• 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!

Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 28.3%

  • No

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53
LiberalAvenger said:
No you did not. You are near the last page. There are a lot of drug threads at dp and all of them have many posts. I suggest you read them first.:2wave:
Click to expand...

I meant this is the thread I posted my first post on.
 
sonofogre said:
I meant this is the thread I posted my first post on.
Click to expand...

then maybe you should have read the thread, because if you had you would seen that your assertion is flat out wrong.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
You come here like you are on a mission for God or something like that. Is this true. Are you on a mission for God?
Click to expand...

No, I am on a mission for the millions of non-smokers who are fed up with people spreading propaganda about how their dumb drug addiction is beneficial.
 
sonofogre said:
No, I am on a mission for the millions of non-smokers who are fed up with people spreading propaganda about how their dumb drug addiction is beneficial.
Click to expand...

I have not said anything about beneficial. You are hallucinating. WTF are you smoking?
 
sonofogre said:
No, I am on a mission for the millions of non-smokers who are fed up with people spreading propaganda about how their dumb drug addiction is beneficial.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Pardon the interlude folks. We were infested by a sock puppet who has serious issues. Thanks for the heads up marduc. I have sent him to the Betty Ford Center to work on his issues.
 
I'm so confused... I came for the hookers and coke and I'm left with puppets going to betty ford :confused:
 
It is remarkable to me how broad the political support for legalization is on this board. I seem to recall some "very conservative" members who were against it, but the center-right all the way over to far left seems to be in support. Am I wrong in my impression?
 
reefedjib said:
It is remarkable to me how broad the political support for legalization is on this board. I seem to recall some "very conservative" members who were against it, but the center-right all the way over to far left seems to be in support. Am I wrong in my impression?
Click to expand...

I would say you are probably correct. The reasons for it's support are probably quite varied, but the essence of support is fairly consistent. It's one of those rare times that you will find a libertarian and a progressive agreeing, though for different reasons.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would say you are probably correct. The reasons for it's support are probably quite varied, but the essence of support is fairly consistent. It's one of those rare times that you will find a libertarian and a progressive agreeing, though for different reasons.
Click to expand...

That's freaking awesome!

I hadn't taken the time to understand the reasons a libertarian and a progressive would use for legalization or that they were different. What are the reasons, respectively?
 
reefedjib said:
That's freaking awesome!

I hadn't taken the time to understand the reasons a libertarian and a progressive would use for legalization or that they were different. What are the reasons, respectively?
Click to expand...

Well, libertarians and progressives won't argue that people should be free to use some recreational drugs, especially marijuana. After all, both groups tend to be socially liberal.

Where you will get the disconnect is in the economics of legalizing drugs. Libertarians will want a laissez-faire system without regulation, while progressives will want regulations and taxing of recreational drugs. That is when the arguments will commence.
 
samsmart said:
Well, libertarians and progressives won't argue that people should be free to use some recreational drugs, especially marijuana. After all, both groups tend to be socially liberal.

Where you will get the disconnect is in the economics of legalizing drugs. Libertarians will want a laissez-faire system without regulation, while progressives will want regulations and taxing of recreational drugs. That is when the arguments will commence.
Click to expand...

I am liberally inclined but I don't want to see it taxed, hell no.:)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I am liberally inclined but I don't want to see it taxed, hell no.:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing it taxed so it can go to drug treatment centers. Just because I think drugs should be legalized doesn't mean I think drug addicts if they don't want to stay that way. If the government is going to allow drugs to be taken, the government should also help people get off drugs for those who choose.
 
samsmart said:
I wouldn't mind seeing it taxed so it can go to drug treatment centers. Just because I think drugs should be legalized doesn't mean I think drug addicts if they don't want to stay that way. If the government is going to allow drugs to be taken, the government should also help people get off drugs for those who choose.
Click to expand...

I wish they would do that for tobacco addicts.:(
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I wish they would do that for tobacco addicts.:(
Click to expand...

They do in some states, I took advantage of this in Florida when I quit, with that program they sent you at no cost a full 12 week supply of your choice of patches, lozenges, or gum (for a baseline 2 weeks of patches retails at ~$35), plus gave phone counseling sessions as well.

-------------------------------------------------

As far as the taxation of drugs, I am all for taxation of them so long as top priorities for these funds are to pay for the cost of treatment when needed, and to prevent new users from starting in the first place (delaying age of 1st use is CRITICAL here).

What I consider the ideal scenario is a two pronged distribution method for hard drugs.

1) pay to play - if you want to use recreationally, so be it, your body, your prerogative., you pay and are taxed for this - with the funds from this supporting rehab programs open to all, and also to support the other prong,

2) Free maintenance - This is for the bottom of the barrel down and out cases, if an addiction goes to the point where you would be stealing, or selling your body, or whatever.. there will be maintenance dose available for free.. you must go to a clinical setting and have the drug administered there.. in this setting the user would slowly build trust with trained specialists (ideally one assigned their "case") who can at least look out for their well being, and try to persuade the user to get the treatment they need to kick their habit.

unfortunately case 2 segregates for the poorest of the poor, and does not address the addict who is able to finance his habit, for them the best we could do is to offer treatment minus the negative stigma and the cost, and hope they seek it out.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
They do in some states, I took advantage of this in Florida when I quit, with that program they sent you at no cost a full 12 week supply of your choice of patches, lozenges, or gum (for a baseline 2 weeks of patches retails at ~$35), plus gave phone counseling sessions as well.

-------------------------------------------------

As far as the taxation of drugs, I am all for taxation of them so long as top priorities for these funds are to pay for the cost of treatment when needed, and to prevent new users from starting in the first place (delaying age of 1st use is CRITICAL here).

What I consider the ideal scenario is a two pronged distribution method for hard drugs.

That sounds more reasonable than the war on drugs/people.

1) pay to play - if you want to use recreationally, so be it, your body, your prerogative., you pay and are taxed for this - with the funds from this supporting rehab programs open to all, and also to support the other prong,

2) Free maintenance - This is for the bottom of the barrel down and out cases, if an addiction goes to the point where you would be stealing, or selling your body, or whatever.. there will be maintenance dose available for free.. you must go to a clinical setting and have the drug administered there.. in this setting the user would slowly build trust with trained specialists (ideally one assigned their "case") who can at least look out for their well being, and try to persuade the user to get the treatment they need to kick their habit.

unfortunately case 2 segregates for the poorest of the poor, and does not address the addict who is able to finance his habit, for them the best we could do is to offer treatment minus the negative stigma and the cost, and hope they seek it out.
Click to expand...

that sounds more reasonable than a war on drugs/people.
 
reefedjib said:
That's freaking awesome!

I hadn't taken the time to understand the reasons a libertarian and a progressive would use for legalization or that they were different. What are the reasons, respectively?
Click to expand...

samsmart said:
Well, libertarians and progressives won't argue that people should be free to use some recreational drugs, especially marijuana. After all, both groups tend to be socially liberal.

Where you will get the disconnect is in the economics of legalizing drugs. Libertarians will want a laissez-faire system without regulation, while progressives will want regulations and taxing of recreational drugs. That is when the arguments will commence.
Click to expand...

Sam's explanation is somewhat correct, but I will expand. Libertarians see drug legalization as a personal responsibility/personal liberty issue. The do not want to see government involvement in something that is a personal choice. Progressives see legalization as a potential to help the greater good, efficiently, to tax these drugs and use the monies towards drug treatment. Same result, different reasons. From what I see, libertarians and progressives are often at odds on issues, however, this is often because of their methodology and reasons, not the outcome.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sam's explanation is somewhat correct, but I will expand. Libertarians see drug legalization as a personal responsibility/personal liberty issue. The do not want to see government involvement in something that is a personal choice. Progressives see legalization as a potential to help the greater good, efficiently, to tax these drugs and use the monies towards drug treatment. Same result, different reasons. From what I see, libertarians and progressives are often at odds on issues, however, this is often because of their methodology and reasons, not the outcome.
Click to expand...

I see both elements in my opinion about legalizing marijuana. There is definitely the personal liberty angle, where I believe it is up to the person what they ingest. I also see the benefits to tax it to raise revenues. These revenues may be used to fund drug treatment or they may not and instead go into general revenues for the state.

I don't know if that makes me a progressive libertarian or what. I think it just means I am a practical Whig, without reference to some ideology. :)
 
reefedjib said:
I see both elements in my opinion about legalizing marijuana. There is definitely the personal liberty angle, where I believe it is up to the person what they ingest. I also see the benefits to tax it to raise revenues. These revenues may be used to fund drug treatment or they may not and instead go into general revenues for the state.

I don't know if that makes me a progressive libertarian or what. I think it just means I am a practical Whig, without reference to some ideology. :)
Click to expand...

A true progressive libertarian would be quite rare; in a way this is almost a contradiction. However, though they may not admit it, folks with both of these ideologies do share some similarities. Mostly it's in outcome.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A true progressive libertarian would be quite rare; in a way this is almost a contradiction. However, though they may not admit it, folks with both of these ideologies do share some similarities. Mostly it's in outcome.
Click to expand...

And since I am outcome focussed rather than ideology based, that would make since.

I think I see why that combination would be a contradiction, sinc eprogressives subsume the individual for the greater good, while libertarians preserve individual rights.
 
I think the Drug War only continues because it benefits the government and prison developers.

The government generates revenue through asset forfeiture:

"...civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inani-mate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions are in rem proceedings, which means literally “against a thing”—the property itself is charged with a crime." (1)

"We did not seek to determine whether forfeiture activities ultimately reduce crime or affect drug-related arrest patterns. However, we found some evidence that police agencies engage in forfeiture practices that maximize their potential for revenue generation. Specifically, we found that significantly fewer equitable-sharing payments are collected in generous forfeiture states, which is consistent with the policing-for-profit allegation put forth by forfeiture's critics (e.g., Blumenson and Nilsen, 1998)." (2)



(1) Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March, 2010), pp. 9-10.

(2) Worrall, John L. and Kovandzic, Tomislav V., "Is Policing For Profit? Answers from Asset Forfeiture," Criminology and Public Policy (Columbus, OH: American Society of Criminology, 2008), Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 237.
 
We should not legalize hard drugs for any reason, and I'm not very motivated to do anything for Mexico, either.
 
EgoffTib said:
I think the Drug War only continues because it benefits the government and prison developers.

The government generates revenue through asset forfeiture:

"...civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inani-mate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime. Civil forfeiture actions are in rem proceedings, which means literally “against a thing”—the property itself is charged with a crime." (1)

"We did not seek to determine whether forfeiture activities ultimately reduce crime or affect drug-related arrest patterns. However, we found some evidence that police agencies engage in forfeiture practices that maximize their potential for revenue generation. Specifically, we found that significantly fewer equitable-sharing payments are collected in generous forfeiture states, which is consistent with the policing-for-profit allegation put forth by forfeiture's critics (e.g., Blumenson and Nilsen, 1998)." (2)



(1) Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March, 2010), pp. 9-10.

(2) Worrall, John L. and Kovandzic, Tomislav V., "Is Policing For Profit? Answers from Asset Forfeiture," Criminology and Public Policy (Columbus, OH: American Society of Criminology, 2008), Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 237.
Click to expand...



And we continue to allow asset forfeiture laws to operate despite the clear and indisputable words of the Bill of Rights:

No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The Asset forfeiture laws are a clear violation of the constitution, yet they have been allowed to continue for years in the name of the "war on drugs."
 
Dittohead not! said:
And we continue to allow asset forfeiture laws to operate despite the clear and indisputable words of the Bill of Rights:

No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The Asset forfeiture laws are a clear violation of the constitution, yet they have been allowed to continue for years in the name of the "war on drugs."
Click to expand...
That's a 10-4, bucck rogers on that. :dito::dito:
 
Dittohead not! said:
And we continue to allow asset forfeiture laws to operate despite the clear and indisputable words of the Bill of Rights:

No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The Asset forfeiture laws are a clear violation of the constitution, yet they have been allowed to continue for years in the name of the "war on drugs."
Click to expand...

Absolutely. What ever happened to the notion that one was guilty until proven innocent? Yet under these provisions, the government can seize your assets before you even have a trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom