• 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!

Prohibition against drugs, or anything else is illegal

Tigerace117 said:
The "facts" that legalizing drugs will suddenly and magically cause the collapse of the cartels don't appear either....
Click to expand...

Never claimed that it would, but all available data allows for the reasonable conclusion that it would severely cripple them.
 
PoS said:
You posted a general wikipedia link that says nothing about them staying in the liquor business after Prohibition. You are not very good at this.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say bud :roll:
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Never claimed that it would, but all available data allows for the reasonable conclusion that it would severely cripple them.
Click to expand...

Just like ending prohibition crippled the Mob, right?

Spoiler alert; it didn't.
 
jdog said:
No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

I would agree. If it's my body, it's my choice. On this note, I would also say that prescription drug laws violate this very same right.
 
digsbe said:
The government is charged with the safety of the population. Certain substances pose a public health risk if allowed to be used. It's common sense. In a functioning society the members don't necessarily have the right to harm themselves, be unproductive, or be a net drain on the society's resources.
Click to expand...

Why not? If someone wants to kill themselves exactly why should the government attempt to stop them? Do they not have the right to decide when they wish to end their life? If someone wants to live off their parents and their parents agree to this arrangement exactly why shouldn't they be allowed to do this?
 
jdog said:
No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

For an argument on DP... fire away but in reality your wish won't hold up anywhere in a United Sates court!

What other "right of the individual" can not be encroached on? Using that most anything would be OK... Good Times
 
Tigerace117 said:
Just like ending prohibition crippled the Mob, right?

Spoiler alert; it didn't.
Click to expand...

It got them out of the booze business and stopped the violence associated with the illegal alcohol trade.

Spoiler alert: try reality and history. They'll really help flesh out this argument for you.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If it weren't for cartels no cartels would exist.
Click to expand...

My goodness, such a profound statement. You seem to be a master of stating the obvious.

For those who study history, however, it is well documented that drug-selling gangs, in the US or in Mexico, did not even exist until after the prohibition was put in place in 1914.

Try reading a little history--you might like it. :mrgreen:
 
FieldTheorist said:
I think government's have a right and an obligation to regulate drug sales. However, the government has clearly made certain recreational drugs illegal for reasons that are clearly unhelpful. I think the best course of actions is to make all drugs legal, but limit people's access to get them --i.e. medical professionals can distribute the hard drugs, etc.

Shooting heroin or smoking crack is highly inadvisable, to put it mildly, but people will do it. That's not going to change. I'd much rather cartels weren't making money off of it, I'd much rather people who did it did so under some level of medical supervision, and I'd rather it were regulated so it is much less likely to end up in the hand's of minors. None of that is possible with drugs being legal.

And there's marijuana, which makes absolutely no sense for it to be illegal. You can't OD off of marijuana, which literally makes it safer than caffeine.



.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent reply, it is not the norm on this forum. Yes you are right, the government has every right to regulate the sales of drugs. It has this right under the Constitution because it falls under its power to regulate trade, but the key to that power is to understand the meaning of the word regulate. To regulate is make regular.
They do not however have any power under the Constitution to tell a Citizen what medications they may choose to use or to tell them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
The use of medication, legal or illegal is a medical issue, and the government has no power under the Constitution to meddle in the medical issues of sovereign Citizens.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Hey if you feel that argument is a winner go on ahead.

But in court that dog don't hunt. There has never been any legal precedent for the idea of complete autonomy over your body, it is subject to the rules of the state
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand anything about Constitutional law, as most American people don't, which is what allows the government to conduct itself contrary to the contract between the people and the government.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That's extremely utopian thinking. Did making beer legal again put the Mob out of buisness?

Nope.
Click to expand...

You are obviously ignorant of the history of organized crime and the end of prohibition. The number of illegal gangs and the amount of illegal trade was reduced significantly as soon as alcohol prohibition was abandoned by the government. The crime rate fell and government corruption was reduced as well.
 
digsbe said:
The government is charged with the safety of the population. Certain substances pose a public health risk if allowed to be used. It's common sense. In a functioning society the members don't necessarily have the right to harm themselves, be unproductive, or be a net drain on the society's resources.
Click to expand...

NO it isn't. Show in the Constitution where it is given that power.
 
jdog said:
No government has the legal right to impose prohibition against drugs. The fact is that every individual has the natural right to do what ever they choose with their own bodies.
The government has no legal right to pass laws encroaching on the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

To add, even under the U.S. Constitution there is no authority to make drug use illegal, at least on the federal level. We even have a president for it. It took a constitutional amendment to grant the federal gov the authority. Then they had to pass another to make it legal again.
 
jdog said:
You are obviously ignorant of the history of organized crime and the end of prohibition. The number of illegal gangs and the amount of illegal trade was reduced significantly as soon as alcohol prohibition was abandoned by the government. The crime rate fell and government corruption was reduced as well.
Click to expand...

No, the crime rate didn't fall--- everything I've said simply points out that the criminal groups diversified and any lost income was quickly replaced.

Going from a bunch of weak, squabbling gangs to three or four heavily organized and violent ones isn't a plus.
 
eohrnberger said:
Agreed.



It's hard to argue that making any self administered drugs legal isn't going to lead to addiction (a loss to society in and of it's own right), which leads loss of income, and then property theft to support that addiction, if not other even more violent crimes against others.

Head that whole scenario off at the pass, by making addictive drugs controlled substances. Granted, there are other side effects of that, which are less desirable. I'm open as t better ways to mitigate those, besides make any and all drugs legal.
Click to expand...

This is a very uneducated position. The fact is we have the most addicting drug ever created legal right now, it is alcohol. It is also the most harmful in its effects on judgment. There have been more lives ruined by alcohol then all other drugs combined, and yet we learned to tolerate it. Supporters of alcohol prohibition proclaimed no man would ever bring home a paycheck if he had the ability to go to a bar and drink up his whole paycheck, and that families nationwide would starve to death. Their hysterics was just as inaccurate as yours considering other drugs is today..
 
jdog said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...sa.htm&usg=AFQjCNFlKG4VYrljR676gTfV359o0jfBOQ

Here is proof. You may admit you are wrong now if you have any honesty....
Click to expand...

What was going on during FDR's terms that more then adequately accounts for the drop off?

Here's a hint; it involves a fellow named Hitler and his pals.

After all, with huge portions of the population in uniform and fighting overseas, by definition the homicide rate would drop off. Even before Pearl Harbor the build up prior to war would have been sufficient.
 
jdog said:
This is a very uneducated position. The fact is we have the most addicting drug ever created legal right now, it is alcohol. It is also the most harmful in its effects on judgment. There have been more lives ruined by alcohol then all other drugs combined, and yet we learned to tolerate it. Supporters of alcohol prohibition proclaimed no man would ever bring home a paycheck if he had the ability to go to a bar and drink up his whole paycheck, and that families nationwide would starve to death. Their hysterics was just as inaccurate as yours considering other drugs is today..
Click to expand...

Your argument brings to light a significant point.

You believe that unleashing drugs that are even more addictive, drugs that are even more damaging to the body and mind, isn't going to cause even more harm than alcohol to their users and to society at large?

Your position doesn't seem to be an 'educated position', it seems down right illogical, and frankly down right dangerous as well. Your citing the ills of alcohol, you expect these same people to be able to handle the hard drugs you wish to unleash on them?
 
eohrnberger said:
Your argument brings to light a significant point.

You believe that unleashing drugs that are even more addictive, drugs that are even more damaging to the body and mind, isn't going to cause even more harm than alcohol to their users and to society at large?

Your position doesn't seem to be an 'educated position', it seems down right illogical, and frankly down right dangerous as well. Your citing the ills of alcohol, you expect these same people to be able to handle the hard drugs you wish to unleash on them?
Click to expand...

I am afraid you did not read my previous post correctly. There is no more addictive or damaging drugs than alcohol. That is a fact. If we can tolerate the worst of all drugs, the rest are minor league.....
 
jdog said:
I am afraid you did not read my previous post correctly. There is no more addictive or damaging drugs than alcohol. That is a fact. If we can tolerate the worst of all drugs, the rest are minor league.....
Click to expand...

There are quite a few that are ahead of it in line.

  • Heroin
  • Cocaine
  • Methamphetamine
  • Prescriptions: Opioids
  • Alcohol
The 5 Most Addictive Drugs - Narconon
Click to expand...
5th of 5.
1. Heroin
2. Crack Cocaine
3. Nicotine
4. Methadone
5. Crystal Meth
6. Alcohol
7. Cocaine
8. Amphetamines
9. Benzodiazepines
10. GHB
The 10 Hardest Drugs to Kick
Click to expand...
5th of 10.

Where are your citations that declare these other drugs as being better, somehow, less damaging or less addictive, than alcohol?

My position isn't that alcohol isn't addictive, it is; nor that it doesn't do bodily damage - at least not before heavy excess, it does; nor that it doesn't have negative impacts on society as a whole - at least not before heavy excess, again it does.

My position is that the other drugs are far worse in their effects per unit volume.
 
eohrnberger said:
There are quite a few that are ahead of it in line.


5th of 5.

5th of 10.

Where are your citations that declare these other drugs as being better, somehow, less damaging or less addictive, than alcohol?

My position isn't that alcohol isn't addictive, it is; nor that it doesn't do bodily damage - at least not before heavy excess, it does; nor that it doesn't have negative impacts on society as a whole - at least not before heavy excess, again it does.

My position is that the other drugs are far worse in their effects per unit volume.
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...z.html&usg=AFQjCNF4pFB-hYD4zg4LcBxOmzGuUl5Mbw

Here is a study that refutes your statistics and supports my position. That said you need to take all statistics with a grain of salt. Few if any statistical evidence is accurate today because all "studies" are done by laboratories supported by corporate money with a bias on the results of the "study" supporting the financial well being of the corporations funding the studies and institutions. Follow the money and it will always lead to the truth.....

Fact is I have known a lot of people who have had addiction issues with different substances. When it comes to withdrawals, nothing and I mean nothing is as miserable and debilitating as alcohol withdrawal for a real addict. In sheer numbers, the number of alcoholic's is far larger than all other drugs combined. In terms of crimes associated with intoxication, alcohol related crime is greater than all other drugs combined by a very large factor.....
 
jdog said:
NO it isn't. Show in the Constitution where it is given that power.
Click to expand...

By that logic they also don't have the authority to have an FBI or any safety officers. Why don't you get a lawyer to take it to court and have the SCOTUS decide if the legislature doesn't have the authority to ban harmful substances or restrict their use? The law is in effect, it's the burden of those challenging it to argue its legality before the court. How do you feel about prescriptions? Should we abolish those since it removes your "rights" to use any drug you want and just have all pharmacies sell all medicines as over the counter products?
 
digsbe said:
By that logic they also don't have the authority to have an FBI or any safety officers. Why don't you get a lawyer to take it to court and have the SCOTUS decide if the legislature doesn't have the authority to ban harmful substances or restrict their use? The law is in effect, it's the burden of those challenging it to argue its legality before the court. How do you feel about prescriptions? Should we abolish those since it removes your "rights" to use any drug you want and just have all pharmacies sell all medicines as over the counter products?
Click to expand...

Don't appeal to SCOTUS, but instead show him where it is in the Constitution like he asked. If you like you can say the exact same thing as SCOTUS claimed, but at least make an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom