MikeT

Libertarian, I would very much be interested in how you think our government is paying people to be drug addicts.

If you mean their treatment is being paid for, that is a far cry from a cash payout as an incentive to do more drugs.

If you believe fewer addicts are good for society, how do you propose to create fewer addicts?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I think we have to avoid the quotations within the quotations here. It stretches the thread out.


WEB

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

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I do not know why this thread is stretched out, I suspect it is because it has reached 37 pages, and the forum software insists on putting a link to everypage on the bottom. I think it's time to start a new thread, which I shall do in a moment.


WEB

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

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I have created a new thread for this debate: Drug Legalization Debate (Part 2) This thread is no longer convenient to post on due to it being stretched out because of its length and the forum softwares error in dealing with that and is therefore closed, please continue the debate on the other thread that I have linked to.

I would like to suggest that both Libertarian and Aegis, be a bit more careful about using the [quote] tags.

Aegis tends to leave out an end quote tag, and Libertarian's posting style would be better if he did not use quote tags at all, and instead of using them, did something like this:



"reply to rodog My comments in bold"

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.

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