• 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!

The Drug War.

Drug War stance.


  • Total voters
    30
I don't want to pry too much, so ignore me if it too personal, but did the illegality or other nature of the drug war somehow help you eventually say no and straighten your life out?

The laws don't work, when I was in High school I was openly propositioned to buy weed, shrooms, ecstasy and prescription narcotics. I was anti-drug/pro-drug war at this point in my life but I started to realize how much of an utter failure the policy was if I could get my hands on just about any drug of my choosing by the end of a school day, without even leaving campus.

Then an undercover narq came to my school as an enrolled student. The sting netted 6 students over the time span of a semester and a half.
The sting was described by the school and local police as a great success, the campus is now drug free! No, you just netted 6 people who were dumb enough to sell to a 30 year old "student". I realized that the Drug War is all about budgets and PR and not actually about public safety, big surprise there.

And I still went about my day at school propositioned just as much as usual, the remaining years of HS.
 
Last edited:
How much would any savings in that area be offset by increased costs due to a probable increased prevalence of drug use?

Your are assuming two things that are extremely erroneous, that drug use is going to suddenly permeate the vast majority of society, and that drugs are going to be as harmful as they are under prohibition.
 
Your are assuming two things that are extremely erroneous, that drug use is going to suddenly permeate the vast majority of society, and that drugs are going to be as harmful as they are under prohibition.

You are misrepresenting and exaggerating my assumptions.
 
I was incredibly lucky, and never got busted. Way too may close calls.

I think I see where you are going with this, will see shortly I guess.

lol.

I'm not really going anywhere with it. I just rarely see people that used drugs and stopped that found the drug war was was much use in their own personal battle.

The biggest problem I find with the drug war is social programs allow people to hide their problems for too long making it into a bigger problem then it otherwise would be. Even though I have reservations legalizing hard drugs, I don't see anything beneficial about a drug war in the current nanny state climate.
 
You are misrepresenting and exaggerating my assumptions.

Then what health cost are going to be so great that they out weigh the costs of prohibition, that I must remind you harms users and nonusers alike.
 
lol.

I'm not really going anywhere with it. I just rarely see people that used drugs and stopped that found the drug war was was much use in their own personal battle.

The biggest problem I find with the drug war is social programs allow people to hide their problems for too long making it into a bigger problem then it otherwise would be. Even though I have reservations legalizing hard drugs, I don't see anything beneficial about a drug war in the current nanny state climate.

Interestingly, at least to me, is that I credit Nancy Reagan as the person who most helped me overcome those demons, despite the fact that I am a die hard liberal. Overcoming addictions(and addictions comes in more than one flavor) is hard. While I was struggling with the physical and emotional and mental pain, thinking about how hard it was, I started remembering Nancy Reagan, "Just say no". It sounded so simple, and doable. I am not sure if I would have made it without that simple message.

But anyway, as to what you are saying directly. The legal aspect did play a part. Getting drugs is not hard, but if you do it enough, you will get busted. Also, with it being illegal, you are going to get ripped off, and you are going to go into potentially risky situations. These are a definite discouragement to using.
 
No, empirical evidence says otherwise. Like I said, Tobacco is the most addictive drug, and it is legal for those 18 and older. Yet tobacco use in this country decreases to the lowest level on record each and every year. This is because of education and the fact that smelling like burnt popcorn and ammonia is not seen as cool or sexy any more.

It also may have a little something something to do with the price.

But the point is that the ideal drug for a pharmaceutical company would be one that didn't kill you quickly, that didn't completely wreck your productivity (gotta still be able to go to work and make money), and that is completely addicting after the first use. Something like that would garner wide use.
 
It also may have a little something something to do with the price.

But the point is that the ideal drug for a pharmaceutical company would be one that didn't kill you quickly, that didn't completely wreck your productivity (gotta still be able to go to work and make money), and that is completely addicting after the first use. Something like that would garner wide use.

Sounds like science fiction to me... But I will go with it. What stops a scientist of creating the cure or a treatment?
 
Sounds like science fiction to me... But I will go with it. What stops a scientist of creating the cure or a treatment?

That would be even better. Then you can make money on the product, and on the cure. Good thinking!
 
I cannot believe how lopsided the results are. If I did this poll at the other forum I frequent, I would get majority support for option 1 and 2.
 
Full legalization. People have the right to put what they want in their bodies. Of course, driving high would be illegal, as it is the same as drunk driving. It's that simple.
 
I support full decriminilization of all drugs. Government should not be able to dictate what one person can or cannot place in their bodies. Additionally i support decriminilization because it will save the tax payers literally billions of dollars that are wasted on this so called war. Prohibition has never and will never work.
 
That would be even better. Then you can make money on the product, and on the cure. Good thinking!

Your kind of a sicko, huh? ;)
 
Interestingly, at least to me, is that I credit Nancy Reagan as the person who most helped me overcome those demons, despite the fact that I am a die hard liberal. Overcoming addictions(and addictions comes in more than one flavor) is hard. While I was struggling with the physical and emotional and mental pain, thinking about how hard it was, I started remembering Nancy Reagan, "Just say no". It sounded so simple, and doable. I am not sure if I would have made it without that simple message.

The actual interesting part is this is an example of using education to minimize drug use and has nothing to do with an argument in favor of a drug war as a way of helping the situation.

But anyway, as to what you are saying directly. The legal aspect did play a part. Getting drugs is not hard, but if you do it enough, you will get busted. Also, with it being illegal, you are going to get ripped off, and you are going to go into potentially risky situations. These are a definite discouragement to using.

Those are the pervasive reasons why the drug war is bad. Everything you describe was also a byproduct of prohibition and was ended with the end of prohibition. I see no benefit in people getting ripped off or being put in potentially risky situation and now that I am a parent, I'm doubly worried and convinced it's wrong to wage this war

Your own anecdotal evidence shows making it illegal doesn't stop people from putting themselves in such a situation, so why exacerbate the dangers at all?
 
The actual interesting part is this is an example of using education to minimize drug use and has nothing to do with an argument in favor of a drug war as a way of helping the situation.

Sorta. It had no effect on my beginning to use drugs, it was just a tool to quit using drugs, and was a very personal tool. It worked on a level that I do not think that Nancy Reagan ever anticipated.



Those are the pervasive reasons why the drug war is bad. Everything you describe was also a byproduct of prohibition and was ended with the end of prohibition. I see no benefit in people getting ripped off or being put in potentially risky situation and now that I am a parent, I'm doubly worried and convinced it's wrong to wage this war

Your own anecdotal evidence shows making it illegal doesn't stop people from putting themselves in such a situation, so why exacerbate the dangers at all?

If you do not see the discouragement to doing drugs from the risk of getting ripped off or being in dangerous situations, I am not sure we are really in a situation to have much of a discussion. I also, and I am sorry to say this but it is true, have little sympathy for those who do get ripped off or hurt as a result of their drug use. We choose to take risks when we break the law, and that is how it should be.
 
I think I have a unique perspective on this. Well maybe not all that unique, but possibly within the confines of this board. I have a brother that is a drug addict, full blown. Meth and pills. It's horrible, our family is in constant distress and worry. I have an uncle, well had an uncle, who was a full blown alcoholic. He finally drank himself to death (alcohol poisoning from trying to drink a gallon of vodka in one day). I lost my grandmother to lung cancer and my father had very advanced emphysema which led to his death. Both attributed to cigarettes.

All of these people had one thing in common. An excessive addition to a vice that was bad for their health. The only difference my brother, who is still alive, has been to prison over his vice. My father was considered a successful man, intelligent, very business savvy. We wanted him to quit smoking, but when he tried he just became to agitated to contend with. Let him smoke we said, it keeps him calm. When his illness finally caught up with him the family obviously flocked to him, took care of him. My grandmother was the matriarch. The Queen Bee. She had smoked since she was a little girl and nobody was stopping her now, to do so would probably lead her to a heart attack we were told, the stress at her age would kill her. We weren't going to do that.

But here I will compare my Uncle Pat to my brother. My uncle was just a poor old drunk, he had a really hard life everyone said. Vietnam was not hard on him and he lost his wife to cancer. My aunts would go out of their way to stop by and check on him, take him food, do his laundry. They worried about him constantly. He could be so funny when he would start telling stories. Pat would do anything for you if he could, but he usually couldn't. He was always borrowing money from my mom and my aunts, from me. They paid his rent, he was just to worn out to work. Poor guy, luckily he got disability and that helped make sure he kept the lights and furnace on. and of course a bottle by his chair, in the dining room, by his bed. I do miss him.

But my brother, now he is considered a different story. The family has given up hope on him because he's junkie, a criminal drug abuser who chooses a life of illicit behavior. Yeah dad was really hard on him, but hey that's life! Get tough son! Hey Rick, your wife left you and took your son, you gettin all depressed? Suck it up man, there are other fish in the sea and you just need to get a lawyer and fight! Oh oh, Rick hurt his back at plant, and he's off to the doctor. Chronic back pain? Just another excuse to get pills! He can't face life. He's abusing pills and now he's smoking meth? He got arrested again for possession? He's turned into such a loser. A full blown addict. He's lazy, we won't help him because it's just enabling him to commit crime by using addictive drugs. They are killing him! Best to walk away from him. Oh he wants to come over and do yard work for you? He wants a chance to earn some cash? He's just gonna buy drugs with it or steal from you...don't let him come over!

The thing that separated my uncle and my brother was that Pat could buy his drug of choice at May's and it was legal. I confronted my aunts one day over their comments about my brother and I made this comparison, pointing out the fact that Pat was addict like Rick and he too lived by borrowing and handouts. I almost got ran out the house. "You're uncle Pat never hurt anyone! He's nothing like Richard! He was a good man who loved you, he just had a hard life! How dare you speak like that of him!" When I told them Rick was basically the same they just rolled their eyes and threw their hands up in the air and said "your brother is a CRIMINAL! He's a drug addict! Get out of my house!"

I spent a decade and a half of my life as a cop. I was the supervisor of a county wide drug task force for two years. We will NEVER, EVER win the war on drugs. It's prohibition all over again. It doesn't work. The government cannot deny it's population their vices. They will get them. All we do is create a major burden on society by spending billions a year prosecuting and jailing non-violent drug users. And we simply make them worse. We expose them to actual criminals. Most drug addicts are already at risk to their social environment anyway. Take them off the street and throw them into a confined network of professional criminals and there will be an effect. Their life will get worse, and they will need their crutch more.

I voted that we should legalize marijuana and soft drugs (whatever your definition of that is). I'm not sure how we handle hard drugs like heroin or methamphetamine, but jail time is not the answer. Rehabilitation is the only thing I can think of.
 
^ Exactly, the drug war does not help those who get addicted, it alienates them from their loved ones and it stigmatizes them as criminals making them less likely to seek treatment. And the drug war is supposed to protect these people, right?
 
Drug laws exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to support the criminal justice job market.

Drug "offenses" account for the vast majority of the cases here in Los Angeles (and I suspect throughout most of the country). This means it fuels and supports Judges, Prosecutors, Court Clerks, Public Defenders and other defense attorneys, court reports, bailiffs, court interpretors as well as jail and prison guards, etc. Not to mention police officers.

It is not uncommon to see police operations in Los Angeles using 10-15 officers over a 5-6 hour period to arrest 20-25 people on skid row. Is this a good use of our tax money/resources?

The County of Los Angeles could save Billions of dollars as well as solve the problem of jail overcrowding and the expense of building new jails and prisons if drugs were decriminalized.

This would also mean that the police could focus their efforts on actually solving a crime or two...as well as freeing up jail/prison space so that real criminals would serve a great portion of their actual sentence.
 
My concern for legalization is future inventions, especially corporately-devised ones. If all drugs are legal, then refinement is going to be a reality. What if companies make a drug that is highly pleasurable, is cheaper than heroin or cocaine, is 100% addictive, and causes guaranteed death with prolonged use. What then?

Legalization, like criminalization, is a floodgate that, once opened, cannot be stopped. Additionally, if all drugs are legal, then I see large scale abuses in the corporate sector with their products... such as drugs ending up in food products (for enhancement), and new formulations that don't have adequate research to determine if they are harmful or not. The lines between prescription drugs and street drugs would be blurred, allowing pharmaceutical companies to demand lesser restrictions for distribution.

I voted for decriminalization so that the penal system is not overrun by people, and so that people's lives aren't ruined by being sent to jail. However, decriminalization would not prevent big companies from being fined for producing ridiculous concoctions.

That is my stance for the hard drugs and pharmaceuticals. For soft drugs like marijuana and other plants, I am in favor of legalization but with plenty of educational resources available. The plant based drugs tend to have a natural treshold which the user cannot willingly pass. For instance, mushroom overdoses are relatively rare because people tend to dose in accordance with how strong they want their trip to be and are afraid to go beyond this.
 
If you do not see the discouragement to doing drugs from the risk of getting ripped off or being in dangerous situations, I am not sure we are really in a situation to have much of a discussion.

I'm not saying that draconian laws can't work, but I question there use for victimless crimes or in areas that are best treated as medical issues.
 
My concern for legalization is future inventions, especially corporately-devised ones. If all drugs are legal, then refinement is going to be a reality. What if companies make a drug that is highly pleasurable, is cheaper than heroin or cocaine, is 100% addictive, and causes guaranteed death with prolonged use. What then?
I agree completely with this(as I have done before on this site.), I don't want corporations and gov'ts developing these sorts of things further which is one reason why I would not legalise hard drugs.

PS: Have Canadians given into the Americans on spelling?:2razz:
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with this(as I have done before on this site.), I don't want corporations and gov'ts developing these sorts of things further which is one reason why I would not legalise hard drugs.

PS: Have Canadians given into the Americans on spelling?:2razz:

It's ironic that I trust individual discretion more than government and industry.

What spelling? You mean -ize instead of -ise? I was taught -ise even though -ize is still correct. I think -ize sounds more phonetically correct... I was sort of a linguistics nerd in school.
 
It's ironic that I trust individual discretion more than government and industry.
Why? Individuals are less likely to exercise unaccountable power. It is a old truism that humans are usually more pleasant individually than as a mass.

What spelling? You mean -ize instead of -ise? I was taught -ise even though -ize is still correct. I think -ize sounds more phonetically correct... I was sort of a linguistics nerd in school.
Oh yes, British English(which doesn't actually exist specifically - I'm generalised and ignoring the differences between the regions.) is phonetically incorrect all the time...and we're darn proud of it.;)
 
Why? Individuals are less likely to exercise unaccountable power. It is a old truism that humans are usually more pleasant individually than as a mass.

From the standpoint that according to propaganda, the government and laws know best when it comes to drugs, and that individuals breaking drug laws are dirty criminals. I tend to think of it in the opposite mindset. So it's ironic that I am against legalization because I fear the government and industry abusing it, and not individuals.

Oh yes, British English(which doesn't actually exist specifically - I'm generalised and ignoring the differences between the regions.) is phonetically incorrect all the time...and we're darn proud of it.;)

English in general is messed up. You notice this the more you study other languages.
 
Back
Top Bottom