• 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!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

I see no reason to assume the prohibition of drugs is not working.

For it's part, it is. It was never supposed to stop all drug use in toto.

"Step up our game" would be also addressing why people turn to drugs to begin with, and legalizing drugs does not do that.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Oh right, because legalizing what we are trying to beat is so much more logical! (do you remember WHY we are trying to stop drugs)?
Click to expand...

We are trying to stop drugs for illogical, emotional reasons. Your own comment above belies how illogical your stance is by targetting the emotionally charged "why" of the whole thing.

Furthermore, we are trying to "stop" drugs because we mistakenly think they CAN be stopped regardless of the mountains of evidence that suggest that the whole venture is retarded.

But it makes us feel like we spend money frivolously and irrationally for a good cause, so we do it regardless of the fact that it really is a stupid venture.

The whole drug war is nowhere near logical. It's the precise opposite of logical. It's entirely based on emotion.

Logic requires us to look at the actual evidence and act according to it. Not ignore the evidence in order to pursue an irrational goal.

The evidence is that drugs will never be defeated. They have existed for far longer than any society on the planet, and will outlast any existing society today.

Let's look at things logically.

If someone is willing to break the law to sell drugs to a 32 year old, what is the impetus that would prevent them from dealing them to an 8 year old? I doubt morality comes into play.

But if they might face extreme sanctions and lose their livelihood over selling them to minors, they will be more likely to abstain from selling drugs to minors.

If the goal is prevention, then actually doing things that have a chance of succeeding is a better approach than wasting mountains of resources on a failed program.
 
Tucker Case said:
We are trying to stop drugs for illogical, emotional reasons. Your own comment above belies how illogical your stance is by targetting the emotionally charged "why" of the whole thing.

Furthermore, we are trying to "stop" drugs because we mistakenly think they CAN be stopped regardless of the mountains of evidence that suggest that the whole venture is retarded.

But it makes us feel like we spend money frivolously and irrationally for a good cause, so we do it regardless of the fact that it really is a stupid venture.

The whole drug war is nowhere near logical. It's the precise opposite of logical. It's entirely based on emotion.

Logic requires us to look at the actual evidence and act according to it. Not ignore the evidence in order to pursue an irrational goal.

The evidence is that drugs will never be defeated. They have existed for far longer than any society on the planet, and will outlast any existing society today.

Let's look at things logically.

If someone is willing to break the law to sell drugs to a 32 year old, what is the impetus that would prevent them from dealing them to an 8 year old? I doubt morality comes into play.

But if they might face extreme sanctions and lose their livelihood over selling them to minors, they will be more likely to abstain from selling drugs to minors.

If the goal is prevention, then actually doing things that have a chance of succeeding is a better approach than wasting mountains of resources on a failed program.
Click to expand...

Ahh the tired out "they're going to do it anyway" argument.

I for one have no intention of legalizing drugs for the masses simply because some token minority will use drugs illegally anyway.
 
Jerry said:
Ahh the tired out "they're going to do it anyway" argument.
Click to expand...

Ahh... the tired old "Drugs are bad, we should ban them because banning bad things is always good" argument.

Perhaps the lessons of prohibition are lost through obfuscation and illogic.

I for one have no intention of legalizing drugs for the masses simply because some token minority will use drugs illegally anyway.
Click to expand...

Bully for you. Of course your personal intentions are really of no consequence, so I have no idea why you mention them.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ahh... the tired old "Drugs are bad, we should ban them because banning bad things is always good" argument.

Perhaps the lessons of prohibition are lost through obfuscation and illogic.

Bully for you. Of course your personal intentions are really of no consequence, so I have no idea why you mention them.
Click to expand...

Prohibition alone is not the answer, but prohibition alone is better than legalization. The "war on drugs" is a failure as most government programs are, but that means we readres how we combat drug use, not abandon the idea entirely.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
We are trying to stop drugs for illogical, emotional reasons. Your own comment above belies how illogical your stance is by targetting the emotionally charged "why" of the whole thing.

Furthermore, we are trying to "stop" drugs because we mistakenly think they CAN be stopped regardless of the mountains of evidence that suggest that the whole venture is retarded.
Click to expand...

No, no. You see the only evidence you have is that the war on drugs hasnt completely stopped the importation of drugs. Do you honestly believe that the people who created this whole "war on drugs" thing we have going on everywhere thought they could/would bring an end to all drug usage? Of course not. Thats impossible, unless we went so far as to ban them in hospitals too and do stop and search for every citizen crossing every state, boarder and continent. The intention was to counteract there importation to a certain extent - in that sense it has worked. Legalizing drugs would be even worse, our war on drugs acts as a barrage against a wave of drug usage (again, to a certain extent).

Logic requires us to look at the actual evidence and act according to it. Not ignore the evidence in order to pursue an irrational goal.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to suggest we will have less fatal drug usage, less life destroying drug usage, by simply legalizing it?

The evidence is that drugs will never be defeated. They have existed for far longer than any society on the planet, and will outlast any existing society today.

Let's look at things logically.
Click to expand...

Again, not the goal nor the point on the war on drugs.

If someone is willing to break the law to sell drugs to a 32 year old, what is the impetus that would prevent them from dealing them to an 8 year old? I doubt morality comes into play.
Click to expand...

Assuming it was legalized? Well, if we legalized it as you said, Tucker, the 32 year old wouldnt have to go out of her way to destroy her life - she can simply go to her local shop instead. :lol:

If the goal is prevention, then actually doing things that have a chance of succeeding is a better approach than wasting mountains of resources on a failed program.
Click to expand...

Its illogical.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Are STD rates higher among drug addicts?
Click to expand...

No clue, I didn't make that statement.

That said I'd be interested about a few things more than just that.

Are the STD rates amongst drug users in places where a needle exchange program is in place higher or lower than places where its not?

What is the difference in STD rates of people who don't do drugs, who do non-needle drugs, and who do needle drugs?

What is the difference in STD rates between those that are heavy alcohol drinkers and non/light drinkers.

Furthermore, even if STD rates are higher among drug users than non-drug users that alone proves nothing. Correlation does not equal causation. It would be like saying that the most devestating terrorist attack on this country happened while GWB was in power, so GWB caused the most devestating terrorist attack on this country. If the economy gets better it'd be like automatically saying since it got better after Obama took office that it automatically means Obama is the reason it got better. Just because two things match up does not necessarily mean they're the cause.

IF STD rates are higher in drug users than in non-users there are MULTIPLE ways to potentially explain it.

One reason could be because it impares ones judgement. This seems to be the one that the "All drugs can't be legalized because STD rates will sky rocket" is founded on.

Another reason could be that the needle focused drugs skew the numbers greatly, with non-needled drug users being near identical to non-drug users. If that was the case then it'd be incredibly disingenuous of the "all drugs can't be legalized because of STD" crowd because they're demonizing drugs that have no STD increasing affect, showing they don't care about STD's but simply want to keep drugs illegal.

Another reason could be that since it IS illegal to use drugs and thus many of those that are currently using it already have poor judgement skills, skills that would not change in the absense of drugs. Those most likely to start doing drugs after they were legalized that don't do it now are likely those with relatively decent judgement to begin with and thus would have minimal impact.

I could go on and on. My point being that there's nothing stating that even if the statement "Drug users have a higher rate of STD's than non-drug users" means necessarily that the use of the drugs is the reason for it, nor that legalizing drugs would cause this across a great amount of the population.
 
Zyphlin said:
No clue, I didn't make that statement.

That said I'd be interested about a few things more than just that.

Are the STD rates amongst drug users in places where a needle exchange program is in place higher or lower than places where its not?

What is the difference in STD rates of people who don't do drugs, who do non-needle drugs, and who do needle drugs?

What is the difference in STD rates between those that are heavy alcohol drinkers and non/light drinkers.

Furthermore, even if STD rates are higher among drug users than non-drug users that alone proves nothing. Correlation does not equal causation. It would be like saying that the most devestating terrorist attack on this country happened while GWB was in power, so GWB caused the most devestating terrorist attack on this country. If the economy gets better it'd be like automatically saying since it got better after Obama took office that it automatically means Obama is the reason it got better. Just because two things match up does not necessarily mean they're the cause.

IF STD rates are higher in drug users than in non-users there are MULTIPLE ways to potentially explain it.

One reason could be because it impares ones judgement. This seems to be the one that the "All drugs can't be legalized because STD rates will sky rocket" is founded on.

Another reason could be that the needle focused drugs skew the numbers greatly, with non-needled drug users being near identical to non-drug users. If that was the case then it'd be incredibly disingenuous of the "all drugs can't be legalized because of STD" crowd because they're demonizing drugs that have no STD increasing affect, showing they don't care about STD's but simply want to keep drugs illegal.

Another reason could be that since it IS illegal to use drugs and thus many of those that are currently using it already have poor judgement skills, skills that would not change in the absense of drugs. Those most likely to start doing drugs after they were legalized that don't do it now are likely those with relatively decent judgement to begin with and thus would have minimal impact.

I could go on and on. My point being that there's nothing stating that even if the statement "Drug users have a higher rate of STD's than non-drug users" means necessarily that the use of the drugs is the reason for it, nor that legalizing drugs would cause this across a great amount of the population.
Click to expand...

A suitable compromise might be making clean needles available, no questions asked, from clinics. Giving help information with these needles would be a step in the right direction.
 
kaya'08 said:
No, no. You see the only evidence you have is that the war on drugs hasnt completely stopped the importation of drugs.
Click to expand...

Not really.

You can look at the mass amount of money we're spending on the war on drugs, both in enforcement and incarceration. We could then compare that to what people percieve as the benefit to society we've recieved by doing such. Similarly we can compare the various effects it has caused. The large underground, untaxed, untraced economy that has...the violence on the border...the financing it provides to illicite groups...etc. Not to mention the belief by some that the loss of freedoms and power vested in the governmnet for this "war" to happen means we as citizens "lose".

This is non-withstanding the belief that "winning" or not winning the war on drugs is irrelevant because its not a war worth fighting.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not really.

You can look at the mass amount of money we're spending on the war on drugs, both in enforcement and incarceration. We could then compare that to what people percieve as the benefit to society we've recieved by doing such. Similarly we can compare the various effects it has caused. The large underground, untaxed, untraced economy that has...the violence on the border...the financing it provides to illicite groups...etc. Not to mention the belief by some that the loss of freedoms and power vested in the governmnet for this "war" to happen means we as citizens "lose".

This is non-withstanding the belief that "winning" or not winning the war on drugs is irrelevant because its not a war worth fighting.
Click to expand...

Not a war worth fighting? Do you have any idea what drugs do to people? Do you have any idea why all these Class A's and B's are illegalized in more or less every nation on this planet?

Id happily give up a small amount of rights to ensure my children (future children) and friends and family are safe from such substances.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
No, no. You see the only evidence you have is that the war on drugs hasnt completely stopped the importation of drugs. Do you honestly believe that the people who created this whole "war on drugs" thing we have going on everywhere thought they could/would bring an end to all drug usage? Of course not. Thats impossible, unless we went so far as to ban them in hospitals too and do stop and search for every citizen crossing every state, boarder and continent. The intention was to counteract there importation to a certain extent - in that sense it has worked. Legalizing drugs would be even worse, our war on drugs acts as a barrage against a wave of drug usage (again, to a certain extent).
Click to expand...

Actually, the war on drugs is counter-productive. right now, the only people who deal drugs must break the law to do so. If we legalized and regulated drugs, as we do with liqour, it will actually lead to a decrease in underage usage.

Having strict penalties for underage sale of drugs while being permissive for sales towards those in the majority will make it so that those who distribute drugs will be less likely to risk their livelihood in order to make a single sale, when there are plenty of people who would be willing to purchase their wares without it placing a risk on their livelihood.

Right now, there exists no impetus that prevents any sale of drugs to minors. Legally speaking, it is just as "wrong" to sell drugs to a 30 year old as it is to sell drugs to a 13 year old. Either way, the person takes the same risks for the same rewards (monetary).

But if a sale to a 30 year old was risk free while a sale to a 13 year old carried stiff penalties, they would not risk their freedom and livelihood over minimal benefit.

What evidence do you have to suggest we will have less fatal drug usage, less life destroying drug usage, by simply legalizing it?
Click to expand...

A large proportion of overdoses are caused by the fact that the "purity" of the drugs are not uniformly regulated and fluctuates: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=08a4c02903a71216a92206837b7329d2

This is caused because the user tries ot use the same dose that got them high with a less pure cut with a more pure cut and they overdose.

By maintaining certain regulations of the dosage, you can decrease overdoses caused by purity fluctuations.



Again, not the goal nor the point on the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

But they haven't even dented the total drug use in this country. Over 50% of people have tried drugs at some point.



Assuming it was legalized? Well, if we legalized it as you said, Tucker, the 32 year old wouldnt have to go out of her way to destroy her life - she can simply go to her local shop instead. :lol:
Click to expand...

Again, that's an emotional argument. The 32 year old has already decided to destroy her life. Instead of spending the money on prohibition and such, spend a 1/4 of it on programs that have a chance to help this person such as rehabilitation treatments and education.

What the majority of the money goes towards is fighting against the sale of drugs. What it should be going towards is helping those who are affected and trying to keep young people off of drugs. Legalization would be a smart step in decreasing youth drug use as well as well as freeing up money to be used in assisting those who are already addicted.


Its illogical.
Click to expand...

Actually doing things that have a chance of succeeding instead of wasting more money on a failed program is illogical?!?!??! Please, explain.
 
kaya'08 said:
No, no. You see the only evidence you have is that the war on drugs hasnt completely stopped the importation of drugs. Do you honestly believe that the people who created this whole "war on drugs" thing we have going on everywhere thought they could/would bring an end to all drug usage? Of course not. Thats impossible, unless we went so far as to ban them in hospitals too and do stop and search for every citizen crossing every state, boarder and continent. The intention was to counteract there importation to a certain extent - in that sense it has worked. Legalizing drugs would be even worse, our war on drugs acts as a barrage against a wave of drug usage (again, to a certain extent).

What evidence do you have to suggest we will have less fatal drug usage, less life destroying drug usage, by simply legalizing it?

Again, not the goal nor the point on the war on drugs.

Assuming it was legalized? Well, if we legalized it as you said, Tucker, the 32 year old wouldnt have to go out of her way to destroy her life - she can simply go to her local shop instead. :lol:

Its illogical.
Click to expand...

Combating drugs is like erecting a dam. The point is not to stop the water, but to control it.

Tucker is basically claiming that the dam has failed because it doesn't hold 100% of the water back, and we should therefore demolish the dam.

If anything, we simply need a better dam.
 
Jerry said:
Combating drugs is like erecting a dam. The point is not to stop the water, but to control it.

Tucker is basically claiming that the dam has failed because it doesn't hold 100% of the water back, and we should therefore demolish the dam.

If anything, we simply need a better dam.
Click to expand...

I'm actually saying that if a dam doesn't hold back any percentage of the water, it's not worth tossing more money into that dam. It's better off trying to figure out a different approach to holding back the water since the ground will not hold a dam.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm actually saying that if a dam doesn't hold back any percentage of the water, it's not worth tossing more money into that dam. It's better off trying to figure out a different approach to holding back the water since the ground will not hold a dam.
Click to expand...

That's not the case we're dealing with today, so we don't need to consider that opinion at all.

IMO a better way to combat drugs is the same way we combat illegal immigration: go after the enablers.

As with illegal immigration, a ban is tool, not the total solution. When people can't get a hold of their drugs, the won't be able to use them. This is where community outreach needs to be ready for these people to turn to as an alternative.

Eliminating the ban is not a viable option.
 
Jerry said:
That's not the case we're dealing with today, so we don't need to consider that opinion at all.
Click to expand...

What percentage is prevented by prohibition?

IMO a better way to combat drugs is the same way we combat illegal immigration: go after the enablers.
Click to expand...

But that's the method that is currently not working.

As with illegal immigration, a ban is tool, not the total solution. When people can't get a hold of their drugs, the won't be able to use them. This is where community outreach needs to be ready for these people to turn to as an alternative.

Eliminating the ban is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

But there is no way to keep people from getting the drugs. Therefore they will never be unable to use them. It's a noble goal, but just impossible to achieve.
 
Tucker Case said:
What percentage is prevented by prohibition?

But that's the method that is currently not working.

But there is no way to keep people from getting the drugs. Therefore they will never be unable to use them. It's a noble goal, but just impossible to achieve.
Click to expand...

Asking me for links as though you care about a quality discussion. That's funny.

I'll tell you what, if you ask me in a thread about drug control instead of home invasion before you start in with the trolling, I'll be happy to give you those numbers.

Until then I'm perfectly content with combating illegal drug use by enabling lawful gun owners to kill drug users on site when they brake into their homes.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Combating drugs is like erecting a dam. The point is not to stop the water, but to control it.

Tucker is basically claiming that the dam has failed because it doesn't hold 100% of the water back, and we should therefore demolish the dam.

If anything, we simply need a better dam.
Click to expand...

Precisely, hence my comment on "stepping up our game" - or in otherwords, making a stronger, better damn.
 
Jerry said:
Until then I'm perfectly content with combating illegal drug use by enabling lawful gun owners to kill drug users on site when they brake into their homes.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt Tucker would have a huge difference in opinion about this whether drugs were or were not illegal.

I know I don't.

I fully respect the mans right to do anything he felt was needed to keep his family safe with someone illegally entering his home at night; whether he was on legal drugs, illegal drugs, or nothing at all.
 
kaya'08 said:
Not a war worth fighting? Do you have any idea what drugs do to people? Do you have any idea why all these Class A's and B's are illegalized in more or less every nation on this planet?
Click to expand...

I do have a general idea, and I'd say for many its not that much different than what Alcohol can do to people when abused. The one giant difference is the legal reprucussions that are attached to drugs rather than Alcohol, but that is not a symptom of the drugs but a symptom of the government and as such can't be used as a portion of judging them. Not to mention their inate illegal nature causes numerous issues when comparing them to Alcohol that could be argued would be removed if they were legalized.

Now me personally, I'm kind of in between the "no legalizatoin" and "legalize all" crowd. I think that some of the more severely hallucinegetic (I so spelled that wrong) and/or EXTREMELY physically damaging ones could remain illegal, but I think that there are some, such as marijuana, that have absolutely no reason to be illegal if we're going to allow things like alcohol on the market.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, the war on drugs is counter-productive. right now, the only people who deal drugs must break the law to do so. If we legalized and regulated drugs, as we do with liqour, it will actually lead to a decrease in underage usage.
Click to expand...

No it wouldnt, you have no evidence of this, and by restricting drugs for the underaged your simply quadroupeling the demand for drugs for the drug cartels to give to the underaged. What difference does it make, what are you stopping? Now what you have done is made it easier for people to access drugs and easier for the underaged to obtain them illegally (since we have now abolished the war on drugs). Infact, if we did legalize drugs, we'll still be funding the war on drugs. Legalization wont stop the cartels, it will just make them go out and get a better, cheaper yield. We'll be fighting the same war and using the same resources- your going in circles.

Having strict penalties for underage sale of drugs while being permissive for sales towards those in the majority will make it so that those who distribute drugs will be less likely to risk their livelihood in order to make a single sale, when there are plenty of people who would be willing to purchase their wares without it placing a risk on their livelihood.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Are you unaware that if the government legalized drugs, your gonna have all the dealers running off trying to obtain a better, higher yield then what the government is achieving by adding cheap ****ty substances to undercut government prices and run a greater health risk to those who take it?

Right now, there exists no impetus that prevents any sale of drugs to minors. Legally speaking, it is just as "wrong" to sell drugs to a 30 year old as it is to sell drugs to a 13 year old. Either way, the person takes the same risks for the same rewards (monetary).
Click to expand...

Age group is irrelevant in drug use as far as im concerned. Its all outlawed, and hopefully it shall remain. Its no better for a 50 year old to take it then it is a 12 year old.

But if a sale to a 30 year old was risk free while a sale to a 13 year old carried stiff penalties, they would not risk their freedom and livelihood over minimal benefit.
Click to expand...

You honestly think thats how dealers think?

Again, that's an emotional argument. The 32 year old has already decided to destroy her life. Instead of spending the money on prohibition and such, spend a 1/4 of it on programs that have a chance to help this person such as rehabilitation treatments and education.
Click to expand...

...by outlawing drugs but decriminilizing drug users (and instead look it at as a health issue like we do in Britain. We dont stick them in prisons like you do in America). They have to go to rehab centres.

What the majority of the money goes towards is fighting against the sale of drugs. What it should be going towards is helping those who are affected and trying to keep young people off of drugs. Legalization would be a smart step in decreasing youth drug use as well as well as freeing up money to be used in assisting those who are already addicted.
Click to expand...

Doesnt change anything for god sakes. Most people on drugs are so deep they dont want to get better. What use is it legalizing drugs yet discouraging there use and offering rehab programmes? We're simply running in circles and wasting our money because we are funding rehab programmes while at the same time being the cause of there being there.

Actually doing things that have a chance of succeeding instead of wasting more money on a failed program is illogical?!?!??! Please, explain.
Click to expand...

Tuck, your in fantasy land mate.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I do have a general idea, and I'd say for many its not that much different than what Alcohol can do to people when abused. The one giant difference is the legal reprucussions that are attached to drugs rather than Alcohol, but that is not a symptom of the drugs but a symptom of the government and as such can't be used as a portion of judging them. Not to mention their inate illegal nature causes numerous issues when comparing them to Alcohol that could be argued would be removed if they were legalized.
Click to expand...

I believe some drugs should be legalized, for example, the majority of class-c drugs (obviously class-c varies from country to country, recently the UK put weed to class-B).

Now me personally, I'm kind of in between the "no legalizatoin" and "legalize all" crowd. I think that some of the more severely hallucinegetic (I so spelled that wrong) and/or EXTREMELY physically damaging ones could remain illegal, but I think that there are some, such as marijuana, that have absolutely no reason to be illegal if we're going to allow things like alcohol on the market.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Zyphlin said:
Somehow I doubt Tucker would have a huge difference in opinion about this whether drugs were or were not illegal.

I know I don't.

I fully respect the mans right to do anything he felt was needed to keep his family safe with someone illegally entering his home at night; whether he was on legal drugs, illegal drugs, or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

At the very least, I hope the next time a group of teens decide to get one of their own high, they escort their "friend" home to make sure he doesn't get killed.

But then I suppose if they cared about their "friend" they wouldn't have gotten him high on shrumes to begin with.
 
Jerry said:
At the very least, I hope the next time a group of teens decide to get one of their own high, they escort their "friend" home to make sure he doesn't get killed.

But then I suppose if they cared about their "friend" they wouldn't have gotten him high on shrumes to begin with.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It reminds me of a story of a co-worker once told me where in a drunken stupor he ended up going into his neighbor down the streets house and passing out on their couch. Thankfully for him the neighbor knew and recognized him...and found him in the morning.

I can only imagine what a similar situation would've ended with if it was one of my friends from college who my roommates actually tasered and held down because he started raging out and swinging at different things in the house, including people, instead of a guy just wanting a couch to crash.

Its why, no matter what you're doing, its usually better to do it with at least one person there with a sober mind to make sure everyone gets to where they need to be safetly.
 
kaya'08 said:
No it wouldnt, you have no evidence of this, and by restricting drugs for the underaged your simply quadroupeling the demand for drugs for the drug cartels to give to the underaged. What difference does it make, what are you stopping? Now what you have done is made it easier for people to access drugs and no less harder or easier for the underaged to obtain them illegally.
Click to expand...

By legalizing it, you remove the cartels from the equation. Just like ending prohibition removed the mafia from teh alcohol equation.


Rubbish. Are you unaware that if the government legalized drugs, your gonna have all the dealers running off trying to obtain a better, higher yield then what the government is achieving by adding cheap ****ty substances to undercut government prices and run a greater risk of health to those who take it.
Click to expand...

You got that backwards. Prohibition being repealed (aka the evidence) suggests the exact opposite will happen.


Age group is irrelevant in drug use as far as im concerned. Its all outlawed, and hopefully it shall remain.
Click to expand...

Why? You say it's the logical argument, so present one. Thus far you have relied on "Drugs are bad. Banning drugs acknowledges they are bad. therefore banning drugs is good" without actually supporting the efficacy of these bans for reducing drug use.

It's just an emotional appeal devoid of logic.

I'm arguing for using the resources effectively, not throwing money at a failed program.

Why is that met with resistance?

Because people think that legalization = saying drugs are "good".


You honestly think thats how dealers think?
Click to expand...

Legalizing drugs will remove the criminal element from the equation. And I have discussed this with a former heroin dealer before.


That is exactly how they think.


...by outlawing drugs but decriminilizing drug users (and instead look it at as a health issue like we do in Britain. We dont stick them in prisons like you do in America). They have to go to rehab centres.
Click to expand...

That's preferable to the US methods.



Doesnt change anything for god sakes. Most people on drugs are so deep they dont want to get better. What use is it legalizing drugs yet discouraging there use and offering rehab programmes? We're simply running in circles and wasting our money because we are funding rehab programmes while at the same time being the cause of there being there.
Click to expand...

As a person who has personally worked with a number of people during their worst stages of addiction, the exact opposite is true. Most really do want to get better, but have difficulty doing so because it is so difficult.

Rehab programs won't become any less effective because of increased funding and less funding towards the legal prohibition.

Drug use will not increase because of legalization. That fear is allayed by the prohibition statistics.

Tuck, your in fantasy land mate.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am living in the harsh reality.

I have more experience with the actual perils of addiction than most people ever will.

I have personally done more in my life to help people overcome addiction than most people ever will.

I don't pay lip service to fighting addiction, I've actually put forth my own sweat and tears.

I've walked into a crack house and carried someone out of it and taken them straight to rehab. I've been to funerals and I've had interventions.

My opinions are actually based on what can potentially work, not on what I would really really like to see happen.

If anyone knows the devastating affects of drugs it's me, yet I argue against prohibition even though I personally despise most drugs not because I want to see them legal, but because I want to see REAL effective measures instituted, not the bull**** lip service of the so-called "war on drugs".
 
kaya'08 said:
I believe some drugs should be legalized, for example, the majority of class-c drugs (obviously class-c varies from country to country, recently the UK put weed to class-B).
Click to expand...

Which is freaking retarded.

People can go jail for a few years just for getting high or being caught with it what kind of BS law is that?
We all know it is pandering to the old stupid people of this country who are conservative and see drugs as just all evil and in one class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom