• 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!

What about all the young men of color dying in our inner cities?

AtlantaAdonis said:
Why does it take pictures of white kids on the television to get us outraged and talking about guns? A lot of young men of color die in the inner cities in much larger numbers and we don't seem to care even a little bit. Why can't our communities of color be in the conversation about making gun laws and not just limit the conversation to angry white male alt rightists who use assault guns in their shootings?
Click to expand...

With the NRA lobbying against sensible gun laws and the Heller vs Chicago decision our hands are effectively tied in getting guns off the streets of Chicago and inner cities.

So why is it okay to profile young black males in inner cities but not white male legal gun owners that effectively commit most of the mass killings?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Why does it take pictures of white kids on the television to get us outraged and talking about guns? A lot of young men of color die in the inner cities in much larger numbers and we don't seem to care even a little bit. Why can't our communities of color be in the conversation about making gun laws and not just limit the conversation to angry white male alt rightists who use assault guns in their shootings?
Click to expand...

Yes, the carnage in the urban ghettos is far, far greater than these periodic school shootings.

Truth is........MONEY is the reason America refuses to solve either problem.

Economic equality to eliminate ghettos would cost MONEY.

School security would cost MONEY.

Taxpayers want tax CUTS, not increases.

Greed is the problem.
 
MrWonka said:
Are you sure about that? Recent studies have shown that fewer and fewer young people are smoking cigarettes every year. Meanwhile, 75% of high school students have reported using Marijuana at least somewhat frequently. This was a pattern that we were seeing even before some states recently legalized weed. Cigarettes are legal, relatively cheap and far easier to obtain than Weed. So why are kids smoking more Weed?

The reality is that the war on drugs like prohibition really didn't stop anybody from doing these drugs. If people want to use these drugs they find them whether you ban them or not. I think you would be very surprised to find that legalizing most drugs would not result in a significant increase in the number of people using them.

Banning things rarely prevent them. Unless you have alternate ways of achieving similar goals people will likely find ways to keep doing what they want. You could make the argument that the high production cost and complexity of most guns would make them easier to ban, but any idiot can grow marijuna.
Click to expand...

It is a very complex issue, So id like to state that the decrease in tobacco use could be from the increase in tobacco price and the increase in marijuana use. Also the increase in marijuana use could also be do to the increase in availablity and the decrease in price. Also you see an increase in tobacco use with larger uses on marijuana and alcohol but a small one. You dont see the same trend in kids uses because they are bound by different restraints such as means and opportunity.
I believe that with any drug, the more of them that are legalized the more the public will use them. Also as with most supply and demand effects, the more people use other drugs the less you will see them use the traditional drugs like (tobacco and alcohol) and since we are talking about the harsish of them you would also see a decrease in marijuana as well after the initial surge from the current legalization of it.
Also kids drink more then they smoke tobacco even tho practiclly they are the same price and have the same availability. This is do to the greater reality distortion of effects of the drug alcohol. More and more kids are choosing to use marijuana because like alcohol it has a bigger reality distortion effect then tobacco. When you legalize crystal meth more kids will choose to do that over tobacoo as well because of the same reasoning.
Just like drugs if people want to find them they can regardless of the legality of it. Same can be said with assault riffles. I do agree their is a complexity in the manufactoring that posses a problem, just like full auto guns you see less of because they are banned and people dont have that type of skill set to make it a big problem. But assault riffles are not like full auto guns. They are a single trigger pull single bullet riffle, and all you are doing is banning the optics, the look of a gun. You still will have riffles with the same capabilities being able to be sold. And since most mass shootings and crime are done with other guns anyways, the effects on the ban itself would be minimal at best which megs the question then why do it in the first place.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Prohibition of these recreational drugs is no more needed than prohibition of alcohol was. Regulation (preventing sales to minors and barring workplace and/or public highway use) and education should suffice.

https://www.attn.com/stories/1825/how-cocaine-became-illegal-and-whats-happening-now
Click to expand...

That was a very biased article. I think making it legal and the regulating it will cause the increases in that drugs use. I also think it plain to see why increases in hard drugs usages is a bad thing. Im interested to know why you feel the good (the decrese in crime around the black market) outweights the bad (increase in usage)?
 
jdog21 said:
That was a very biased article. I think making it legal and the regulating it will cause the increases in that drugs use. I also think it plain to see why increases in hard drugs usages is a bad thing. Im interested to know why you feel the good (the decrese in crime around the black market) outweights the bad (increase in usage)?
Click to expand...

The social costs of legal recreational drug (alcohol included) use are less than those we faced (during prohibition) by pretending to totally ban them. We say that the users (demand) are not the problem (thus sentences for simple "personal use" possession or just being "on drugs" are light and rare) but we know that is 100% BS. If there was no demand for X then there would be no supply of X (legal or not). Are you honestly telling me that you would buy and use cocaine, heroin or meth if not for the "war on drugs"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The social costs of legal recreational drug (alcohol included) use are less than those we faced (during prohibition) by pretending to totally ban them. We say that the users (demand) are not the problem (thus sentences for simple "personal use" possession or just being "on drugs" are light and rare) but we know that is 100% BS. If there was no demand for X then there would be no supply of X (legal or not). Are you honestly telling me that you would buy and use cocaine, heroin or meth if not for the "war on drugs"?
Click to expand...
Ya i can honestly say if cocaine was legal, i'd probably buy some and give it a try one night. Cause id like to see how id feel on it. Thats how almost everyone who is hooked on drugs starts am I right? The group of people who would be the most likely to experiment are the kids and the people in the younger age brackets (under 25) and the people who dont have much to lose and who dont have repercutions for that action.
 
jdog21 said:
So you are less worried about the higher amounts of people that would be using all these drugs and the kids that find easier access to these drugs?
Click to expand...

That already happens with alcohol. If an adult gives a minor alcohol, they can be charged. I tire of the "OMG Think of the CHIIIIIILDREN" excuse.

Also wouldnt that create companies who would then profit off of the illegal drug now becoming legal being able to be purchased at any Walgreens.
Click to expand...

I would rather have legitimate companies than cartels, drug lords, and gangs that profit over illegal drugs now. Wouldn't you?
 
jdog21 said:
Ya i can honestly say if cocaine was legal, i'd probably buy some and give it a try one night. Cause id like to see how id feel on it. Thats how almost everyone who is hooked on drugs starts am I right? The group of people who would be the most likely to experiment are the kids and the people in the younger age brackets (under 25) and the people who dont have much to lose and who dont have repercutions for that action.
Click to expand...

Yet again, that already happens with alcohol. Unless you are calling for alcohol to be made illegal again, you don't really have a good excuse for drugs NOT being legal.
 
jdog21 said:
Ya i can honestly say if cocaine was legal, i'd probably buy some and give it a try one night. Cause id like to see how id feel on it. Thats how almost everyone who is hooked on drugs starts am I right? The group of people who would be the most likely to experiment are the kids and the people in the younger age brackets (under 25) and the people who dont have much to lose and who dont have repercutions for that action.
Click to expand...

Not now, they know that cocaine is highly addictive, can cause lethal overdose and is illegal but simply don't care - probably because marijuana (a fairly mild drug that does not cause overdose death) is legally considered a federal schedule I controlled and dangerous substance and yet cocaine is not. The "if the DOJ lies about marijuana then they likley lie about everything" logic probably contributes to "experimentation" with more dangerous (in reality) recreational drugs. It does not take a genius to see many cases of cocaine, heroin or meth abuse (addiction?) leading to overdose death.

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/
 
Praxas said:
I would rather have legitimate companies than cartels, drug lords, and gangs that profit over illegal drugs now. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
If the trade off was 1 to 1, then yes I think I would too. I doubt that it would and I think it would then become a bigger problem in society. Do you disagree?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not now, they know that cocaine is highly addictive, can cause lethal overdose and is illegal but simply don't care - probably because marijuana (a fairly mild drug that does not cause overdose death) is legally considered a federal schedule I controlled and dangerous substance and yet cocaine is not. The "if the DOJ lies about marijuana then they likley lie about everything" logic probably contributes to "experimentation" with more dangerous (in reality) recreational drugs. It does not take a genius to see many cases of cocaine, heroin or meth abuse (addiction?) leading to overdose death.

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I feel a logical solution is to allow state to deside on marijuana, if they want it to be legal and regulated or decriminalized or have an all out ban on the substance. I do feel the Feds need to move marijuana from the schedule 1 and place it the schedule 2 category.
But I feel this is only the case with marijuana and doesnt apply to every drug. I think it needs to be by drug by drug bases. And for simplicities sake drugs like Meth and Cocaine should stay as schedule 1's and every state should have it illegal. But you are free to your own opinion I just dont see you make a logical case for any drug besides marijuana.
 
jdog21 said:
Oh I agree. I feel a logical solution is to allow state to deside on marijuana, if they want it to be legal and regulated or decriminalized or have an all out ban on the substance. I do feel the Feds need to move marijuana from the schedule 1 and place it the schedule 2 category.
But I feel this is only the case with marijuana and doesnt apply to every drug. I think it needs to be by drug by drug bases. And for simplicities sake drugs like Meth and Cocaine should stay as schedule 1's and every state should have it illegal. But you are free to your own opinion I just dont see you make a logical case for any drug besides marijuana.
Click to expand...

Cocaine is not now a schedule I drug like marijuana is - cocaine is now a schedule II drug. In other words, according to the DOJ, cocaine is considered less dangerous than marijuana is yet the DOJ does not (yet) bother with the states that made it legal.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Cocaine is not now a schedule I drug like marijuana is - cocaine is now a schedule II drug. In other words, according to the DOJ, cocaine is considered less dangerous than marijuana is yet the DOJ does not (yet) bother with the states that made it legal.
Click to expand...

I did not know it was a schedule 2 drug that surprises me. My limited knowledge on the subject is that the schedule process is 1 doesnt allow for any medical use and schedule 2 allow illegal does allow it to be researched as having some type of medical purpose. Be-it part of a compound that for example can make a pain pill.
 
jdog21 said:
I did not know it was a schedule 2 drug that surprises me. My limited knowledge on the subject is that the schedule process is 1 doesnt allow for any medical use and schedule 2 allow illegal does allow it to be researched as having some type of medical purpose. Be-it part of a compound that for example can make a pain pill.
Click to expand...

Since the DOJ is totally ignoring marijuana being made legal at the state level the DOJ would also likely allow cocaine to share its state "protection" from federal prosecution. Aren't states that raise billions in tax revenue annually from their "legal" marijuana markets "drug dealers"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Since the DOJ is totally ignoring marijuana being made legal at the state level the DOJ would also likely allow cocaine to share its state "protection" from federal prosecution. Aren't states that raise billions in tax revenue annually from their "legal" marijuana markets "drug dealers"?
Click to expand...

Well I dont know about that. I'm pretty certian that reclasifying of marijuana will come. I just hope the republican party is the one to do it so democrats cant use that as a talking point against them.
I am a firm believer that the when the opposition party bends and makes policies that appeal to the opposition parties base we seen much cleaner and beneficial laws.
 
Mass shootings, be they at predominately white schools or predominately black churches, will always garner more media attention than the MUCH more common shootings with one or two casualties. Compelling stories draw more attention than abstract numbers. It is human nature.
 
jdog21 said:
It is a very complex issue, So id like to state that the decrease in tobacco use could be from the increase in tobacco price
Click to expand...
A bag of weed still costs significantly more than a pack of cigarettes. Could it be that education on the dangerous effects of Cigarettes as well as the addictive nature of them has caused kids to change their opinion of them and not want to start smoking them at all?


jdog21 said:
I believe that with any drug, the more of them that are legalized the more the public will use them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, see you say that, but there doesn't really seem to be any evidence of it. Public perceptions of the drug seem to have a greater impact.

jdog21 said:
Also, kids drink more then they smoke tobacco even tho practically they are the same price and have the same availability. This is done to the greater reality distortion of effects of the drug alcohol. More and more kids are choosing to use marijuana because like alcohol it has a bigger reality distortion effect then tobacco.
Click to expand...
Meth, cocaine, heroin, LSD...... These all have greater reality distortion effects, yet not widely used.

Could it be that public perceptions of the drug seem to matter more? Drinking and smoking weed is seen as fun, relatively harmless and cool. Education about the harmful effects of cigarettes as well as the addictive nature of them has made it less cool to smoke.

jdog21 said:
When you legalize crystal meth more kids will choose to do that over tobacoo as well because of the same reasoning.
Click to expand...
Ummmmm..... no. The damaging effects of meth are widely known. It is generally only popular in rural areas where other better drugs like cocaine are harder to come by.

jdog21 said:
But assault riffles are not like full auto guns. They are a single trigger pull single bullet riffle, and all you are doing is banning the optics, the look of a gun.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's slightly more complicated than that.

First, the look of the gun itself might actually matter more than you realize. Sure, you might be able to do the same amount of dammage with other semi-automatic hunting rifles if they have the right magazine attachment, but you won't look as badass doing it.

Second, the AR-15 has a number of different features that make it really handy for those who want to assault a bunch of people. First of it's very light. It has a spring loaded butt which reduces the kick effect and makes it easier to fire mulitple shots very quickly with accuracy. It's also really easy to customize as opposed to some other weapons. Adding a scope, or a bump stock, an enlarged magazine is quite simple. Mounting it to a tripod can be done by almost anyone.

jdog21 said:
You still will have riffles with the same capabilities being able to be sold.
Click to expand...

When the previous assault weapons ban was inacted it didn't specifically reference the AR-15 it made reference to any type of weapons with certain capabilities. That is generally what we're looking for here. In fact I wouldn't even care so much if the AR-15 remained legal so long as we put restrictions on magazine size.
 
MrWonka said:
Was Al Capone black? Addressing inner-city violence doesn't require anybody to criticize African Americans. The fact that you think it does just prove your racism.
Click to expand...

Case in point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom