I agree with Jerry. Weed smokers next door? Fine. Shroom children next door? Fine. Methheads on my block? Not even cool.
Yeah, because that's precisely what will happen. :roll: Exactly which part of the statement "
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use" do you not understand?
Etheral said:
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that if meth were legalized meth-heads would suddenly start popping up on your block?
Pretty much, yeah.
Exactly which part of the statement "
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use" do you not understand?
Meth needs to be separated from other drugs in regards to legalization. And considering meth is devil spawn of the drug war anyway, let's drain the swamp of this one. A legal and cheaper alternate....namely cocaine will eliminate 99% of the demand anyway.
That's an excellent point, but...
I say we legalize meth at the same time we legalize bio-weapons....never
Exactly which part of the statement "
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use" do you not understand?
I'm all for keeping drugs that can kill illegal.
Right, because throwing addicts in jail has been working out so well...
Exactly which part of the statement "
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use" do you not understand?
When you make a drug illegal you make it more dangerous. It's that simple.
With that said your argument assumes that the makers of crystal meth(currently Mexican cartels) have any incentive to let the government regulate their business. How is the government who can not even find the already running meth labs in trailers in Iowa and Utah supposed to regulate them when they become legal for sale?
People don't buy moonshine out of someone's bathtub because they can buy it at the liquor store. Meth labs would naturally shut down because nobody would go there to buy meth. The police can't find all the meth labs because...wait for it...meth is illegal.
What exactly is your point? That because addiction to hard drugs is not going away then it should be legalized? Well pedophilia is not going away either so by your logic we should legalize it.
No, the point is that prohibition is not doing anything to keep anyone from using meth. "
There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use." Does that sound familiar yet? Treating the drug problem like a criminal problem instead of a medical problem has caused more problems than it has solved.
it is my understanding that what amounts to toxic waste is a byproduct of meth production. So although the controls may not be unreasonable, they will be costly which will create a black market.
When you leave in place certain remnants of prohibition, it stands to reason that the problems caused by said prohibition would still linger around. Imagine that! :roll:
Etheral said:
So, upon legalization of meth, addicts will suddenly start popping up down the street from you and Hatuey because people abuse meth right now in other places?
Yup.
Exactly which part of the statement "
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use" do you not understand?
It's a problem barely under control now. People don't just sit in their home and get high, they have to get the money, and in case you didn't know a meth addict has a notoriously difficult time holding down a job.
So they turn to crime.
And when your prohibitionist policies create a black market with hugely inflated prices, you're contributing to this very problem. Prohibition makes the drug problem worse, it causes more problems than it solves.
No that's EXACTLY what you're saying.
________ isn't going away, so legalize it.
"People do it anyway" is the ONLY reason you give. You NEVER say what makes a given thing unique, why it should be made legal and not others.
We shouldn't have to tell you to do this.
No, the point is that prohibition is not doing anything to keep anyone from using meth. "
There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use."
Society doesn't want everything that some token minority does outside the law sanctioned by the law simply because that token minority will do it anyway.
Good because legalization doesn't rely on that strawman argument at all. The point is that prohibition is not doing anything to keep anyone from using meth. "
There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use."
You know what? **** this thread. I'm not supporting legal-meth no mater what argument you pull out of your ass. Why? BECAUSE IT'S **METH**
Pot, sure, shrumes, fine, meth (etc), never.
I'm not open to discussing legal recreational hard drugs, I've seen first hand how drugs have destroyed the lives of my family.
I've seen drugs destroy members of my family too, and I've seen the drug laws destroy them even more. Once again, "
drug X is bad therefore drug X should be illegal" makes no sense whatsoever.
There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. Throwing people in jail doesn't solve anything, it only causes more problems.
Drugs that can lead to overdose = bad.
Yes. Now please explain the rationale behind saying "
drug X is bad therefore drug X should be illegal." Keep in mind that
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.
The moment kids using legally bought meth start dying there will be a public outcry for it to be banned again
What the hell are you talking about? Whoever said anything about making meth available for kids to buy? You're being totally ridiculous here.
Meth users aren't looking for a way out. They are chasing. The moment you tell a person they can use a drug that is likely to kill them then you give them absolutely no incentive to stop using it.
Nobody ever said that legalization would be an incentive to stop using drugs, so I don't know why you're assuming that. Education and deglamorization should be the incentive to stop. Not throwing people in jail.
You know Jerry, I hate meth too but I understand that no amount of saying "its bad" is going to stop some people from doing it.
No amount of "it's illegal" is going to stop them either. Prohibition doesn't solve any problems, it only causes more problems.
So you believe that no amount or strategy of intervention would curtail such activity in the slightest?
Education and deglamorization is working for tobacco, so it should also work for any other drug. Throwing people in jail doesn't solve anything, and it never has. It only causes more problems.
Once again, since people keep ignoring this fact,
there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. That means prohibition is not doing anything to curtail drug use. It means legalization won't automatically lead to more drug use. It means arguments like "drug X is bad therefore drug X should be illegal" are invalid non-sequitors. Practically every argument in favor of prohibition is refuted by this one simple fact. There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.
American Medical Association said:
A report commissioned by an influential American Medical Association committee was tabled after some medical experts reviewed a draft copy. The report recommended legalizing marijuana and decriminalization of other illegal drugs (Christopher S. Wren, "A.M.A. Shelves Disputed Report on Drugs,"
New York Times, June 23, 1996, p. A22; Christopher S. Wren, "Uproar in AMA: Paper touts legalizing drugs,"
San Francisco Chronicle, June 23, 1996, p. A1).
The draft report was commissioned to look at ways for reducing the harm of drugs. It declared that "overall, abstinence-based treatment has a high failure rate," arguing that "under all circumstances, participation in drug treatment should be voluntary." It also recommended that "
moderate steps toward drug decriminalization be taken" in order to reverse "the clearly negative consequences of the present prohibition status." John Morgan, M.D., a professor of pharmacology at the City University of New York Medical School and author of the report, said "
it struck most of us that the biggest harm reduction we could see would be to stop putting people in jail."
In addition, the draft report suggested that
marijuana "should be decriminalized, and a mechanism created for retail sales to those 18 years of age or older" and that
the "use, possession and low-level sales of all psychoactive drugs should be a subject of police action only when these activities are associated with a disruption of public order." It also recommended that "all 'buy-and-bust' police actions should cease."
A.M.A. Tables Controversial Draft Report on Harm Reduction
