• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War on drugs a bust: commission

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539327 said:
Compare the violence during prohibition and after alcohol was legalized again in the U.S.[/'b] I'm a pragmatist when it comes to drug use in the U.S. I think if the government legalizes marijuana and taxes it like they do alcohol, they increase tax revenue, stimulate the economy with increased jobs, and experience a sharp decline in crime related activities. It will also become much harder to acquire by those who are underage.

So it's like alcohol, if you don't partake in it's consumption, that's your business.



There's no evidence that the violence wouldn't have existed.

Illegal liquior is illegal liquior. Whether it's illegal to make it and sell it, or it's illegal to sell it without a tax stamp.
 
Even if this were true, the average pot smoker smokes less the 20 time the equivalent in tobacco. That pretty much takes care of that nonsense.

How many cigarettes can a person smoke and be safe from cancer?
 
How many cigarettes can a person smoke and be safe from cancer?

Really depends on genetics.

My family is full of heavy, life-long smokers. No cancer. No heart disease. No COPD. No emphysema.

On the other hand, I have a friend whose parents both died of smoking-related cancer in their early 60's.
 
1. People still do drugs.
2. We have empirical non-criminal models in other countries that have proven to be more effective for drug users and cheaper on the tax payers.

Those countries are starting to crack down on drugs, too; because they've seen that legalized drug use only creates a larger burden on the system.
 
Really depends on genetics.

My family is full of heavy, life-long smokers. No cancer. No heart disease. No COPD. No emphysema.

On the other hand, I have a friend whose parents both died of smoking-related cancer in their early 60's.

So, the anti-smoking campaign of the Libbos is bull****?
 
So, the anti-smoking campaign of the Libbos is bull****?

In parts, yes.

Smoking is obviously harmful. How much depends on the person's personal habit, how long they've been doing it, and genetics.

If you get sick and you smoke, it's blamed on smoking even if there is absolutely no relationship between your illness and smoking.

The second-hand smoke risk is greatly exaggerated for the sake of social stigma. I remember doing a research paper about it, looking into the oft-quoted WHO study, and even at that tender age, seeing how sloppy the methodology was, and how unsubstantiated the claimed conclusion was. In full disclosure, I do smoke occassionally, but this was years before I ever smoked (and at the time I was trying to get my dad to quit).

Yeah, I do think it's exaggerated in order to give society a pariah to pick on.
 
I'm curious as to what proof we have that a society devoid of drugs is superior to one with drugs. And for any proof that someone could provide, I will counter with The Wall and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
 
I'm curious as to what proof we have that a society devoid of drugs is superior to one with drugs. And for any proof that someone could provide, I will counter with The Wall and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

We have proof that a society where small possession is legal shows rapid social improvement: Portugal and Spain.
 
We already have oral ingestion of THC. Dronabinol is a prescription drug that is THC. It's a controlled substance and may only be obtained via a prescription from a doctor and the dispensing/approval of a pharmacist. Nonetheless, it's a controlled substance and as such it should (and is) illegal to use without a prescription.

The literal meaning of a law is irrelevant. All that matters is its actual effect. Drug laws don't significantly impede the ability to obtain any of them without a prescription. Their biggest impact is creating more violence and making the drug lords rich.
 
We already have oral ingestion of THC. Dronabinol is a prescription drug that is THC. It's a controlled substance and may only be obtained via a prescription from a doctor and the dispensing/approval of a pharmacist. Nonetheless, it's a controlled substance and as such it should (and is) illegal to use without a prescription.

In order to justify making a drug illegal, two conditions must be met

1) The drug must have life-endangering/damaging side effects even at standard doses, and/or be addictive to nearly anyone who uses it.

2) The prohibition against it needs to be enforceable.

Pot fails both these conditions.
 
In order to justify making a drug illegal, two conditions must be met

1) The drug must have life-endangering/damaging side effects even at standard doses, and/or be addictive to nearly anyone who uses it.

2) The prohibition against it needs to be enforceable.

Pot fails both these conditions.

Exactly. To be honest you'll never hear me support making something like Heroin/meth/coke legal for purchase. Coke primarily because it can be used to make crack.
 
Cigarette smoke contains benzopyrene.

So doesn't burnt coffee and coal tar.
 
Back
Top Bottom