• 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
I think you are high to equate the legalization of something that is harmless to others like taking drugs, to the legalization of murder. Do I even need to comment on this?

Obviously no one else has. It really doesn't deserve a response. When you are willing to kill people because they sell dead plants to people then you are pretty far out there.
 
reffedjib said:
I think you are high to equate the legalization of something that is harmless to others like taking drugs, to the legalization of murder. Do I even need to comment on this?

Nobody is going to force you to comment on it if you don't want to, I suppose.

However, while you might have a case that low-end drugs like pot are relatively harmless, or at least no more harmful than currently legal drugs, there's only so far that you can go with it. Arguing that drugs like heroin, LSD and cocaine are harmless is idiotic.

Further, I was only extending your own claim. You argued that people are going to do drugs anyhow, so why make it illegal. Well people are going to murder anyhow. No amount of laws against it or punishments for doing it are going to eliminate murder. Therefore, by the logic you set up, we ought to decriminalize murder. Maybe we can set up a quota system, you can't kill more than, say, one person a week. Sound reasonable to you?

The fact is, society has a right to determine what is acceptable behavior and what is not. They have, by and large, determined that drugs of a certain category ought to be controlled substances and illegal for individual use. There may be exceptions, such as medical marijuana, but overall it's not going to be legal any time soon. Drugs are harmful to individuals, drugs are harmful to families and communities, drugs are harmful to society. No one has put forward a rational argument to demonstrate otherwise.
 
Those drugs cause crime BECAUSE there is a black market for them, created by the war on drugs.

There's a black market for murder too, if you really want to you can go out and hire an assassin to kill someone. Should we just give up on our "war on murder"?
 
I can think of a legitimate reason. Drugs would create addicts and addicts would create crime as an excuse for thier bad behavior and their would be many people who would sympathize with these criminals. Drugs can't be legal because it alters a person's brain chemistry, hell I'm even in favor of war being illegal because war ruins every participant in it. You either die or come home a misery.

Prohibition only keeps addicts underground for fear of reprisal from the government. Allowing competent adults to use drugs freely would allow for addicts to get help without fear of arrest
 
While I might agree with you regarding pot, there's nothing harmless about meth; there's nothing harmless about cocaine.

These drugs destroy families and increase the crime rate. Like murder, they need to remain banned.

The fact that some token minority will brake a law is no justification to remove that law entirely, thus greatly increasing the frequency of that behavior far beyond the original token minority.



You need to do a whole hell of a lot more than merely comment. You need to present a well thought-out and well sourced argument.

Alcohol has done far far more damage to society, when it was legal or not, than all hard drugs combined
 
Don't just decriminalize it, although that's a step in the right direction. Legalize it. That will drive the cartels out of the picture. How is the current War on Drugs' effect on organized crime any differant than Prohibition's?
 
There's a black market for murder too, if you really want to you can go out and hire an assassin to kill someone. Should we just give up on our "war on murder"?

Firstly, life is a right. Having other people not do drugs isn't. Secondly, there isn't a large market for murder. There is one for drugs, therefore, a large black market.
 
Nobody is going to force you to comment on it if you don't want to, I suppose.

However, while you might have a case that low-end drugs like pot are relatively harmless, or at least no more harmful than currently legal drugs, there's only so far that you can go with it. Arguing that drugs like heroin, LSD and cocaine are harmless is idiotic.

Why don't we ban alcohol and Tobacco? both have done far more damage to society than hard drugs no matter what way you look at it

Further, I was only extending your own claim. You argued that people are going to do drugs anyhow, so why make it illegal. Well people are going to murder anyhow. No amount of laws against it or punishments for doing it are going to eliminate murder. Therefore, by the logic you set up, we ought to decriminalize murder. Maybe we can set up a quota system, you can't kill more than, say, one person a week. Sound reasonable to you?

Except that drug use by itself, is a victimless crime.

The fact is, society has a right to determine what is acceptable behavior and what is not. They have, by and large, determined that drugs of a certain category ought to be controlled substances and illegal for individual use. There may be exceptions, such as medical marijuana, but overall it's not going to be legal any time soon. Drugs are harmful to individuals, drugs are harmful to families and communities, drugs are harmful to society. No one has put forward a rational argument to demonstrate otherwise.

It has no right to ban victimless actions that people keep to themselves. As long as no one else's rights are being violated, one may do as they please. Adultery has many of the same effects on society as drug abuse, yet that's still legal.
 
These drugs destroy families and increase the crime rate. Like murder, they need to remain banned.

The drugs do no such thing. Some individuals who lack self-control and/or who have a tendency towards violence do those things. Much like guns don't kill people, but people who lack self control, education, and tend toward violence DO kill people. We don't ban guns, we teach people how to use them properly and punish those who use them improperly.
 
There's a black market for murder too, if you really want to you can go out and hire an assassin to kill someone. Should we just give up on our "war on murder"?

Nope, because murder actually has a victim.
 
The drugs do no such thing. Some individuals who lack self-control and/or who have a tendency towards violence do those things. Much like guns don't kill people, but people who lack self control, education, and tend toward violence DO kill people. We don't ban guns, we teach people how to use them properly and punish those who use them improperly.

There is no firearm equivalent to chemical dependency.

kitten_top_hat.jpg
 
Nope, because murder actually has a victim.

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).
 
What does that have to do with the fact that drugs don't **** up families or commit crimes?

In truth I'm not sure what your firearm comment had to do with anything, so if you don't know, neither do I.

Chemical dependence is a pro-active negative force in the family.
 
In truth I'm not sure what your firearm comment had to do with anything, so if you don't know, neither do I.
Much like the way guns don't kill people, drugs don't commit crimes or destroy families. PEOPLE do.

Chemical dependence is a pro-active negative force in the family.
The person who acts negatively is the negative force. Dependence doesn't MAKE anyone do anything.

For instance, My father's chemical dependence on both caffeine and nicotine is not a "negative force" in the family.
 
As does drug use. The user is the victim

If the perpetrator is also the victim, then why should it be illegal? The whole idea of criminal law is to protect people from one another, not from themselves.

Jerry said:
even assuming the user's children and immediate family are not harmed (which would be an extremely rare and exotic example).

Our society does not typically make crimes out of actions that could indirectly harm families (e.g. drinking, adultery, making bad investments, being unemployed, etc). Furthermore, the DEA and criminal sentences for drug crimes harm plenty of families too, so it's not even clear that drug use harms families more than the war on drugs itself does.
 
Last edited:
Much like the way guns don't kill people, drugs don't commit crimes or destroy families. PEOPLE do.

And again, there is no firearm equivalent to chemical dependency.

If a firearm is lawfully used as directed by the manufacturer, either an animal dies for dinner or a criminal is stopped.

If meth were lawfully used as directed by the manufacturer, the user would become chemically addicted and (as with almost any other legal addiction) begin neglecting responsibilities with the sole drive and purpose of acquiring their next fix. Children and family would be forgotten (sometimes even sold), the user would not be able to hold down a job or pay bills.

Firearms do not do that.

The person who acts negatively is the negative force. Dependence doesn't MAKE anyone do anything.

That's foolishness.

Yes, chemical addiction does drive people to crime.

Firearms do not.

For instance, My father's chemical dependence on both caffeine and nicotine is not a "negative force" in the family.

Ahh so the problem is that you need a basic education of the severity of various drugs.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addiction]Drug addiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Caffeine and nicotine simply do not compare to meth.
 
Please take a moment to finish your post with the second half of your argument.

Why should we ban hard drugs, but not something that has done far more damage to society than every hard drug combined?
 
There is no firearm equivalent to chemical dependency.

kitten_top_hat.jpg

The analogy still stands. Ultimately responsibility lies with the individual, not the object
 
And again, there is no firearm equivalent to chemical dependency.

If a firearm is lawfully used as directed by the manufacturer, either an animal dies for dinner or a criminal is stopped.
That's not the point, and you know it. You're deliberately ignoring the point.

If meth were lawfully used as directed by the manufacturer, the user would become chemically addicted and (as with almost any other legal addiction) begin neglecting responsibilities with the sole drive and purpose of acquiring their next fix. Children and family would be forgotten (sometimes even sold), the user would not be able to hold down a job or pay bills.
Oh. You mean like being addicted to playing video games like WoW, then? I mean, people DO actually neglect their responsibilities, forget about their children and find it difficult, if not impossible, to hold down a job due to addictions to things like video games. Or gambling. Or... adrenaline sports.

Firearms do not do that.
Drugs don't do that either. Neither do video games. Or gambling. The PEOPLE do that.

Yes, chemical addiction does drive people to crime.
No. It CAN drive people to WANT to commit crime, however, much like being poor can drive people to want to commit crime. Or peer pressure. What is your point? The PEOPLE are not forced to do a goddamn thing.

Ahh so the problem is that you need a basic education of the severity of various drugs.

Drug addiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caffeine and nicotine simply do not compare to meth.
Oh, my bad. I thought you said "chemical dependence". Isn't that what you said? I could have SWORN that was what you said.

Oh wait!!!

Chemical dependence is a pro-active negative force in the family
That IS what you said!

Care to rephrase what you said and apply it ONLY to meth? Because as a former cocaine AND crack addict, I can guarandamntee you that it didn't MAKE me do jack ****ing ****. It didn't even compel me to. Nor did it drive me to. Neither did pot, or acid, or shrooms, or heroin.
 
Last edited:
If the perpetrator is also the victim, then why should it be illegal?

The state has a compelling interest in keeping it's citizens from becoming victims.

Our society does not typically make crimes out of actions that could indirectly harm families (e.g. drinking, adultery, making bad investments, being unemployed, etc).

I won't insult your intelligence by citing all the various dunk&disorderly/DUI laws.

You might be interested to learn, however, that in my state, not only is adultery illegal, but the husband/wife can directly sue the person their spouse committed adultery with.

I wonder, once Obama's UHC is passed and insurance is mandated, how will the unemployed pay the fine for having no money to buy a policy.

Furthermore, the DEA and criminal sentences for drug crimes harm plenty of families too, so it's not even clear that drug use harms families more than the war on drugs itself does.

I am not a part of any conversation involving the failed government program named "the war on drugs".

As a Conservative I'm predisposed to objecting to government programs to begin with, so to point out any such program as a failure only invites a smug "I told you so".
 
Last edited:
The state has a compelling interest in keeping it's citizens from becoming victims.

From themselves? How can you support nanny statism here, and then say down below that you're a conservative who opposes government programs?

Jerry said:
I won't insult your intelligence by citing all the various dunk&disorderly/DUI laws.

Those laws are not intended to protect the families of the people drinking, so I don't see how they're relevant. :confused:

Jerry said:
You might be interested to learn, however, that in my state, not only is adultery illegal, but the husband/wife can directly sue the person their spouse committed adultery with.

But is that actually enforced, or is it just on the books? What state is that?

Jerry said:
I am not a part of any conversation involving the failed government program named "the war on drugs".

As a Conservative I'm predisposed to objecting to government programs to begin with, so to point out any such program as a failure only invites a smug "I told you so".

Then what DO you suggest the government do about drugs, if not decriminalize them and not fight them?
 
It's not Uncle Sam's job to stop you from your own stupidity.
 
From themselves?
Much the same way a mentaly insane person is strapped to a bed, yes.

How can you support nanny statism here, and then say down below that you're a conservative who opposes government programs?

Well that's an easy answer: There are more options than nanny-statism and total anarchy.

Those laws are not intended to protect the families of the people drinking, so I don't see how they're relevant. :confused:

They are intended to protect everyone from those who drink. Everyone would include the family.

But is that actually enforced, or is it just on the books? What state is that?

South Dakota.

Then what DO you suggest the government do about drugs, if not decriminalize them and not fight them?

Keep them criminalized and fight them.

That doesn't mean this has anything to do with the one specific failed government program titled "war on drugs".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom