• 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!

Legalize Hard Drugs?

Legalize hard drugs?

  • Total voters
    47
jamesrage said:
It is not a matter of simply ingesting drugs.As the op suggested we should use that money to pay for their treatments. Also if these people get hooked on hard core drugs I may have to support their family through welfare payments and foodstamps, section 8 housing because they decided that getting high or tweeking was more important than taking care of their family.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm making a different argument, that is, permit state and local governments to oversee social policies not specifically enumerated in the Constitution; education, healthcare, welfare, drugs, prostitution, etc. Eventually, the places with the best regulatory frameworks will emerge as a social model for success, whereas the ones with poor regulatory frameworks will simply fail and be replaced.

You want to me shell out cash to someone I do not know so they can get treatment. If I got to be shelling out cash I do not want to do it for their enjoyment.
Click to expand...

I never said I wanted you to pay for anything. I'm just asking why you feel the need to imprison some guy because he felt like getting high. He's not hurting you.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
If it were legalized and taxed, then if you do not want to pay taxes for the problem, then you have a choice.. simply do not use and you are not paying taxes for the problem.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say. I doubt the tax receipts paid by the users would be enough to fund treatment. It's something that really can't be determined in a make-believe scenario.
 
marduc said:
And you both fail to pick up on one crucial aspect. what we have currently is a monstrosity of a drug problem whose cost is completely shouldered by the tax payer.

If it were legalized and taxed, then if you do not want to pay taxes for the problem, then you have a choice.. simply do not use and you are not paying taxes for the problem.
Click to expand...

You think crack heads, tweekers and other junkies are going to be able to buy enough drugs so that there is enough taxes collected to pay for that without other tax payers footing the bill?

Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation - Betty Ford Center Programs
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 112
Gander said:
I never said I wanted you to pay for anything. I'm just asking why you feel the need to imprison some guy because he felt like getting high. He's not hurting you.
Click to expand...

Everyone is prison has not hurt me so you do not have a valid point.
 
jamesrage said:
Everyone is prison has not hurt me so you do not have a valid point.
Click to expand...

...Huh!?

I wasn't making a point, I was asking you a question. Why do you want to incarcerate someone that never even hurt a hair on your head? What's your reason?
 
Gander said:
...Huh!?

I wasn't making a point, I was asking you a question. Why do you want to incarcerate someone that never even hurt a hair on your head? What's your reason?
Click to expand...

All the people in prison have never harmed me or my family, should we let all those people go?
 
legalising them wont stop the illegal production, having them legal means that they will be taxed, and people will go to the black market to get a cheaper fix, it won't change a damn thing.
 
jamesrage said:
All the people in prison have never harmed me or my family, should we let all those people go?
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point here.

Assume the drug-user never hurt anyone. They just got high and walked to the park or something. Why should they be thrown in prison?
 
spud_meister said:
legalising them wont stop the illegal production, having them legal means that they will be taxed, and people will go to the black market to get a cheaper fix, it won't change a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Then why isn't this true of cigarettes and alcohol?
 
jamesrage said:
You think crack heads, tweekers and other junkies are going to be able to buy enough drugs so that there is enough taxes collected to pay for that without other tax payers footing the bill?

Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation - Betty Ford Center Programs
Click to expand...


Yes I think they would offset the costs, since we know every user would be paying taxes, but every user would not be seeking treatment.

Throw in millions of pot smokers in there, and you have bunches of left over funds to educate our youth, delay (or even eliminate) age of first usage, and actually reduce the numbers of people who use and abuse these drugs.

Costs of treatment vary, and Betty Ford would be on the high end, regardless that is a one time cost ideally, how does that pricetag stack up to the non drug using taxpayer shouldered cost of incarcerating someone for 5 years?
 
Gander said:
Then why isn't this true of cigarettes and alcohol?
Click to expand...

because they have never had a stong illegal import base in a foreign country, you make the drugs like cocaine legal, you'll still have to stop the imports from south america, or people'll buy them instead of the government produced stuff, simply because it'll be alot cheaper and the supply chains are already in place, the distribution method is in place, and they have a large client base that wont readily pay a heap more for drugs they already can get.
 
spud_meister said:
legalising them wont stop the illegal production, having them legal means that they will be taxed, and people will go to the black market to get a cheaper fix, it won't change a damn thing.
Click to expand...

why buy an illegal, more expensive product of unknown purity when a superior product of know quality was available legally and cheaper?
 
spud_meister said:
because they have never had a stong illegal import base in a foreign country, you make the drugs like cocaine legal, you'll still have to stop the imports from south america, or people'll buy them instead of the government produced stuff, simply because it'll be alot cheaper and the supply chains are already in place, the distribution method is in place, and they have a large client base that wont readily pay a heap more for drugs they already can get.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't private companies just import the product themselves, or grow it in controlled environments? Do you really think private industry and government couldn't compete with the black market? In what case has that ever been true?
 
marduc said:
why buy an illegal, more expensive product of unknown purity when a superior product of know quality was available legally and cheaper?
Click to expand...

how could it possibly be cheaper, and still fund all these rehabilitation centres, if its government produced, then the cost of production, packaging, distribution etc. will have to be in the cost, and it will only be limited to inside the USA, whereas drug cartels in south america dont have to use proper production, distribution, packaging etc. and they can export to anywhere in the world, and they have the capacity to lower prices where the government does not, they have to keep it profitable, plus the price of the tax to fund these centres, the cartels just have to keep it profitable, and there production costs would be alot lower.
 
Gander said:
You're completely missing the point here.
Click to expand...

I thought your point was they didn't hurt me so why should I care.


Assume the drug-user never hurt anyone.
They just got high and walked to the park or something.
Click to expand...

That depends on the drug,who it is profiting from it, how it was made and how it got here(unless hard drugs are legalized everywhere). Some pothead smoking some locally grown weed probably has not harmed anyone nor has he contributed to anyone being harmed.Coke/crack and certain others drugs that have to be imported you most likely contributed to someone being harmed or killed or funding some terrorist organization,cartel or gang.

Why should they be thrown in prison?
Click to expand...

Depending on the drug it would be no different than knowingly buying stolen property or aiding a criminal and for that you should be punished.
 
marduc said:
Yes I think they would offset the costs, since we know every user would be paying taxes, but every user would not be seeking treatment.

Throw in millions of pot smokers in there, and you have bunches of left over funds to educate our youth, delay (or even eliminate) age of first usage, and actually reduce the numbers of people who use and abuse these drugs.

Costs of treatment vary, and Betty Ford would be on the high end, regardless that is a one time cost ideally, how does that pricetag stack up to the non drug using taxpayer shouldered cost of incarcerating someone for 5 years?
Click to expand...

How much would you need to tax a particular drug to offset the cost of rehab? Why should a pot smoker pay for the rehabilitation of a tweeker(meth addict) or a crack head when most people believe that smoking pot is not addictive? It would be the equivalent of taxing salad to combat obesity.


PLus if recreational pot is legal then people will grow it in order to avoid taxes. A grow light. some fertilizer doesn't cost much money if you wanted to grow it traditionally. A grow light, five gallon bucket, aquarium pump, airhoses, grow rocks(lava rocks that look like a light colored cocoa puffs) and some hydroponic solutions are not that expensive. Are you going to charge a 500% tax on papers,pipes and blunt papers?
 
Last edited:
How big is the alcohol black market? Sure it still exists, but it isn't nearly as big or dangerous as it was.
 
Gander said:
Why couldn't private companies just import the product themselves, or grow it in controlled environments?
Click to expand...

im sure they could, but it still wouldn't address the problem of the multi-billion dollar cartels, and how to stop them.

Do you really think private industry and government couldn't compete with the black market? In what case has that ever been true?
Click to expand...

in what case has a particular black market being worth many billions of dollars, and what makes you think the cartels would simply roll over and let it happen, do you think they'd be above sabotaging government or private productions.
 
I voted yes, but would add the qualification that it should be legal to hold an amount for personal use.
Also I would prefer that if anyone was found to be in possession of amounts greater than the amounts decided for personal use, then that person should be automatically given the death sentence without possibility of appeal.
 
spud_meister said:
im sure they could, but it still wouldn't address the problem of the multi-billion dollar cartels, and how to stop them.



in what case has a particular black market being worth many billions of dollars, and what makes you think the cartels would simply roll over and let it happen, do you think they'd be above sabotaging government or private productions.
Click to expand...

Guns and beheadings are useless against the power of economics. Just as the end of Prohibition dealt a huge blow to bootleggers, legalization would deal a huge blow to cratels. Current drug laws and enforcement cause high costs and risk. The only ones who can compete are these giant cartels. In an open market others will undercut them. There will also be very little incentive to be violent. Black markets have no property rights, contract law, or courts. The only way to settle disputes is with violence. In an open market there are far easier ways to settle things.
 
For the most part, no.

I'd be fine with legalizing possession and use within one's own home. But sale, distribution, and use in public should stay illegal.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Guns and beheadings are useless against the power of economics. Just as the end of Prohibition dealt a huge blow to bootleggers, legalization would deal a huge blow to cratels. Current drug laws and enforcement cause high costs and risk. The only ones who can compete are these giant cartels. In an open market others will undercut them. There will also be very little incentive to be violent. Black markets have no property rights, contract law, or courts. The only way to settle disputes is with violence. In an open market there are far easier ways to settle things.
Click to expand...

so you're proposing, rather than a government run scheme, just give drug cartles legality?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Guns and beheadings are useless against the power of economics. Just as the end of Prohibition dealt a huge blow to bootleggers, legalization would deal a huge blow to cratels.
Click to expand...

If we grow our own opium, coca plants,sell our borders so their product can not come through and make all the drugs here it would cut off the cartels. Last I check the only ones who were making booze illegally during prohibition were in the US. Cartels do not operate mostly in the US.


In an open market others will undercut them.

There will also be very little incentive to be violent.
Click to expand...

That would depend on the country. In a country like Mexico a cartel could simply shoot the competition and or extort them into charging the same prices or giving them a cut.

Black markets have no property rights, contract law, or courts. The only way to settle disputes is with violence. In an open market there are far easier ways to settle things.
Click to expand...

In the US that is true. You seem to have the crayola colored picture of everybody including the cartel holding hands and smiling with the words drugs legalized with backwards Es. Cartels are a business,the Mexican government is not going to crack down on them just because drugs are legalized nor are the cartels just going to sit idly by and allow competition in their areas because competition means less profit for them.
 
A) Taxes raised on the sale of hard drugs paying for rehab of addicts

vs

B) Taxes spent by non-users incarcerating addicts AND providing rehab

I will choose A, thank you.

The cost of legal drugs will still be cheaper than the black market. Some current cartel organizations will become legal distributors. Same as alcohol after prohibition.
 
spud_meister said:
so you're proposing, rather than a government run scheme, just give drug cartles legality?
Click to expand...

Well kind of, but an open market isn't friendly to cartels. This has all been gone over on a recent thread. I don't feel like going over it again.

jamesrage said:
If we grow our own opium, coca plants,sell our borders so their product can not come through and make all the drugs here it would cut off the cartels. Last I check the only ones who were making booze illegally during prohibition were in the US. Cartels do not operate mostly in the US.
Click to expand...

With legalization, much of the supply chain could be done in the US. The ideal wold also be for other countries to do the same as us.

jamesrage said:
That would depend on the country. In a country like Mexico a cartel could simply shoot the competition and or extort them into charging the same prices or giving them a cut.
Click to expand...

Again, economics. Bloodshed is simply uneconomical in an open market. See above

jamesrage said:
In the US that is true. You seem to have the crayola colored picture of everybody including the cartel holding hands and smiling with the words drugs legalized with backwards Es. Cartels are a business,the Mexican government is not going to crack down on them just because drugs are legalized nor are the cartels just going to sit idly by and allow competition in their areas because competition means less profit for them.
Click to expand...

Who said anythng about being nice or cracking down? This is simple business reality. Criminal empires are an expensive enterpirse. If they can do it more cheaply they will or they won't have any money to threaten anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom