legalization will most drug-related problems disapear.

The Libertarian · 08-15-2007, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

No suprise there.

What is magical is your belief or claim rather that making drugs more accessible won't increase the addiction rate. You still haven't explained how this process of legalization would work. Do you know the effectiveness of commercialism? Im sorry, but I could be asking you the same thing about why you think it will increase. Like I have stated repeatedly, legalization will not make it any easier to obtain drugs. Drugs would not be advertised.

Drug dealers don't exist in all schools you know. Besides if the child is addicted to drugs chances are someone definititely provided them beforehand rather then them finding an addict. Legalizing drugs would create more of them and would increase the chances of addiction. Despite what you believe, they DO exist in all schools. Saying they don't is like saying "
man is good". Which everybody should know is false.

So is allowing the local liquor store. Yes, but access to youth would be nearly diminished. Rather than having them illegal and allowing any child to buy them.

You don't want to punish the users because you don't want to waste tax dollars. You have no sympathy for them at all which is why you don't care if there are more of them and you don't care if they roam around the streets.
That doesn't even make any sense. Tax dollars are the least of my concern here. You are promoting pushers to be allowed to sell. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

Corporate America will become the new dealers, Americans in general will become the new target and drugs will be more addictive and more common. The problem won't disappear it will transform into a whole new creature.

You cannot make ridiculous claims and state them as truth. "drugs will be more addictive and more common".