• 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!

Decriminalize Drugs VS Bloody Drug War

Decriminalize Drugs Or Bloody Drug War?

  • Decriminalize Drugs

    Votes: 24 77.4%
  • Bloody Drug WAR for Cartels to Kill and Make Billions of Profits by Selling Amounts of Drugs

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Other- Explain

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Total voters
    31
Indeed! I sounded like a nut for a second, yeah :)



Cigarette cartels? You mean the cigarette companies. Yep - they do exist and are quite ruthless, they're just functioning within the means of the law instead of outside of it.
Yes, that's the difference. How many snitches have had their heads sawed off by RJ Reynolds enforcers in the last year?

There will always be the 'black market' or the 'underground' - even if it's perfectly legal there will always been groups and cartels trying to make more money by underselling. As does often happen with cigarette-rings. . . remember years back when an underground gang was convicted of tax-evasion. They would buy cartons of cigarettes by the hundreds in Texas (I believe) where is was cheaper per carton (cost and taxes) and then drive it to North Carolina where the cigarette-taxes were a lot higher . . . thus spending far less $$ to buy out of state and drive it back to their store - under the radar and around Uncle Sam. . . all for profit.
How many people did they kill last year in drive-by cigarette shootings? The anti-drug police force is way more ruthless than any "cigarette cartel".

So legalizaton won't prevent crime - the criminals will just have a bit more wiggle room or will have a different function. Rather than making money by functioning illegally - they'll make money by skirting the system.
And less people will be killed. The prohibition is proof of that. But if you're saying it won't make a difference either way, then the logical solution is to decriminalize drugs and stop wasting taxpayer dollars fighting them.

Kind of off subject, though, but I simply don't support the legalization of drugs that are prfoundly mind-altering. Its level of addition isn't so much the issue, it's how it effects the person. Right now tobacco, caffeine and alcohol are our 3 main legal substances - there are others, sure, but nothing quite so widely used. So - I think that present a social level of tolerance is and can be used as a gauge. So - cocain, meth . . . no. But a bit of pot? Sure, why not. I don't hear of people beating their wives to death because they were high on weed.
I do hear of people beating their wives to death who were not high on weed (or coke for that matter).

Addiction, wanting to get away or have a mental vacation, is almost human nature - we've been smoking and drinking since the dawn of man. . . but too much of a fun things can be bad. It's not the drugs themselves but how people behave while under the influence that makes it bad.

Singaporean Man Kills Daughter Over Cigarettes!
 
Kind of off subject, though, but I simply don't support the legalization of drugs that are prfoundly mind-altering. Its level of addition isn't so much the issue, it's how it effects the person.

Why should the degree to which a substance affects the person govern whether it is illegal? They should legalize psilocyban.
 
Cigarette cartels? You mean the cigarette companies. Yep - they do exist and are quite ruthless, they're just functioning within the means of the law instead of outside of it.

When was the last time members of opposing cigarette companies gunned down each other, and innocent bystanders, on a city street?

If illegal drugs were legalized, would they pursue unethical business practices? You betcha. However, would it end organized drug violence? I believe so. Which is why I'm for the legalization and regulation of all drugs.
 
Conservatives should be spearheading this effort to legalize as it maximizes individual liberty and reduces crime.
 
I was just trying to mention that it would be culturally reprehensible to average republicans an their constituents. I do agree with you, its that I don't believe 'republicans' would ever go for it. If they made steps to some limited legalization of marijuana and small amounts of other substances and naturally occurring plants, etc. they'd be my heroes.
 
I was just trying to mention that it would be culturally reprehensible to average republicans an their constituents. I do agree with you, its that I don't believe 'republicans' would ever go for it. If they made steps to some limited legalization of marijuana and small amounts of other substances and naturally occurring plants, etc. they'd be my heroes.

My parents vote Republican. They are fiscally conservative but socially moderate. Long ago I convinced them that legalization was the right thing to do. They don't think government should be deciding on moral issues unless it harms another. They think that people should be allowed to make poor decisions on their own - it is on them.

Now, when we talk about not just Republicans, but conservatives, we are talking mainly about social conservatives. Those that still adhere to personal liberty may be swayed by this argument. However, many do not hold personal liberty in high regard; they are big government conservatives. They are the ones who may feel that it is morally reprehensible and thus the role of government is to make such activities illegal. Bastards.
 
Clarification is always good.

Yes, that's the difference. How many snitches have had their heads sawed off by RJ Reynolds enforcers in the last year?

How many people did they kill last year in drive-by cigarette shootings? The anti-drug police force is way more ruthless than any "cigarette cartel".

And less people will be killed. The prohibition is proof of that. But if you're saying it won't make a difference either way, then the logical solution is to decriminalize drugs and stop wasting taxpayer dollars fighting them.

I do hear of people beating their wives to death who were not high on weed (or coke for that matter).

Singaporean Man Kills Daughter Over Cigarettes!

Exactly my point - the cartels will still be *there* and *together* but they will just function differently. . . they will have something else to focus on if 1 of their cash crops is made legal - it will just shift. Maybe it won't, I might be wrong. But it seems that that once someone only knows how to live by crime then they continue to do so - no matter what.

Why should the degree to which a substance affects the person govern whether it is illegal? They should legalize psilocyban.

Ah - see - I think it highly unwise to have parents doped up (legally) on lsd running around and gutting their children, thinking they're the devil. . .that seems like a situation we should avoid, not promote.

When was the last time members of opposing cigarette companies gunned down each other, and innocent bystanders, on a city street?

If illegal drugs were legalized, would they pursue unethical business practices? You betcha. However, would it end organized drug violence? I believe so. Which is why I'm for the legalization and regulation of all drugs.

See above.

Would it make a difference? In some ways, sure.
How much? We don't know.
What will these cartels do for a living instead? Will they just settle down and become responsible citizens? Doubtful, why would they? They'd just go to something else, for something else. Their main purpose is money - and if they aren't making it as much they'll just get into another ring of business.

That's my thought, anyway - but because we've never legalized something of this caliper before we don't have a compass on it.
 
Why should the degree to which a substance affects the person govern whether it is illegal? They should legalize psilocyban.
Ah - see - I think it highly unwise to have parents doped up (legally) on lsd running around and gutting their children, thinking they're the devil. . .that seems like a situation we should avoid, not promote.

That is on the parents if they do that. That is the exception as well. There are parents who kill their children when drunk, should we go back to making alcohol illegal? No, we shouldn't restrict what one can ingest no matter what it does, they just have to be responsible.
 
That is on the parents if they do that. That is the exception as well. There are parents who kill their children when drunk, should we go back to making alcohol illegal? No, we shouldn't restrict what one can ingest no matter what it does, they just have to be responsible.

If a parent does ___ drug, abuses and neglects their children as a result of their addiction/use, then they will likely have their children taken away and placed in foster care or care of a family member. That, then, qualifies that care provider for federal/state assistance for food, shelter costs and so on, so forth.

Unfortunately it's not merely on the shoulders of the parent if society as a whole must fill in for what a parent fails to do.
 
If a parent does ___ drug, abuses and neglects their children as a result of their addiction/use, then they will likely have their children taken away and placed in foster care or care of a family member. That, then, qualifies that care provider for federal/state assistance for food, shelter costs and so on, so forth.

Unfortunately it's not merely on the shoulders of the parent if society as a whole must fill in for what a parent fails to do.

I agree with you, but the abuse and neglect that led to the child being taken away has nothing to do with the drugs they took. They were irresponsible parents. Period.
 
I agree with you, but the abuse and neglect that led to the child being taken away has nothing to do with the drugs they took. They were irresponsible parents. Period.

:shrug:

I'd rather err on the side of caution and not really find out.
 
See above.

Would it make a difference? In some ways, sure.
How much? We don't know.
What will these cartels do for a living instead? Will they just settle down and become responsible citizens? Doubtful, why would they? They'd just go to something else, for something else. Their main purpose is money - and if they aren't making it as much they'll just get into another ring of business.

That's my thought, anyway - but because we've never legalized something of this caliper before we don't have a compass on it.

Of course we do. We prohibited alcohol. Who got control of it? The gangs. What happened when they legalized it? Businesses took over the trade. Some of that may have been from the gangsters and some of it may not have been.

You're right and I agree with you in that criminals do anything they can to make a buck, especially illegal things. However, the U.S. is one of the largest markets for illegal drugs in the world. Americans want their drugs, despite all the drug laws against them. Which is why I prefer to legalize and regulate them all, tax the hell out of them, and have those taxes go to treatment centers for drug abuse. I think that's better than the incarceration we give drug users now, have it on their record they're a felon, which then makes it impossible for them to get a good job.

And you're right, criminals will go on to something else. However, we have taken away from them one more thing for them to use to gain revenue, and we'll have included regulated competition into it as well.
 
Decriminalize Drugs or Legalize the Bloody Drug WAR for Cartels to Kill and Make Billions of Profits by Selling Amounts of Drugs? Your Choice America

YouTube - Mexican Drug Cartels Now Control Parts of Arizona [[END THIS WAR]]

I'm for legalizing drugs. Really I am. But your just trying to push your opinion that if we don't legalize drugs, we're insisting on the continuation of drug wars... or so I assume since those are the two options you provide. If that's your opinion, then that's what should be debated. I generally agree with that opinion and so I won't debate it. But your approach seems passive aggressive. If you want a debate, come on out and say it direct!
 
Would it make a difference? In some ways, sure.
How much? We don't know.
What will these cartels do for a living instead? Will they just settle down and become responsible citizens? Doubtful, why would they? They'd just go to something else, for something else. Their main purpose is money - and if they aren't making it as much they'll just get into another ring of business.

That's my thought, anyway - but because we've never legalized something of this caliper before we don't have a compass on it.
Why don't you compare the yearly profits of RJ Reynolds to those of the average drug cartel? I'm sure RJ Reynolds makes more, so if drugs were legal and regulated, why the hell would cartels choose to keep breaking the law when they could make a much bigger profit acting as a legitimate business?
 
Why don't you compare the yearly profits of RJ Reynolds to those of the average drug cartel? I'm sure RJ Reynolds makes more, so if drugs were legal and regulated, why the hell would cartels choose to keep breaking the law when they could make a much bigger profit acting as a legitimate business?

When you're bad you're bad :shrug:
Sure, a few might be able to change and go with the flow - start a legitimate business and change . . . . but for boys raised on the streets, killing for a living, you just can't legalize that out of someone.

I would also question the business pracitices of a former cartel druglord. Would he really have a good solid notion of how to run a decent business in which he has to rightfully employ and care for his employees? Under the watchful eyes of the law Enron still had it's blacklist party.
 
Drug legalization would not prevent kids from getting drugs. When I was a minor I got my hands on cigarettes and booze just as easy as I got my hands on weed. Its just as easy for a minor to get booze and cigarettes as it is pot or some other drug. You got to socialize with people to know how to buy drugs and who to buy drugs off of, so if you can do that then you can do the same thing when it comes to booze and smokes. Because there is always someone who knows someone who has a older cooler brother or sister, parent who who is trying to be hip or a older friend who doesn't mind going to the store as long as you hook him up with some cigs or a beer or two. So the idea that legalizing drugs would prevent minors from getting them is a load of crap and nothing more than a BS stoner talking point. Heck it would probably easier for a minor to get his hands on drugs since drug legalization means that someone would not have to have face charges for illegal possession.
It is actually easier to get pot than it is to get beer. You don't have to have any covert operation or set up any special contacts.
Between 2007 and 2009 there was a 37 percent increase in the percentage of teens who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs
Teens: Pot Easier To Buy Than Beer
etc...
 
I like war. So I say keep it illegal and declare war on all the organized crime and gangbanger scum that are there. And send the special ops after them with orders to shoot to kill.
 
I don't think American's could handle legalization of all drugs. I think abuse is a big enough problem while they're still illegal - it would probably grow with legalization. My biggest issue isn't abuse though; if people are stupid enough to take drugs and abuse drugs, they deserve everything they get up to and including the OD and death. While I can see it's an individual choice - what I resent is societies outrage at drug addicts in the streets and calls for tax money to clean them up. I can site how alcoholics are viewed today. IF all drugs were legalized, I'd only agree to it if only the individuals are responsible for their own clean up, their own mess, their own legal defense (ie. drug user crashes into another car and kills a mother of three). That drug user would then be responsible for a set amount of money for all three of those children until they are of legal age.

If strong enough controls were put around it - I say legalization of drugs would be a very good way of cleaning the gene pool.
 
I don't think American's could handle legalization of all drugs. I think abuse is a big enough problem while they're still illegal - it would probably grow with legalization. My biggest issue isn't abuse though; if people are stupid enough to take drugs and abuse drugs, they deserve everything they get up to and including the OD and death. While I can see it's an individual choice - what I resent is societies outrage at drug addicts in the streets and calls for tax money to clean them up. I can site how alcoholics are viewed today. IF all drugs were legalized, I'd only agree to it if only the individuals are responsible for their own clean up, their own mess, their own legal defense (ie. drug user crashes into another car and kills a mother of three). That drug user would then be responsible for a set amount of money for all three of those children until they are of legal age.

If strong enough controls were put around it - I say legalization of drugs would be a very good way of cleaning the gene pool.

The war on drugs/people reminds me of what Einstein said about doing the same things over and over and expecting to get different results. It's insanity.
 
The war on drugs/people reminds me of what Einstein said about doing the same things over and over and expecting to get different results. It's insanity.

Since when was Einstein a psychologist?
 
Back
Top Bottom