• 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!

Clinton: US shares blame for Mexican drug wars

considering i said "i see a surge in use" that would mean i intended it to be my opinion.
but if you can back up your assertion, or show me where you already have, i would be willing to reverse position

I'll back up the children drinking part during prohibition, as I've heard it from numerous sources before. I can look for one if needed, but let me just use the logical argument, which is the basis for the reality:

Think of it this way, when prohibition was happening, serving alcohol to anyone was a crime, so the only people doing it were criminals. There was no form of punishment for serving alcohol to minors that was greater than the punishment for serving alcohol in general. Thus, serving a 16 year old a beer = serving 31 year old a beer in the eyes of the law. So there was no impetus to prevent people form serving alcohol to minors.

Nowadays, serving beer to 31 year old is not punishable by law, but serving beer to a 16 year old is. Thus, laws curb the practice of serving alcohol to minors because one who wants to sustain his livelihood must take precautions against serving minors or else he will lose his ability to serve 31 year-olds.

If one is willing to commit a crime that was severely punished for money, then one typically will not make a moral distinction on who they should break the law for.

The same is true with drug dealers. There is no reason for them to deny themselves the income that can be generated from servicing minors because it adds no extra threat to the income that can be generated by serving adults, which contains as much, or even MORE of a threat to their income (Undercover agents aren't 12). If it is legalized and treated like alcohol, then denying themselves the income generated by servicing a minor would prevent a possible cessation of the income that can be generated by servicing adults.
 
Last edited:
I knew you were just pulling **** out of thin air ;)
Why would a surge in usage make sense? Most people still know that heroin and speed and cocaine can kill you. It's not like legalizing all drugs is going to remove the stigma from them.
because now people can 'rest assured' of a consistant quality to the drug without harmful 'cuts'
most people are willing to experiment. and It seems to me that more people would be willing to go to teh local head shop to try a drug they wouldn't dare try if they had to go to the Ghetto or a crack house to score
 
If we are still in a war on drugs why don't we withdraw? We had more sense about the War in Viet Nam, we are someday going to withdraw from Iraq so what are we waiting for?
 
considering i said "i see a surge in use" that would mean i intended it to be my opinion.
but if you can back up your assertion, or show me where you already have, i would be willing to reverse position

We cannot really look at models of legalization to support this argument. There is data that suggests heroin use has been fairly constant for the last 100 years, both prior to and after prohibition however; the methodology in collecting data and assessing data is almost certainly subject to inconsistencies over the years, we can look at current day instances of toleration, and decriminalization however.

Our best model currently is Portugal's decriminalization of drugs (including heroin, cocaine, ect). The Cato Institute conducted a study of the effects of Portugal's 8 year old decriminalization policy, unfortunately it has not been released yet, the paper will be presented at a forum at the Cato Institute on April 3rd.

The author has published the following in regards to the paper however:

Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to research the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon). Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Also another report from the Berkeley foundation (PDF) shows Portugal has shown a decrease in Heroin use since decriminalization. A snippet from the conclusion of this report:

... the adoption of decriminalization has brought definite advantages, particularly for addressing and reducing problematic drug use

The data from this report does show a decrease in Heroin use (granted marijuana use increased). Significantly, in 1999 prior to decriminalization there were 350 opiate related deaths, compared to 98 for 2003, 2 years after decriminalization.

A quick search using google and the terms "Portugal decriminalization" will provide a slew of links referencing their success with their tolerant policy.

Also the Swiss have had success in their government distribution system focusing on treatment instead of prosecution and persecution (although only hardcore addicts have access to it freely distributed heroin). The dutch, -while hard drugs are still illegal- also have had a decline in usage after tolerant policies have gone into effect.

If these experiments are an indication, a legal, but controlled distribution, coupled with education and treatment is most likely to result in a decrease of drug use, most prevalently in hard drug use. Those that do use will be able to do so in much safer conditions, and have help and access readily available to them instead of ostracism, fear of legal repercussions, and other adverse effects inherent with our current stance of demonization and zero tolerance.

99% of the population will continue to not be compelled to try heroin, cocaine, meth ect. simply because it is legalized. The 1% that do try it should have the support and ability to readily get treatment and help should their usage in fact become problematic (only 25% of people who use heroin actually become dependent). Even if an individual were to develop a problem, the inherent risks involved with appeasing their needs via a black market would be eliminated. They will be able to do satiate their addiction in a much safer environment, one with a safety net of care and treatment available without fear of repercussions if needed (via taxation of the very drugs they are abusing).

On the subject of alcohol and increased youth usage during prohibition, I had dug this up for another thread on this subject:

The Wickersham report on Alcohol Prohibition (1931)
Among the significant findings of this report were:

* Alcohol use declined during the first two or three years of Prohibition (a trend that had begun before Prohibition started) but rose every year thereafter. There was, in particular, an increase in the use of distilled liquors. There was also evidence of increased alcohol use and addiction among minors.

Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy - Titles and Summaries
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we should argue against rock climbing, white water rafting, skydiving, surfing and skiing as well.

Does any of that involve illegal activity and/or injecting/ingesting foreign substances into your body?
 
Does any of that involve illegal activity and/or injecting/ingesting foreign substances into your body?
Holy circular logic, Batman! "Drugs are illegal because you're ingesting illegal substances into your body."

The point he is making is that you put yourself at serious risk performing those extreme activities. Just like putting your life in danger while doing drugs. It's a personal decision. It's my body, not the government. The government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do to my own body. I am not infringing upon the rights of another by taking drugs.
 
Does any of that involve illegal activity and/or injecting/ingesting foreign substances into your body?

Does it matter?? Why do the rules only apply if it is injected/ingested??
 
Holy circular logic, Batman! "Drugs are illegal because you're ingesting illegal substances into your body."



The point he is making is that you put yourself at serious risk performing those extreme activities. Just like putting your life in danger while doing drugs. It's a personal decision. It's my body, not the government. The government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do to my own body. I am not infringing upon the rights of another by taking drugs.

Ok we are comparing smoking a fattie or injecting heroin to sports now.


Whats that event at the olympics now?

[
phelps-newx.jpg


The hundred meter butterfly, smoke a fat one then a typing test.

Winner takes the gold!

Drugs are illegal because your judgement goes out the window.

There is a difference between working to better yourself and getting falling down drunk.
What skill are you developing killing your brain cells?

50 Things That Kill Brain Cells


You are doing worse than infringing on others...You lost your judgement and no one can predict what you could do once your brain is out to lunch. Get behind a wheel, gun or knife becomes available. Anything goes.
 
Last edited:
Drugs are illegal because your judgement goes out the window.
Drugs aren't illegal, they're illicit. Drugs are bad because they impair your health and judgment. Drugs became illicit because of lies and racism. Drugs remain illicit because people have their heads up their ass.
 
Drugs are illegal because your judgement goes out the window.
So alcohol, vicodin and oxycotin are illegal as well? :doh

There is a difference between working to better yourself and getting falling down drunk.
What skill are you developing killing your brain cells?

50 Things That Kill Brain Cells
http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/02/22/50-things-that-kill-brain-cells/
Who said anyone was developing a skill? What skill are you developing when you watch SpongeBob? Or when people drink alcohol? Or watch porn?


You are doing worse than infringing on others...You lost your judgement and no one can predict what you could do once your brain is out to lunch. Get behind a wheel, gun or knife becomes available. Anything goes.
That's a bold statement. Please back it up.
 
Ok we are comparing smoking a fattie or injecting heroin to sports now.

No we are comparing risk taking behaviors to risk taking behaviors..


Drugs are illegal because your judgement goes out the window.

Alcohol sure as hell impairs your judgment. How about some consistency. a mixed hypocritical message just encourages people to not respect the laws.

If this is the basis for outlawing things, then I guess we need to outlaw a lot of carnival rides too. Those make me dizzy, really screws with my judgment.

There is a difference between working to better yourself and getting falling down drunk.

There is a difference between working to better myself and taking a nap too.

What skill are you developing killing your brain cells?

50 Things That Kill Brain Cells

hmm, that's it we need to outlaw junk food, stress, rapid head shaking, and negative thinking, since those are all on the list too.


You are doing worse than infringing on others...You lost your judgement and no one can predict what you could do once your brain is out to lunch. Get behind a wheel, gun or knife becomes available. Anything goes.

Alcohol? that is about the most impairing substance out there, and has a huge amount of culpability here.

How about a factually and logic based argument that shows that prohibition is doing more good for society than legalization would instead of emotional appeals, and opinion??
 
Last edited:
Source

That's right Hillary, blame the users for the very problems that politicians like you have caused with your prohibitionist policies. Ignore the reality that these wars and violent drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs, not in spite of it. Case in point: How many violent alcohol gangs are there? Have you ever heard of a violent tobacco cartel? Is anyone fighting any caffeine wars? No. But the significance of that fact is completely lost on prohibitionists like Hillary. No, it's the users who are at fault for the violence that follows illicit drugs. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with dogmatic policies that send the trade into the black market and have clearly been shown to be a failure both in the past as well as for the last 30 years. :roll:

The US does share the blame. The War on Drugs definitely fuels this. The greed of the federal government for money and power has definitely added fuel for the fire. You're right here, the correct answer would have been to legalize some drugs, regulate others, and prohibit the really bad stuff (especially designer drugs, probably not the best of ideas to let the pharmaceutical companies into the whole drug trade thing).
 
Drugs are illegal because your judgement goes out the window.

There is a difference between working to better yourself and getting falling down drunk.
What skill are you developing killing your brain cells?

So anything that doesn't develop a skill should be illegal? :confused:

akyron said:
You are doing worse than infringing on others...You lost your judgement and no one can predict what you could do once your brain is out to lunch. Get behind a wheel, gun or knife becomes available. Anything goes.

That sounds like a good reason to make it illegal to drive while intoxicated or to carry/use a firearm while intoxicated. It's a pretty dubious reason to make drugs illegal.
 
So alcohol, vicodin and oxycotin are illegal as well? :doh

They are most certainly regulated and improper distribution or use is illegal.

Who said anyone was developing a skill? What skill are you developing when you watch SpongeBob? Or when people drink alcohol? Or watch porn?
.

By comparing officially recognized sporting events to illegal judgement impairing drug use you did.

Sense of humor. Regulated.Regulated.

How are you comparing injecting heroin to watching Spongbob? Are you saying they are comparatively unhealthy for you? I am sure this could be debated on some level but the mere physical aspects of drugs probably outweighs by far any permanent mental bruise one might have suffered by a cartoon. Bomb on a turban or otherwise.

That's a bold statement. Please back it up.

Some common mental disorders related to drug use

• Drug withdrawal (292.0);

• Drug-induced paranoia (292.11);

• Drug-induced hallucinations (292.12);

• Drug-induced delirium (292.81);

• Drug-induced persisting dementia (292.82);

• Drug-induced persisting amnestic disorder (292.83);

• Drug-induced mood disorder (eg, depression; 282.84);

• Drug-induced sleep disorder (eg, insomnia; 292.85);

• Drug-induced anxiety disorder (292.89); and

• Drug-induced sexual dysfunction (292.89).
 
Holy circular logic, Batman! "Drugs are illegal because you're ingesting illegal substances into your body."

The point he is making is that you put yourself at serious risk performing those extreme activities. Just like putting your life in danger while doing drugs. It's a personal decision. It's my body, not the government. The government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do to my own body. I am not infringing upon the rights of another by taking drugs.

True, but how do you think drug use spreads? Do you think that someone who has never seen a drug or anyone use it will suddenly decide to try some?
 
True, but how do you think drug use spreads?

Because people start off wanting to have some harmless fun with pot with their friends, and they have to rely on a shady criminal to provide it, who then encourages them to try more dangerous drugs.

If drugs were available at legitimate commercial establishments, there could be actual enforceable laws against encouraging your pot customers to try heroin.
 
They are most certainly regulated and improper distribution or use is illegal.



By comparing officially recognized sporting events to illegal judgement impairing drug use you did.

Sense of humor. Regulated.Regulated.

How are you comparing injecting heroin to watching Spongbob? Are you saying they are comparatively unhealthy for you? I am sure this could be debated on some level but the mere physical aspects of drugs probably outweighs by far any permanent mental bruise one might have suffered by a cartoon. Bomb on a turban or otherwise.



Some common mental disorders related to drug use

• Drug withdrawal (292.0);

• Drug-induced paranoia (292.11);

• Drug-induced hallucinations (292.12);

• Drug-induced delirium (292.81);

• Drug-induced persisting dementia (292.82);

• Drug-induced persisting amnestic disorder (292.83);

• Drug-induced mood disorder (eg, depression; 282.84);

• Drug-induced sleep disorder (eg, insomnia; 292.85);

• Drug-induced anxiety disorder (292.89); and

• Drug-induced sexual dysfunction (292.89).
This is a typical prohibitionist argument. Mention every health consequence of drug use in existence, and consistently fail to connect the logic from "unhealthy" to "illicit."

SNORE
 
Ahh but we are not overgeneralizing to every drug in existence are we? Just very specific drugs with a high causality ratio of negative effects.

You know what else has a high casualty ratio with plenty of negative effects, that far outweigh the casualty ratio of any specific drug? Being an illegal drug dealer. So how about we abolish that career path by legalizing drugs.
 
Ahh but we are not overgeneralizing to every drug in existence are we? Just very specific drugs with a high causality ratio of negative effects.
So then let's get specific. Why don't you educate me on the negative effects of Psilocybin. Considering, of course, that it's less toxic for you then aspirin, grows in the ground and no one has ever died from consuming it.
 
Ahh but we are not overgeneralizing to every drug in existence are we? Just very specific drugs with a high causality ratio of negative effects.

Okay please list the number of people that have ODed on pot.
 
You know what else has a high casualty ratio with plenty of negative effects, that far outweigh the casualty ratio of any specific drug? Being an illegal drug dealer. So how about we abolish that career path by legalizing drugs.

That is very unlikely. Unless I can see proof that the deaths caused by keeping a drug illegal and allowing for conflicts with drug dealers is greater than the negative effects and deaths caused by the drug itself, I am against legalizing that drug.

Here's a better idea: let's discourage that career path by making penalties for it harsher.
 
Okay please list the number of people that have ODed on pot.

"negative effect" does not necessarily mean OD.

It looks like they mostly died from being stupid enough to take illegal drugs in the first place.

It is usually associated with a "sudden and unexpected death"

good pros and cons in that analysis but the study is obviously flawed in doing anything but presenting numbers..

Deaths from Marijuana

brain edema
cardiovascular failure
Getting eaten by a tiger at the zoo after getting high and screwing with him.

rarer cases

----

17,000 drug related deaths Annual Causes of Death in the United States

I find it odd they exclude drug induced car accidents.

Unfortunately they dont list the 17 thousand names individually. They should.
 
Last edited:
You know what else has a high casualty ratio with plenty of negative effects, that far outweigh the casualty ratio of any specific drug? Being an illegal drug dealer. So how about we abolish that career path by legalizing drugs.

How does that make sense again?
 
Back
Top Bottom