• 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!

Mexico Decriminalizes All Drugs!

Do you want the United States to decriminalize all drugs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • Total voters
    48
People talk about the need to "protect victims" from drugs. However, I fail to see how a drug addict who has made their own stupid decision is any more worthy of protection than innocent people caught in the cross fire of gang warfare that is fed by the War on Drugs
 
Cephus said:
Because they're already legal. There's a difference between making an existing legal thing illegal and legalizing something that is illegal.
Click to expand...

yeah and the difference is a black market that is destroying thousands of lives, fostering gang violence and instead of preventing drugs from ending up in the hands of children encourages it



Cephus said:
Except that... it's not. While the direct impact of drug use may be on the individual, society carries the cost of widespread drug use.
Click to expand...

Society carries the cost of Prohibition.. if you really wanted to minimize its cost you would back steps to alleviate drug use.. and this does not mewan going to a draconian death penalty route.. if you want that move to Myanmar.

The costs of prohibition to society are MUCH higher than the cost to society from the drug use/abuse itself.

If you really wanted to treat the problem you would be backing steps to eradicate blockades preventing people from seeking treatment.


Cephus said:
Which is simply not the case. People can't speed because they want to. People can't just do what they want.
Click to expand...

Because speeding puts others at risk

When it comes to an individuals body.. then yes they should be able to do damn well what they want with it. When that starts to infringe on risking the well being of others, that is where the laws come into play.. ie. DUI, public intox, assault ect.
 
marduc said:
yeah and the difference is a black market that is destroying thousands of lives, fostering gang violence and instead of preventing drugs from ending up in the hands of children encourages it
Click to expand...

And if we were actually fighting a war on drugs, we could wipe out the black market. If every single drug dealer, producer and smuggler was put to death, you'd start having a hard time finding anyone who was still willing to sell it. Most of the gangs, specifically Mexican drug gangs like MS-13, are so successful because we're not really serious about fighting the drug war.

The costs of prohibition to society are MUCH higher than the cost to society from the drug use/abuse itself.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that they are by any means. Since I think we might as well legalize marijuana but keep severe restrictions on most other drugs, just doing that right there would limit the problem dramatically. You execute all the drug dealers, you require treatment for all the addicts and the system pays for itself. Virtually no cost involved.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
People talk about the need to "protect victims" from drugs. However, I fail to see how a drug addict who has made their own stupid decision is any more worthy of protection than innocent people caught in the cross fire of gang warfare that is fed by the War on Drugs
Click to expand...

I don't particularly give a damn about the victims, I care about the social costs caused by drugs. I care about people who are unable to work because of drugs that our social safety net has to pay for. I care about the medical costs incurred by these users. I care about the tax burden that is incurred by these users. I care about the lost tax revenue that is caused by these users.

The individual users themselves can all drop dead for all I care, they made their decision, let them deal with the consequences.
 
I voted other on this poll.

I do not want to the US to take a half assed measure and decriminalize drugs. This does nothing to alleviate the overarching problem of the black market, nor does it allow for maximum treatment availability/options for those who are addicted, nor does it do anything to gt drugs out of the hands of the children.

I am for complete legalization, and taking it a step further free distribution of maintenance doses of the most dangerous and highly addictive substances in an outpatient facility.
 
Cephus said:
And if we were actually fighting a war on drugs, we could wipe out the black market. If every single drug dealer, producer and smuggler was put to death, you'd start having a hard time finding anyone who was still willing to sell it. Most of the gangs, specifically Mexican drug gangs like MS-13, are so successful because we're not really serious about fighting the drug war.
Click to expand...

Might as well also put to death anyone not stopping for the police. If they chase past a mile call out the attack chopper. O_O

I thought that Mexico was currently a war zone thanks to all the power drug lords have gained thanks to prohibition.


washingtonpost.com
ARCATA, Calif. -- Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.

Almost all of the marijuana consumed in the multibillion-dollar U.S. market once came from Mexico or Colombia. Now as much as half is produced domestically, often by small-scale operators who painstakingly tend greenhouses and indoor gardens to produce the more potent, and expensive, product that consumers now demand, according to authorities and marijuana dealers on both sides of the border.
Click to expand...

Leave it to those who operate as if it was a truly free market and American Dream to fix things.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
I don't particularly give a damn about the victims, I care about the social costs caused by drugs. I care about people who are unable to work because of drugs that our social safety net has to pay for. I care about the medical costs incurred by these users. I care about the tax burden that is incurred by these users. I care about the lost tax revenue that is caused by these users.

The individual users themselves can all drop dead for all I care, they made their decision, let them deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

Your position is one of zero empathy and pure control of what is opposite of you it seems.
 
Cephus said:
I don't particularly give a damn about the victims, I care about the social costs caused by drugs. I care about people who are unable to work because of drugs that our social safety net has to pay for. I care about the medical costs incurred by these users. I care about the tax burden that is incurred by these users. I care about the lost tax revenue that is caused by these users.

The individual users themselves can all drop dead for all I care, they made their decision, let them deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

The societal cost for murder is also great as it does things like break up homes and eliminates what could be productive members of society. If drug abusers can drop dead for all you care, then why give them the safety net at all? Finnally, the War on Drugs increases the societal impact of drug abuse, because addicts are largely scared away from getting real help.
 
Cephus said:
And if we were actually fighting a war on drugs, we could wipe out the black market. If every single drug dealer, producer and smuggler was put to death, you'd start having a hard time finding anyone who was still willing to sell it. Most of the gangs, specifically Mexican drug gangs like MS-13, are so successful because we're not really serious about fighting the drug war.
Click to expand...

And we have been through this before.. no it would not.

Realistically there would never be a death penalty put in place, and just look at our current death penalty cases for murderers.. how many actually get the sentence and how many are actually carried out compared to how many murders take place?

In 2008, 37 persons in nine states were executed -- 18 in Texas; 4 in Virginia; 3 each in Georgia and South Carolina; 2 each in Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma, and 1 in Kentucky.
Click to expand...

Bureau of Justice Statistics Capital Punishment Statistics

I think there are a few more murders per year in the U.S. than that.

If we cannot even execute our murderers how the hell are we going to execute drug dealers?


Cephus said:
I don't buy that they are by any means. Since I think we might as well legalize marijuana but keep severe restrictions on most other drugs, just doing that right there would limit the problem dramatically. You execute all the drug dealers,
Click to expand...

again we have been through this already.. Drug dealers are executing each other in droves (much more effectively than a death penalty could ever hope to accomplish I might add), and there are plenty to come in behind them and take their place.

cephus said:
you require treatment for all the addicts and the system pays for itself. Virtually no cost involved.
Click to expand...

requiring treatment is ineffective, you have to want to quit to quit.

the only thing requiring treatment does is clogs up the system so that those who actually want treatment have to compete for availability with those who are forced into treatment.

We need to encourage treatment, not discourage it. People are fearful of treatment as it is because of the law, and you want to exacerbate it by making a blurred line between addiction and distribution having the penalty of death?
 
Last edited:
The Death penalty would be inneffective. One is far more likely to die selling drugs on a street corner in Detroit than on death row in Texas
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The Death penalty would be inneffective. One is far more likely to die selling drugs on a street corner in Detroit than on death row in Texas
Click to expand...

Exactly.

George Carlin said something quite similar.

George Carlin said:
And you know, in this country, now there are alot of people who want to expand the death penalty to include drug dealers. This is really stupid. Drug dealers aren't afraid to die. They're already killing each other every day on the streets by the hundreds. Drive-bys, gang shootings, they're not afraid to die. Death penalty doesn't mean anything unless you use it on people who are afraid to die. Like... the bankers who launder the drug money. The bankers, who launder, the drug money. Forget the dealers, you want to slow down that drug traffic, you got to start executing a few of these ****ing bankers. White, middle class Republican bankers.

And I'm not talking about soft, American executions, like lethal injection. I'm talking about ****ing crucifixion folks! Let's bring back crucifixions. A form of capital punishment the Christians and Jews of America can really appreciate. And I'd go a little further, I'd crucify people upside-down. Like Saint Peter, feet up, head down. And naked. I'd have naked upside-down crucifixions on TV once a week at halftime on the Monday Night Football game! Halftime! Monday Night! The Monday Night Crucifixions! You'd have people tuning in, don't even care about Football! Wouldn't you like to hear Dan Dierdorf explain why the nails have to go in at a certain angle? And I'll guarantee you one thing. You start execut- you start nailing one white banker per week to a big wooden cross, you're going to see that drug traffic begin to slow down pretty ****ing quick. Pretty ****ing quick- you won't even be able to buy drugs in schools and prisons anymore!
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
That's like saying we should get rid of laws against murder. It's prohibition. If people want to kill, it is their right to kill. We can apply that to every type of law. To go down that road is anarchy.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between hurting other people and not hurting other people? Because if you did you wouldn't have come up with such an absurd analogy.
 
A full decriminalization would mean being able to buy an 18-wheeler full of cocaine, as you now can with beer. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
As does drug use. The user is the victim even assuming the user's children and immediate family are not harmed (which would be an extremely rare and exotic example).
Click to expand...

How can someoen victimize themselves!? And what gives you the right or the authority to "protect" them from it?

Jerry plays too much WOW. He's victimizing himself. We need to protect him from WOW and himself.
 
Cephus said:
By the same token, being able to do drugs isn't a right either. The constitution is entirely silent on the matter. Therefore, arguing that people have a right to do drugs is absurd.
Click to expand...

1. Just because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. READ THE NINTH AMENDMENT.

2. The Constitution does not grant us rights and neither does the government. Humans retain their rights innately. I don't need you're morality or your permission to use drugs. It's my body and I'm not hurting anyone else. If I want to do drugs it IS my right, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.
 
Ethereal said:
1. Just because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. READ THE NINTH AMENDMENT.
Click to expand...

Which only means we can come up with more later. It doesn't mean you get to invent some on your own.

2. The Constitution does not grant us rights and neither does the government. Humans retain their rights innately. I don't need you're morality or your permission to use drugs. It's my body and I'm not hurting anyone else. If I want to do drugs it IS my right, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, they do. Rights are granted solely by the society in which you live. Without people around, the concept of rights has no meaning.
 
Cephus said:
I don't particularly give a damn about the victims, I care about the social costs caused by drugs. I care about people who are unable to work because of drugs that our social safety net has to pay for. I care about the medical costs incurred by these users. I care about the tax burden that is incurred by these users. I care about the lost tax revenue that is caused by these users.

The individual users themselves can all drop dead for all I care, they made their decision, let them deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

Sooo, lemme see here... you think it should be illegal for anyone to do anything that might possibly sometime in the unforeseeable future make them unable or unwilling to work and/or incur high medical costs? Like... sports. Alcohol. Food. Gambling. Video games. Smoking. Couches and TVs. Having children.

Really, it boils down to being born. That's what should be illegal. People are born, and then they just go to **** and cost all of us money.:lol:

Seriously though, all of these things boil down to individual choices. Food is okay in moderation. Alcohol is okay in moderation. Gambling is okay in moderation. Smoking is okay in moderation. Playing sports ... well... you're just always at risk for getting ****ed there. Video games are okay in moderation. TV is okay in moderation. All of these things could make someone want to be irresponsible and not go to work, or do criminal things, or hurt people, or risk hurting themselves - but it's up to the individual to moderate themselves and if and when they are unable to, then they **** up and are punished. We do not need to outlaw every goddamn thing that could possibly in some unforeseeable future make someone want to do something bad to themselves or others. We just can't. It's stupid to even entertain the notion. We don't do it for everything in the world, we can't. And we shouldn't do it for drugs either.
 
Cephus said:
Which only means we can come up with more later. It doesn't mean you get to invent some on your own.
Click to expand...

Wearing black boxers on your head isn't a right. It's not even in the Constitution!

:doh

Yes, actually, they do. Rights are granted solely by the society in which you live. Without people around, the concept of rights has no meaning.
Click to expand...

Why do I need other people to validate my innate desire to live free?

If society says you don’t have the “right” to life and someone starts strangling you will you just sit there until you asphyxiate because society never validated your desire to live?
 
Jerry said:
This interests me, could you post the link please?
Click to expand...

Montana Speed Report - just a report on how fast people actually drove in the couple of years following the speed limit lift.

Montana: No Speed Limit - Safety Paradox - Press Releases - National Motorists Association

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States]Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] - Scroll down to Montana. You'll see that the limits were posted again due to the vagueness of "reasonable and prudent" and not because of any safety issues.

Reasonable and prudent

On March 10, 1996,[81] a Montana patrolman issued a speeding ticket to a driver traveling at 90 mph (145 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old driver was operating a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".

Effective May 28, 1999, as a result of that decision, the Montana Legislature established a speed limit of 75 mph.
Click to expand...
 
rivrrat said:
Montana Speed Report - just a report on how fast people actually drove in the couple of years following the speed limit lift.

Montana: No Speed Limit - Safety Paradox - Press Releases - National Motorists Association

Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Scroll down to Montana. You'll see that the limits were posted again due to the vagueness of "reasonable and prudent" and not because of any safety issues.
Click to expand...

Turns out that speeding is just as dangerous as driving below the speed limit.
 
Ethereal said:
Why do I need other people to validate my innate desire to live free?
Click to expand...

Just because you desire something doesn't make it so. I'm sure there are plenty of people in prison who desire to live free, doesn't mean they get to.

If society says you don’t have the “right” to life and someone starts strangling you will you just sit there until you asphyxiate because society never validated your desire to live?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the biological desire for self-survival and having a "right" to survive. If you're out in the middle of the African bush and get attacked by lions, I don't think they're going to give a damn about your "right to life".
 
jamesrage said:
The potheads you hung out with must have been lightweights if they only smoked a joint or two in a day.
Click to expand...
If only man could learn to moderate his vices.
First he must learn what a "vice " is.:rofl
Maybe this is why the drugs are illegal.
 
Ya man:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfduFy26EE0&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - The Toyes- Smoke Two Joints[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom