• 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!

Mexican Drug Cartels Fight Turf Battles In Chicago

samsmart said:
Tobacco has a bigger adverse affect on people than illegal drugs do, and nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than heroin, but cigarettes remain legal.

Likewise, use of sugars in processed foods has a bigger adverse affect on people than illegal drugs do, as our society is becoming more obese and cases of diabetes rise which is a strain on the cost of health care. But use of sugar in processed foods is addictive but remains unregulated.

Caffeine is an addictive substance, but we do not regulate how much sodas children drink, even though sodas have other deleterious health affects when consumed in large amounts.

So if we're going to go after all addictive substances then let's go after all the addictive substances.

Otherwise, legalize them all, educate people on the effects of recreational drugs, and leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit.
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense. Nothing you listed has near the harmful effects as crack or meth. Tobacco is indeed a harmful drug, but, like alcohol, for good or bad, it's written in to our society from the beginning. Not so with the schedule 1 drugs. And again, there's a large difference between the drugs you mention and schedule 1 drugs, both in their level and strength of addicition and the effects of abuse and addiction.

It's not an all or nothing thing, that's just the method that suits your argument. With the drugs you mention, they can be used in moderation with little to no health impact (in fact just the opposite). If you use crack or meth even moderate use is devastating to your health and addiction is inevitable.
 
clownboy said:
That's just nonsense. Nothing you listed has near the harmful effects as crack or meth. Tobacco is indeed a harmful drug, but, like alcohol, for good or bad, it's written in to our society from the beginning. Not so with the schedule 1 drugs. And again, there's a large difference between the drugs you mention and schedule 1 drugs, both in their level and strength of addicition and the effects of abuse and addiction.
Click to expand...

Peyote, mushrooms, and other hallucinogenics have been part of human society just as long as tobacco and alcohol. So has marijuana and the use of coca leaves. And those societies did not fall because such natural drugs were used for recreation by their people.

clownboy said:
It's not an all or nothing thing, that's just the method that suits your argument. With the drugs you mention, they can be used in moderation with little to no health impact (in fact just the opposite). If you use crack or meth even moderate use is devastating to your health and addiction is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Except addiction to nicotine in tobacco is devastating as it leads to oral and lung cancers in not just people but those who take in the second-hand smoke.

And recent science has evidence that sugars is addictive as well, and the consumption of those foods is what's leading to the high obesity and diabetes rates. And those conditions are devastating to people's health as well.

And yet there's no calls to criminalize or even regulating those addictive substances.
 
Drug violance would be reduced if people would quit using illegal drugs like coke, crack, etc. I know a case can be made for "pot" and its use. I cannot understand how people will destroy their lives by using some of the destructive drugs. I will say the same for those that are alcholics.

Our use of illegal drugs in this country is a sad statement about what we are becoming.
 
"Make drugs legal" is a simple minded commentary and solution to the problem. What...do you honest to God believe that gangs and violent thug types will suddenly stop being scumbags and perpetrating acts of violence? You think they will simply shrug and go to 'honest work' should drugs become legalized???
 
samsmart said:
Besides, if you're going to get onto Rahm Emanuel for wasting time on talking about Chik-Fil-A's executives lobbying to prevent gay marriage, the GOP's platform is demanding a constitutional amendment to criminalize all abortions rather than come up with effective methods of dealing with the Mexican drug cartels.
Click to expand...

You have obfuscation down to a science. I notice that you have FAILED to say anything about Emmanuel's silence on this issue.

See if you can comment on that.

A L
 
samsmart said:
No, this is gang violence we're talking about, as gang kill each other and innocent bystanders in order to control the recreational drug trade because only gangs will deal in that market.
Click to expand...

How right you are. Gangs would NEVER get involved with prostitution, kidnapping or murder for hire. NOPE, NEVER, EVER would they do that. They are, after all, ONLY INTERESTED IN RECREATIONAL DRUGS and don't you victims forget it either.:roll:

A L
 
samsmart said:
Tobacco has a bigger adverse affect on people than illegal drugs do, and nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than heroin, but cigarettes remain legal.

Likewise, use of sugars in processed foods has a bigger adverse affect on people than illegal drugs do, as our society is becoming more obese and cases of diabetes rise which is a strain on the cost of health care. But use of sugar in processed foods is addictive but remains unregulated.

Caffeine is an addictive substance, but we do not regulate how much sodas children drink, even though sodas have other deleterious health affects when consumed in large amounts.

So if we're going to go after all addictive substances then let's go after all the addictive substances.

Otherwise, legalize them all, educate people on the effects of recreational drugs, and leave them alone to live their lives as they see fit.
Click to expand...


Your so far off base its ridiculous on this one sam...YOU are far to intelligent to even attempt to compare cigarettes and nicotine to heroin or any other drug...CIGARETTES are not a psychotropic that changes your psyche...yes nicotine is definitiely addictive compound but doesnt have any more health implications than hard drug use and weed smoking...but the main thing is PSYCHOTROPIC...you'd do better to compare alchohol to drugs...and even that is a poor comparision because MILLIONS of people have a drink with dinner or an after dinner drink or a cocktail or two a day and thats HEALTHY and you can imbibe without changing your psyche...drugs ONLY purpose is to get you whacked...and theres no in betweens...you either use and get whacked or you dont...
 
Crack and Meth are no better or worse than alcohol or tobacco. Indeed, those 2 in particular are far less addictive than tobacco. I've done them all and the only one I can't successfully quit is tobacco.


clownboy said:
That's just nonsense. Nothing you listed has near the harmful effects as crack or meth. Tobacco is indeed a harmful drug, but, like alcohol, for good or bad, it's written in to our society from the beginning. Not so with the schedule 1 drugs. And again, there's a large difference between the drugs you mention and schedule 1 drugs, both in their level and strength of addicition and the effects of abuse and addiction.

It's not an all or nothing thing, that's just the method that suits your argument. With the drugs you mention, they can be used in moderation with little to no health impact (in fact just the opposite). If you use crack or meth even moderate use is devastating to your health and addiction is inevitable.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
There's a reason drugs like cocaine and heroin were made prescription items, a good deal of our population was addicted at one time in our history - we don't need to return to that. The Chinese had to do the same with opium for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Totally correct. I have a tax stamp from a little over a hundred years ago which was put on narcotics for sale. Not only were they legal but they were also taxed. And who'da thunk Congress would eliminate a source of tax income and make something illegal. Many folks don't seem to know that little tidbit ... so much for education and history lessons.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
How right you are. Gangs would NEVER get involved with prostitution, kidnapping or murder for hire. NOPE, NEVER, EVER would they do that. They are, after all, ONLY INTERESTED IN RECREATIONAL DRUGS and don't you victims forget it either.:roll:

A L
Click to expand...

No, gangs do get involved with those activities.

However, all of those activities are infringements of the rights of others to inflict harm on others.

Use of recreational drugs does not infringe on the rights of others nor do they inflict harm on others when used responsibly.

Which is the ethical difference between recreational drug use and activities such as kidnapping and murder.
 
samsmart said:
And people will use recreational drugs whether they are illegal or not. Just like people drank alcohol before, during, and after Prohibition whether it was legal or not.
Click to expand...

Yep, and people will rape and murder whether those are legal or not. So I guess we should decriminalize rape and murder (using YOUR logic - and/or lack thereof).

A L
 
samsmart said:
No, gangs do get involved with those activities.

However, all of those activities are infringements of the rights of others to inflict harm on others.

Use of recreational drugs does not infringe on the rights of others nor do they inflict harm on others when used responsibly.

Which is the ethical difference between recreational drug use and activities such as kidnapping and murder.
Click to expand...

As usual you have missed the point or you don't want to answer it.

You stated that the gangs were only involved in recreational drugs. I point out your error. But you obviously (in your mind) never made an error.

O well.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
Yep, and people will rape and murder whether those are legal or not. So I guess we should decriminalize rape and murder (using YOUR logic - and/or lack thereof).

A L
Click to expand...

No, because, as I said, rape and murder are infringement of the rights of others, whereas a person's use of recreational drugs are not.

Which I pointed out in that post you quoted.

So if you are going to debate a post I made, you should read it more thoroughly instead of bringing up the same debunked counter to it over and over again.
 
Another Lurker said:
As usual you have missed the point or you don't want to answer it.

You stated that the gangs were only involved in recreational drugs. I point out your error. But you obviously (in your mind) never made an error.

O well.

A L
Click to expand...

I did not say gangs only deal in recreational drugs.

I said that only gangs deal in recreational drugs.

Please learn to read more closely to people's posts.
 
specklebang said:
Crack and Meth are no better or worse than alcohol or tobacco. Indeed, those 2 in particular are far less addictive than tobacco. I've done them all and the only one I can't successfully quit is tobacco.
Click to expand...

Really? I find it extremely difficult to believe you used crack or meth with the same regularity you smoked in order to become addicted to cigs. The first cigarette generally doesn't addict, in fact, the first one is rather nasty for most users. The effects of even light use of crack and meth are radically more devastating than cigs and use will not stay light.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't get it. When a Republican is president - inner city violence is the fault of the lazy immigrants/black people living in the city who don't want a job. When a Democrat is in office, inner city violence is the fault of the Democrat for letting the immigrant people they let into the country. So when is it the fault of rabid right wing Republicans who criminalize the drug trade?
Click to expand...

I know I don't have to tell you that the Drug War is supported by both parties pretty substantially.
 
RadicalModerate said:
I know I don't have to tell you that the Drug War is supported by both parties pretty substantially.
Click to expand...

Really? 70% of liberals are in support for the legalization of marijuana. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
Really? 70% of liberals are in support for the legalization of marijuana. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And if pot were the only drug involved it would have long since been legal. A whole lot of conservatives are okay with pot (with regulation). It's all the rest of the highly addictive schedule one drugs at issue. Pot is unique and was added to the illegal list for entirely different reasons than the rest of the schedule 1 drugs.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? 70% of liberals are in support for the legalization of marijuana. :shrug:
Click to expand...

First, poll the number of party members who are in favor of that.

Then, poll the number of party politicians who are in favor of that.

Pretty sure that the variance will be quite wide indeed.
 
OK, I understand your perspective but really, no more so than alcohol. If you have a predilection for addiction (that rhymes) then you can become entrapped. However, it is just a psychological addiction and not a physical addiction.

Are any of these a good idea? No, they aren't. In my view of how these could be legalized, they all (including tobacco and alcohol) would be sold in a very boring state store, where you would be warned of their potential harm each time you made a purchase and your quantities would be limited and tracked to discourage your reselling them. I'm shocked that alcohol is advertised and promoted the way it is.

The way it is now, crack, meth, dope etc. are glamorized by their illegality. Look at the damage this causes. This isn't working and yet we persist.

clownboy said:
Really? I find it extremely difficult to believe you used crack or meth with the same regularity you smoked in order to become addicted to cigs. The first cigarette generally doesn't addict, in fact, the first one is rather nasty for most users. The effects of even light use of crack and meth are radically more devastating than cigs and use will not stay light.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom