• 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!

Gunmen kill 17 people at a drug rehab in Mexico

Can you show us specifically what you'd regulate within the drug trade? I'm talking specifics. THC levels, chemicals used etc? I'd love a detailed list of all that you think should be regulated.
I don't believe they should be regulated. How about we educate people instead? I know that's a foreign concept, considering the government is all about propaganda when it comes to drugs.
 
I don't believe they should be regulated. How about we educate people instead? I know that's a foreign concept, considering the government is all about propaganda when it comes to drugs.

Ummmm they should be regulated. Just like we regulate the amount of sugar that goes into foods or the amount of alcohol in liquors. Or is Prohibition only a good example when it suits you? The market has proven a complete failure at regulating itself. Thousands of kids in China and America are poisoned every year because companies fail to warn their customers of dangerous chemicals in their products. I'm not willing to let the market regulate itself considering how big a failure it is at handling even the quality of milk.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm they should be regulated.
In your opinion. It should come as no surprise to you that not everyone shares your opinions.

Just like we regulate the amount of sugar that goes into foods or the amount of alcohol in liquors.
You assume that I approve of regulating sugar amounts in foods and alcohol levels.

Or is Prohibition only a good example when it suits you?
When did I say anything about prohibition?

The market has proven a complete failure at regulating itself. Thousands of kids in China and America are poisoned every year because companies fail to warn their customers of dangerous chemicals in their products. I'm not willing to let the market regulate itself considering how big a failure it is at handling even the quality of milk.
When have we given the market a fair shot at regulating itself? Please give me some examples.
 
When did I say anything about prohibition?

You've use Prohibition before to back up your stance on legalizing drugs :


When have we given the market a fair shot at regulating itself? Please give me some examples.

The best example of what happens when a government has no oversight over the companies or 'the market' operating in it's country is China. Their ridiculous growth has come at the price of allowing companies operating in it to pollute the country's landscape, poison it's citizens and bribe every politician in sight with the government only 'stepping' in to save face and most of the time not stepping in it all.

This ridiculous perception you libertarians have that 'the market' is going to put profit behind quality is simply ridiculous given it's track record with little oversight. The market has NEVER made an attempt at regulating itself because it knew it wouldn't be cost effective. Even to this day you have companies like Wal-Mart opposing unions, getting little kids to build their toys and paying off government officials in other countries so that they won't come around and inspect the atrociously low safety nets they provide for workers they pay a few dollars a day. That is what the market does with little oversight.

Poisoned milk scandal widens in China, top dairies implicated

China's tainted milk crisis widened Friday after tests found the dangerous chemical melamine in the milk produced by three of the country's leading dairy companies.

The news has prompted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to test yogurt and milk products imported from the implicated dairy companies as a precautionary measure, while some Canadian vendors have been pulling the products from their shelves just to be safe.

On Friday, about 10 per cent of liquid milk samples taken from China's two largest dairy producers — Mengniu Dairy Group Co. and Yili Industrial Group Co. — were found to contain melamine, according to the General Administration of Quality.

China: Where Poisoning People Is Almost Free - Forbes.com

In addition to its cheap labor costs, China has another comparative advantage as the world's factory: Companies often pay almost nothing to pollute China's air, water and soil and to poison its people.

Need pliant workers to handle toxic chemicals? Wages are just $2.60 a day. What if the chemicals contaminate a town? Compensating a family of five costs just $732. Local water supply contamination makes 4,000 people vomit? That's just $7 per household. Cost of bribing local Chinese officials to look the other way rather than adhering to safety standards? Well, that's unknown, but given the frequency of China's pollution atrocities, apparently it is cost-effective.

'Green' lightbulbs poison workers - Times Online

WHEN British consumers are compelled to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs from 2012, they will save up to 5m tons of carbon dioxide a year from being pumped into the atmosphere. In China, however, a heavy environmental price is being paid for the production of “green” lightbulbs in cost-cutting factories.

Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.

Doctors, regulators, lawyers and courts in China - which supplies two thirds of the compact fluorescent bulbs sold in Britain - are increasingly alert to the potential impacts on public health of an industry that promotes itself as a friend of the earth but depends on highly toxic mercury.
 
Last edited:
... were brutally murdered by those who would benefit most from drug legalization.
Current drug dealers have a lot to LOSE from reducing the penalties for drug posession. Govt supports the artificially high prices-- legal drugs are cheaper and subject to more competition
 
You've use Prohibition before to back up your stance on legalizing drugs:
And my political stance has changed a bit since then. That's why it's a problem to cherry-pick past threads.

The best example of what happens when a government has no oversight over the companies or 'the market' operating in it's country is China. Their ridiculous growth has come at the price of allowing companies operating in it to pollute the country's landscape, poison it's citizens and bribe every politician in sight with the government only 'stepping' in to save face and most of the time not stepping in it all.

This ridiculous perception you libertarians have that 'the market' is going to put profit behind quality is simply ridiculous given it's track record with little oversight. The market has NEVER made an attempt at regulating itself because it knew it wouldn't be cost effective. Even to this day you have companies like Wal-Mart opposing unions, getting little kids to build their toys and paying off government officials in other countries so that they won't come around and inspect the atrociously low safety nets they provide for workers they pay a few dollars a day. That is what the market does with little oversight.

Poisoned milk scandal widens in China, top dairies implicated



China: Where Poisoning People Is Almost Free - Forbes.com



'Green' lightbulbs poison workers - Times Online

I asked for an example of when we have given it a shot(read: Americans). American and Chinese culture is quite different, as would be the results if we gave it a shot.
 
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. These people were trying to break the dangerous hold on that drugs had over their lives, and they were brutally murdered by those who would benefit most from drug legalization.

Explain to me how the legalization of drugs would benefit those who run illegal cartels?
 
And my political stance has changed a bit since then. That's why it's a problem to cherry-pick past threads.

Do you know the definition of cherry picking? I presented a position that is clearly yours on this matter and asked you when it was okay to use Prohibition as an example and when it wasn't. The only person who is clearly cherry picking what parts of history to remember and what parts not to is you.

I asked for an example of when we have given it a shot(read: Americans). American and Chinese culture is quite different, as would be the results if we gave it a shot.

Prove that.

But before you do :

Let me get this straight. American culture and Chinese culture are quite different so you believe that if we allowed a complete deregulation of 'the market' they wouldn't engage in the same activities they do in China? Do you know why they don't do it already in America? BECAUSE OF REGULATION. They can't simply dump chemical products anywhere they like in America. Unlike China. They can't put whatever dangerous chemicals they want in their products. Unlike China. They can't pay workers whatever they want. Unlike China. Why? All because of regulation. Companies prove time and time again that when left to their own devices they'll care little about how much damage they do. They prove it in every third world company. From Nike to Disney World you'll find that these companies aren't looking to regulate themselves or for that matter set boundaries to what harm they cause. The fact that the Chinese allowed their government to turn a blind eye to most industries as far as regulation of any sort goes is the very reason companies go there. Keep moving the goal posts though.
 
Last edited:
The OP has failed to make any rational connection between this incident and the move to decriminalize drugs. The attempt was melodramatic and dishonest.

The war on drugs is a sham and waste of tax payer money. It's expensive and unproductive. Decriminalization of drugs is the answer. People already do them. They won't stop. Enforcement doesn't work.

Criminalization of drugs drives up prices and prompts and increased level of violence in relation to the distribution process. Simply decriminalize them. Don't offer them for sale through pharmaceutical companies. Just decriminalize them. Put a tax stamp requirement on them if you must, or make a law requiring that income from the sale of any substance like drugs requires that the seller report the income on his taxes. Put the money saved from enforcement and incarceration of drug offenders into both drug and vocational rehab and education. Arrest and incarcerate individuals for any other crimes they commit. But not because of drug possession, sale, or use.

You make plenty of room in prisons for other offenders. Violent types, burglars, sex offenders, forgers, thieves, DWI, etc. The bottom line is that the government cannot effectively regulate personal responsibility when it comes to vices like drugs and alcohol.
 
Last edited:
The OP has failed to make any rational connection between this incident and the move to decriminalize drugs. The attempt was melodramatic and dishonest.

The war on drugs is a sham and waste of tax payer money. It's expensive and unproductive. Decriminalization of drugs is the answer. People already do them. They won't stop. Enforcement doesn't work.

Criminalization of drugs drives up prices and prompts and increased level of violence in relation to the distribution process. Simply decriminalize them. Don't offer them for sale through pharmaceutical companies. Just decriminalize them. Put a tax stamp requirement on them if you must, or make a law requiring that income from the sale of any substance like drugs requires that the seller report the income on his taxes. Put the money saved from enforcement and incarceration of drug offenders into both drug and vocational rehab and education. Arrest and incarcerate individuals for any other crimes they commit. But not because of drug possession, sale, or use.

You make plenty of room in prisons for other offenders. Violent types, burglars, sex offenders, forgers, thieves, DWI, etc. The bottom line is that the government cannot effectively regulate personal responsibility when it comes to vices like drugs and alcohol.


But then the drug cartels will start assassinating the CEOs of the corporations that would take up making their drugs!

There would be blood on the streets and many police / children / kittens would die from it!
 
Do you know the definition of cherry picking? I presented a position that is clearly yours on this matter and asked you when it was okay to use Prohibition as an example and when it wasn't. The only person who is clearly cherry picking what parts of history to remember and what parts not to is you.
Okay, then you did not cherry pick. You merely used a post from the past. My position has changed since then. Does that clear things up for you?

Prove that.

But before you do :

Let me get this straight. American culture and Chinese culture are quite different so you believe that if we allowed a complete deregulation of 'the market' they wouldn't engage in the same activities they do in China? Do you know why they don't do it already in America? BECAUSE OF REGULATION. They can't simply dump chemical products anywhere they like in America. Unlike China. They can't put whatever dangerous chemicals they want in their products. Unlike China. They can't pay workers whatever they want. Unlike China. Why? All because of regulation. Companies prove time and time again that when left to their own devices they'll care little about how much damage they do. They prove it in every third world company. From Nike to Disney World you'll find that these companies aren't looking to regulate themselves or for that matter set boundaries to what harm they cause. The fact that the Chinese allowed their government to turn a blind eye to most industries as far as regulation of any sort goes is the very reason companies go there. Keep moving the goal posts though.
I see a lot of speculation and no examples of when America has let the market stand on it's own, which is what I asked for.
 
Last edited:
You name a single drug company or company of any kind who is willing to risk a single lawsuit from the first family of a kid who overdoses and I'll name you a company who has never heard the word bankruptcy. Drugs aren't like cigarettes, they aren't like alcohol. You can and thousands do die from their first use of drugs every year. How easy do you think it would be to sue a company selling glue or meth regardless of how many disclaimers they put on the package? Hell, people are still suing and winning against cigarette companies nearly 20 years after they starting putting disclaimers on their packages and phone books worth of research have come out on how dangerous they are. This silly understanding so many Libertarians have of drugs and how their market works is always astounding. Have Libertarians even met drug dealers? They'll fight drug companies tooth and nail for their billions of dollars in income. And I'm not talking about fighting in a court room. I'm not talking about creating a better product. I'm talking about them finding the owners of drug companies lining them up and doing the same thing they did to the poor bastards in the article. Do you think the same people who were shooting judges and cops in Colombia for the Medellin Cartel are going to have a problem with offing a few CEOs from the States? They wont let some CEO in Philly make money from what has been their business for years. Seriously. You know nothing of the drug world and this isn't the 1920s.

The only person who has a failed understanding of drugs and drug laws is you, since you willfully ignore the mass of data and empirical research which suggests time and again that your beloved drug laws don't actually accomplish anything...ever.

Portugal decriminalized ALL drug use in 2001 (IMS) and none of the doomsday scenarios came true. No demonstrable increases in abuse.; no massive drug wars; no giant influxes of drug tourism; nothing. In fact, when compared to drug abuse rates amongst EU countries, Portugal has some of the lowest rates of abuse, ESPECIALLY when contrasted with countries that have stringent drug laws and enforcement. Even when reality refutes your flawed understanding of prohibition you still cling to your regressive - not to mention wholly inaccurate - perspective.

I'll post the relevant information AGAIN, and hopefully this time you'll actually bother to read it:

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper
 
Alcohol kills more people than all the drugs you have named, combined. Your point is what?

That is because it is more readily available then meth, herion, etc. You'd be surprised at how many people are afraid of approaching drug dealers for fear of it being an undercover cop or a psychotic drug dealer. But if those drugs were just as readily available as alcohol, then alcohol wouldn't kill more people then meth alone.
 
The only person who has a failed understanding of drugs and drug laws is you, since you willfully ignore the mass of data and empirical research which suggests time and again that your beloved drug laws don't actually accomplish anything...ever.

Portugal decriminalized ALL drug use in 2001 (IMS) and none of the doomsday scenarios came true. No demonstrable increases in abuse.; no massive drug wars; no giant influxes of drug tourism; nothing. In fact, when compared to drug abuse rates amongst EU countries, Portugal has some of the lowest rates of abuse, ESPECIALLY when contrasted with countries that have stringent drug laws and enforcement. Even when reality refutes your flawed understanding of prohibition you still cling to your regressive - not to mention wholly inaccurate - perspective.

I'll post the relevant information AGAIN, and hopefully this time you'll actually bother to read it:

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper
Do you have any idea what Portugal is like compared to the US? In the US, everything is fast paced which leads to an addictive lifestyle more easily, in Portugal people are generally laid back and easy going which leads to a life of what is your chosing.
 
That is because it is more readily available then meth, herion, etc. You'd be surprised at how many people are afraid of approaching drug dealers for fear of it being an undercover cop or a psychotic drug dealer. But if those drugs were just as readily available as alcohol, then alcohol wouldn't kill more people then meth alone.
Stating your opinion as fact does not make it one.
 
Do you have any idea what Portugal is like compared to the US? In the US, everything is fast paced which leads to an addictive lifestyle more easily, in Portugal people are generally laid back and easy going which leads to a life of what is your chosing.
Again, stating your opinion as fact does not make it one. Please explain to us, using facts, how a "fast paced" lifestyle leads to addiction.

If we are not to use evidence readily available to us, how do you suggest that we modify our drug laws? Or do you think the current system is just peachy?
 
Last edited:
Stating your opinion as fact does not make it one.

But it is when you say something because you post a fraudulant source that doesn't take into account enough variables?

The fact is that drug legalization would never work, on the scale you are talking about. It is so ridiculous!
 
Again, stating your opinion as fact does not make it one. Please explain to us, using facts, how a "fast paced" lifestyle leads to addiction.

If we are not to use evidence readily available to us, how do you suggest that we modify our drug laws? Or do you think the current system is just peachy?

The evidence readily available to us is not good. We need to modify our drug laws, most definately.

Here is how it should be modified:
Drug users are not criminals for using the drugs, they are criminals if they HARM someone else or personal property, and if they get arressted, it should be for the crime they committed and not for the drugs they were/are on, unless they were driving while under the influences.
All drug production should be done by the government, and handed out by the federal government to users, and as well, as syringes and facilities addicts can use to sober up.
Drug traffickers and dealers should be treated as criminals, and should be punished harshly. No private corporation or business or any other individuals can have its hand in the drug trade. It should be done by the government only, and the government can decide the prices of the drugs, and what the money will be used for.
 
Do you have any idea what Portugal is like compared to the US? In the US, everything is fast paced which leads to an addictive lifestyle more easily, in Portugal people are generally laid back and easy going which leads to a life of what is your chosing.

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
 
This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

That is the greatest input you have ever put into any thread that I have seen. Thanks to you on the way!
 
But it is when you say something because you post a fraudulant source that doesn't take into account enough variables?
Elaborate, please.

The fact is that drug legalization would never work, on the scale you are talking about. It is so ridiculous!
Again, make your case or go away. You are not arguing with facts, you are making absolute statements with absolutely nothing to support them.
 
No demonstrable increases in abuse.;

Strawman.

no massive drug wars;

Which companies sell heroin in Portugal? None? Check. Who is held accountable for deaths directly related to use of these drugs? Nobody? So what do we have? Criminals allowed to do business legally. Congratulations. You've proven that if drugs are legalized the 'black market' for it won't really disappear. It'll just be allowed to fund it's criminal operations legally. How many pharmaceutical companies use the proceeds of their business to fund crime? None? What do you think the Naple families use the money from Heroin for?

no giant influxes of drug tourism;

Another strawman.

nothing. In fact, when compared to drug abuse rates amongst EU countries, Portugal has some of the lowest rates of abuse, ESPECIALLY when contrasted with countries that have stringent drug laws and enforcement. Even when reality refutes your flawed understanding of prohibition you still cling to your regressive - not to mention wholly inaccurate - perspective.

Ah yes, the Portugal case. What the Libertarian Cato Institute fails to recognize is that Portugal did not have a real drug problem on the level that America does or for that matter deal with the same crime issues the United States does. Therefor their example is simply too vague and devoid of factors to be applicable to an American demographic.

But here since you wanted to bring this up I'll show you why the Cato Institute dishonestly picked a country that had no real drug problems to begin with :

Here are the leading causes of death in America :

Drug Overdoses Now Second Leading Cause of Death

The Centers for Disease Control reveal an alarming trend in drug abuse, both in legal and illegal drugs: accidental drug overdose has become the number one cause of death for adults ages 35-54, and is now the second leading cause of death in America.

The leading cause of death in Portugal :

Prospective Community-Based Study of Stroke in Northern Portugal: Incidence and Case Fatality in Rural and Urban Populations -- Correia et al. 35 (9): 2048 -- Stroke

Despite a significant decline in mortality in this period, stroke was still the leading cause of death in 1999, accounting for 20% of all deaths,3 and age-standardized mortality was 170 per 100 000 for men and 142 per 100 000 for women. Besides the relatively high mortality, the recently reported incidence in western central Portugal was also high, 240.2 per 100 000.4

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results: Scientific American

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

While drug use in Portugal has certainly decreased what the Cato Institute fails to mention is that overall crime in Portugal has risen. Now why would the Cato insitute ommit this clear as daylight fact? Maybe because it wouldn't support the claim that drug use would change very little?

International Review of Crime Statistics for years 1994 to 2003 | Security and Society

Over the period 1997-2001 crime rose by an average 4% across the EU. The greatest rises were in France, Greece and Portugal (16%), and the greatest drops were in Italy and Denmark. England & Wales saw a fall of 2% over this period (see graph)

In 2000-2001 there was a rise of 3% on average across the EU. The largest rises were in Greece, Northern Ireland and Spain. Similar comparisons are given in the report for homicide, violent crime, robbery, domestic burglary, theft of a motor vehicle and drug trafficking.

So while legalization brought about less drug users dying from it crime in Portugal actually rose during the same period. To what do you owe the rise of this crime?
 
Back
Top Bottom