I do have a problem with the crime related to drug use however and imo that's not worth the high or whatever. If drug crime punishments (including possession) were more severe, the general populace would have less desire for it as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
This is utterly retarded. Why do you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure?
Sounds to me like he's advocating prohibition actually
I do have a problem with the crime related to drug use however and imo that's not worth the high or whatever. If drug crime punishments (including possession) were more severe, the general populace would have less desire for it as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
This is utterly retarded. Why do you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure?
As it stands, jails are a revolving door for people with drug problems. You cannot even begin to try and argue that police wouldn't be relieved of manpower issues if they didn't have to handle these people as often, thanks to longer sentences. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue, but the severity of punishment has nothing to do with how we are failing to combat drug use on the whole, since the objective is to stop people from ever getting to that point.
Iroh on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I do have a problem with the crime related to drug use however and imo that's not worth the high or whatever. If drug crime punishments (including possession) were more severe, the general populace would have less desire for it as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
This is utterly retarded. Why do you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure?
As it stands, jails are a revolving door for people with drug problems. You cannot even begin to try and argue that police wouldn't be relieved of manpower issues if they didn't have to handle these people as often, thanks to longer sentences. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue, but the severity of punishment has nothing to do with how we are failing to combat drug use on the whole, since the objective is to stop people from ever getting to that point.
Hell, why not just put them to death? I mean, it works for Singapore, right? Thanks to its severe punishments, that place is a drug-free paradise!
I do have a problem with the crime related to drug use however and imo that's not worth the high or whatever. If drug crime punishments (including possession) were more severe, the general populace would have less desire for it as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
This is utterly retarded. Why do you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure?
As it stands, jails are a revolving door for people with drug problems. You cannot even begin to try and argue that police wouldn't be relieved of manpower issues if they didn't have to handle these people as often, thanks to longer sentences. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue, but the severity of punishment has nothing to do with how we are failing to combat drug use on the whole, since the objective is to stop people from ever getting to that point.
Hell, why not just put them to death? I mean, it works for Singapore, right? Thanks to its severe punishments, that place is a drug-free paradise!
I never said that we should make punishment more severe, just that it would be easier for police. In fact I made sure to include this little gem:
Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue
If you want my opinion though, I think it would be great if they put repeat offenders away for longer periods of time. If you have a history of substance abuse, there's no point in the police letting you go if they just have to go back out and catch you 10 more times, when they could be doing better things with their time.
If this were a perfect world, we could rehabilitate those people, but the system is so messed up right now, extending sentences for some people is a way more realistic option.
Drug abuse needs to be approached by governments as a public health issue, simple as that. The enforcement angle has clearly failed to reduce drug use, and has succeeded only in overloading the prison system with millions of otherwise law-abiding, productive, nonviolent citizens; more or less permanently destroying the lives of said productive citizens; and funneling vast amounts of money into criminal organizations. People have been doing drugs for millennia and they're not going to stop any time soon. Increasing sentences will result in little (if any) reduction in drug use and will further overpopulate the prison system with people who have harmed nobody. Your idea is a recipe for disaster.
Drug abuse needs to be approached by governments as a public health issue, simple as that. The enforcement angle has clearly failed to reduce drug use, and has succeeded only in overloading the prison system with millions of otherwise law-abiding, productive, nonviolent citizens; and funneling vast amounts of money into criminal organizations. People have been doing drugs for millennia and they're not going to stop any time soon. Increasing sentences will result in little (if any) reduction in drug use and will further overpopulate the prison system. Your idea is a recipe for disaster.
And I dare say they create more serious criminals when they put otherwise law-abiding people in prison, since it's a huge fucking pain to ever get a real job again after that, and they're likely to have learned a thing or two about criminal activity in their time incarcerated.
Drug abuse needs to be approached by governments as a public health issue, simple as that. The enforcement angle has clearly failed to reduce drug use, and has succeeded only in overloading the prison system with millions of otherwise law-abiding, productive, nonviolent citizens; and funneling vast amounts of money into criminal organizations. People have been doing drugs for millennia and they're not going to stop any time soon. Increasing sentences will result in little (if any) reduction in drug use and will further overpopulate the prison system. Your idea is a recipe for disaster.
And I dare say they create more serious criminals when they put otherwise law-abiding people in prison, since it's a huge fucking pain to ever get a real job again after that, and they're likely to have learned a thing or two about criminal activity in their time incarcerated.
There's a reason it's called "Con College".
Azio on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I do have a problem with the crime related to drug use however and imo that's not worth the high or whatever. If drug crime punishments (including possession) were more severe, the general populace would have less desire for it as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
This is utterly retarded. Why do you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure?
As it stands, jails are a revolving door for people with drug problems. You cannot even begin to try and argue that police wouldn't be relieved of manpower issues if they didn't have to handle these people as often, thanks to longer sentences. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue, but the severity of punishment has nothing to do with how we are failing to combat drug use on the whole, since the objective is to stop people from ever getting to that point.
Hell, why not just put them to death? I mean, it works for Singapore, right? Thanks to its severe punishments, that place is a drug-free paradise!
I never said that we should make punishment more severe, just that it would be easier for police. In fact I made sure to include this little gem:
Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue
If you want my opinion though, I think it would be great if they put repeat offenders away for longer periods of time. If you have a history of substance abuse, there's no point in the police letting you go if they just have to go back out and catch you 10 more times, when they could be doing better things with their time.
If this were a perfect world, we could rehabilitate those people, but the system is so messed up right now, extending sentences for some people is a way more realistic option.
Realistic how? The only thing extending their sentences will do is institutionalize them further, thus making their reintegration into society that much more difficult once their time is served. I mean shit, it's bad enough we put them in with the murderers and the rapists to begin with, but keeping them in with them longer? What the fuck, man?
Realistic how? The only thing extending their sentences will do is institutionalize them further, thus making their reintegration into society that much more difficult once their time is served. I mean shit, it's bad enough we put them in with the murderers and the rapists to begin with, but keeping them in with them longer? What the fuck, man?
Okay, so what keeps them from coming back once you do let them out? We don't have anything in place to rehabilitate people who serve time for drug use. A lot of those people are going to wind up serving time again for the same thing, so all you accomplished by letting them out was putting a burden on police to go haul them back in. Unless you know of some program that I don't that successfully turns lifetime junkies into contributing members of society, I don't see any reason to let them out each time.
Iroh on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Realistic how? The only thing extending their sentences will do is institutionalize them further, thus making their reintegration into society that much more difficult once their time is served. I mean shit, it's bad enough we put them in with the murderers and the rapists to begin with, but keeping them in with them longer? What the fuck, man?
Okay, so what keeps them from coming back once you do let them out? We don't have anything in place to rehabilitate people who serve time for drug use. A lot of those people are going to wind up serving time again for the same thing, so all you accomplished by letting them out was putting a burden on police to go haul them back in. Unless you know of some program that I don't that successfully turns lifetime junkies into contributing members of society, I don't see any reason to let them out each time.
Your logic would be sound if using drugs and being a productive member of society were mutually exclusive actions.
Realistic how? The only thing extending their sentences will do is institutionalize them further, thus making their reintegration into society that much more difficult once their time is served. I mean shit, it's bad enough we put them in with the murderers and the rapists to begin with, but keeping them in with them longer? What the fuck, man?
Okay, so what keeps them from coming back once you do let them out? We don't have anything in place to rehabilitate people who serve time for drug use. A lot of those people are going to wind up serving time again for the same thing, so all you accomplished by letting them out was putting a burden on police to go haul them back in. Unless you know of some program that I don't that successfully turns lifetime junkies into contributing members of society, I don't see any reason to let them out each time.
See, there's a huge difference between lifetime junkies and people that smoke a little weed on the weekend, but otherwise are successful mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, employees, voters, etc.
Yes, there is a clear issue when it comes to dealing with addicts who are committing crimes to feed their habit, but the bulk of people going to jail for drug offenses are not otherwise criminals, and are contributing members of society (or would be, if we hadn't fucked their lives by throwing them in jail with legitimate criminals)
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
The idea is that people on drugs are willfully making themselves more harmful to society.
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
The idea is that people on drugs are willfully making themselves more harmful to society.
Is this all people on drugs? Most of them? Some of them? Few of them? How many?
And in what ways would you say these people are making themselves harmful to society? Is it the drugs that are the crime or are the harmful actions towards society the crime?
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
I'm sure this isn't why the law is written that way, but I support drug use being labelled as an offense because it acts as a deterrent. As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly. If they could, I would have no issues with decriminalizing all of them, but that's just not how it is. I think that if drug use was legalized tonight, we would have major issues on our hands.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users. Law enforcement's job would be as difficult, if not moreso than it is now, in this scenario.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that the US is simply not prepared to legalize all these substances. There might be a time for it later on, but right now I think it's best left alone.
Is this all people on drugs? Most of them? Some of them? Few of them? How many?
And in what ways would you say these people are making themselves harmful to society? Is it the drugs that are the crime or are the harmful actions towards society the crime?
Last I heard prohibition was, supposedly, to stop husbands from getting drunk and beating their wives and children.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users.
You say 'it' as if alcohol and other drugs are in two separate categories, but they're not. You'd see a level of migration and if drugs were legalised alcohol consumption would probably go down as the use of other drugs went up, or as the users of other drugs increased the overall number of drug users including alcohol would remain static. There's no such thing as 'deterrence'; the only way the law stops drug use is by limiting supply. Of course by doing this with addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, you increase their price and thus the crime surrounding them, and again a clear example of how the law, and not the drugs, harm society.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users.
You say 'it' as if alcohol and other drugs are in two separate categories, but they're not. You'd see a level migration and if drugs were legalised alcohol consumption would probably go down as the use of other drugs went up, or as the users of other drugs increased the overall number of drug users including alcohol would remain static. There's no such thing as 'deterrence'; the only way the law stops drug use is by limiting supply. Of course by doing this with addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, you increase their price and thus the crime surrounding them, and again a clear example of how the law, and not the drugs, harm society.
Not to mention, as has been stated many times in this thread, that heroin and marijuana are not the same level of drug. I have never in my entire life heard of a valid reason that alcohol should be legal while pot should not. Please. Take up the challenge.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users. Law enforcement's job would be as difficult, if not moreso than it is now, in this scenario.
Why would there be a rise in drug-related crime? Drug related crime right now usually comes from people trying to get money (theft) so they can purchase more drugs right? How often do you hear stories about someone robbing a 7-11 so they can get another bottle of booze or pack of smokes? If drugs were decriminalized chances are price would go down, there's no danger in selling so supply should increase. The drug related crime you see would be parallel with alcohol, people DWI, starting fights and causing disturbances etc. I doubt these crimes would go up as much as the theft/murder would go down.
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
I'm sure this isn't why the law is written that way, but I support drug use being labelled as an offense because it acts as a deterrent. As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly. If they could, I would have no issues with decriminalizing all of them, but that's just not how it is. I think that if drug use was legalized tonight, we would have major issues on our hands.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users. Law enforcement's job would be as difficult, if not moreso than it is now, in this scenario.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that the US is simply not prepared to legalize all these substances. There might be a time for it later on, but right now I think it's best left alone.
Edited for wording.
Indeed, right now it's more important to waste billions of federal tax-dollars keeping people locked up for consuming a substance that inspired them to crave cheetos and sit on the couch than to try to make drug-legislation make some form of sense.
I don't understand how doing drugs is an 'offence'. How is it, in and of itself, a crime? If someone like Iroh could answer that question coherently, I'd be more inclined not to dismiss pro-criminalisation arguments as fucking retarded out of hand.
I'm sure this isn't why the law is written that way, but I support drug use being labelled as an offense because it acts as a deterrent. As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly. If they could, I would have no issues with decriminalizing all of them, but that's just not how it is. I think that if drug use was legalized tonight, we would have major issues on our hands.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users. Law enforcement's job would be as difficult, if not moreso than it is now, in this scenario.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that the US is simply not prepared to legalize all these substances. There might be a time for it later on, but right now I think it's best left alone.
Edited for wording.
Wow at you. Just fucking think about what you've typed, thats one of the dumbest retarded views you could hold on this.
And in what ways would you say these people are making themselves harmful to society?
You know, when I'm out in the woods surrounded by people on ecstasy and shrooms, I feel pretty damn safe. When it comes to night life, I know that out of all the possible options that's one of the least likely environments for violence to break out.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
While I'm for outright legalization, it would be interesting if, as a compromise, they allowed for limited access to begin with.
Say you had to get a license to use pot, and you could only get it in a designated place, and only so much per week, and you had to use it there so you couldn't sell it to a (psychological) addict waiting outside.
Say you had to get a license to use pot, and you could only get it in a designated place, and only so much per week, and you had to use it there so you couldn't sell it to a (psychological) addict waiting outside.
For the most part, I agree, except for the bit about having to use it there. Especially when it comes to psychedelics, the setting matters so much.
However, if you look at what San Francisco and Oakland have done with medical marijuana, it kind of makes sense. They only allow a limited number of businesses to operate within their respective city limits, and if a new pot clinic wants to open up, it's not that they can't, but they will be fighting an uphill battle.
I do think that there needs to be a certain amount of deliberate decision making that goes into the choice to do psychedelics. You shouldn't be able to walk into the neighborhood 7/11 to buy a sheet of acid, but neither should carrying a reasonable amount for a party be a federal offense akin to possession of a nuclear bomb. There's a middle ground to be found there.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
While I'm for outright legalization, it would be interesting if, as a compromise, they allowed for limited access to begin with.
Say you had to get a license to use pot, and you could only get it in a designated place, and only so much per week, and you had to use it there so you couldn't sell it to a (psychological) addict waiting outside.
Then go from there.
That's about how things work in California as far as cannabis is concerned. You get a Doctor's note, you buy from licensed dispensaries and you can't have it taken away or be arrested for possessing up to 8 oz.
True the feds can bust down your door. But they don't, and they won't. They only records of the card holders are in the doctors offices and the federal gov't has no rights to those files. So most people aren't worried.
I mostly just don't want a serious addiction to be -easy- to come by, and to avoid the "drunk-driving teens" kind of things from happening.
Serious addictions are still easy to come by. Ever been to the bad parts of a city? take a walk down to the corner and score some rock.
As far as legalization goes, I'm for legalization of most drugs. Meth can go fuck itself. Same for crack.
Heroin should be prescription for maintenance only. Or something, all I know is that the reason people die doing heroin is because theyre getting shitty street quality stuff.
Easy to come by in the days when the War on Drugs has become a Police State on Drugs instead.
There will always, ALWAYS be a black market for something.
But there's only so many kids with access to huge supplies of oxycontin compared to pot.
oxy is prescription. I dont know why that would even figure into this conversation.
It's also basically the pill form of the awful heroin you mentioned two posts up.
In some ways pills are worse than illegal drugs. People think because a doctor prescribes them they're somehow better than their street counterparts. It's not really a legality thing but a stigma one
As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly.
Speak for yourself.
I've used coke and it hasn't done me any harm and I never committed any other crime or harmed another person while doing it.
The biggest problem with your "drug-related crime" spiel is that you're assuming that all drug users steal to buy drugs. When I was 17 I went out and got a job at Burger King to earn money for pot and CDs.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that...
What? So, you freely admit that you're pulling baseless assertions out of your ass, but you still think they are a sound basis for deciding a drug policy.
As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly.
Speak for yourself.
I've used coke and it hasn't done me any harm and I never committed any other crime or harmed another person while doing it.
The biggest problem with your "drug-related crime" spiel is that you're assuming that all drug users steal to buy drugs. When I was 17 I went out and got a job at Burger King to earn money for pot and CDs.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that...
What? So, you freely admit that you're pulling baseless assertions out of your ass, but you still think they are a sound basis for deciding a drug policy.
I've got to ask; are you on drugs?
Thanks for the nice anecdote about your cocaine use. I should have specified, but I am most concerned about people who have never used before. I don't see how anyone can possibly disagree with me that this country is not sufficiently prepared to educate the public enough that they can all use safely and responsibly. I think my comparison to alcohol's treatment in the US is still a valid one, and as soon as a lot of kids turn 21, they immediately take it as a free pass to get obliterated every night. I understand and support the notion that people should certainly be allowed to do as they please if they aren't hurting anyone else, but you have to assure that the risk of them doing harm to others is minimized before you open up the floodgates.
I'm not here to attack drug users, I just want some honest opinions on what should be done to make legalization more reasonable than just anyone, anytime, and anywhere. I'm also sorry for not distinguishing between marijuana and other drugs; I realize they are different, and I believe marijuana alone could be legalized safely if it were done today.
and as soon as a lot of kids turn 21, they immediately take it as a free pass to get obliterated every night
Which is funny because I'm 21 and have passed the adolescent stage of drinking. But then, it's not so funny after all because I had it when I was 16 thanks to frankly lax drinking laws in the UK. I'd rather have kids acting like kids than adults acting like kids, and I don't think America's draconian drinking laws help.
as soon as a lot of kids turn 21, they immediately take it as a free pass to get obliterated every night.
I'm curious as to how you came up with that, because I have observed the exact opposite. I've known a lot of people who turned 21, and in most cases their intake dropped off sharply within a week of their birthday.
You know, I bet legalization would cause a significant drop in the market for meth and crack and other such incredibly dangerous and stupid drugs.
When less dangerous drugs become cheaper and more commonplace, I think you wouldn't see nearly as many amatuer chemists blowing up their apartments trying to make a quick buck.
As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly.
Speak for yourself.
I've used coke and it hasn't done me any harm and I never committed any other crime or harmed another person while doing it.
The biggest problem with your "drug-related crime" spiel is that you're assuming that all drug users steal to buy drugs. When I was 17 I went out and got a job at Burger King to earn money for pot and CDs.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that...
What? So, you freely admit that you're pulling baseless assertions out of your ass, but you still think they are a sound basis for deciding a drug policy.
I've got to ask; are you on drugs?
Thanks for the nice anecdote about your cocaine use. I should have specified, but I am most concerned about people who have never used before.
The first time I tried it, I'd never done it before. Same with every other drug I've tried.
I'm also sorry for not distinguishing between marijuana and other drugs; I realize they are different, and I believe marijuana alone could be legalized safely if it were done today.
It would be hard to legalise it unsafely when our current standards of comparison are alcohol and tobacco.
Posts
Not everyone is a happy drunk, and some people can have rather serious reactions.
Also, drug use, very often, smells absolutely horrible.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last statement. Also, it's bit silly to lump everything from marijuana to crack into one category like that.
Sounds to me like he's advocating prohibition actually
As it stands, jails are a revolving door for people with drug problems. You cannot even begin to try and argue that police wouldn't be relieved of manpower issues if they didn't have to handle these people as often, thanks to longer sentences. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole different issue, but the severity of punishment has nothing to do with how we are failing to combat drug use on the whole, since the objective is to stop people from ever getting to that point.
I never said that we should make punishment more severe, just that it would be easier for police. In fact I made sure to include this little gem:
If you want my opinion though, I think it would be great if they put repeat offenders away for longer periods of time. If you have a history of substance abuse, there's no point in the police letting you go if they just have to go back out and catch you 10 more times, when they could be doing better things with their time.
If this were a perfect world, we could rehabilitate those people, but the system is so messed up right now, extending sentences for some people is a way more realistic option.
And I dare say they create more serious criminals when they put otherwise law-abiding people in prison, since it's a huge fucking pain to ever get a real job again after that, and they're likely to have learned a thing or two about criminal activity in their time incarcerated.
Okay, so what keeps them from coming back once you do let them out? We don't have anything in place to rehabilitate people who serve time for drug use. A lot of those people are going to wind up serving time again for the same thing, so all you accomplished by letting them out was putting a burden on police to go haul them back in. Unless you know of some program that I don't that successfully turns lifetime junkies into contributing members of society, I don't see any reason to let them out each time.
See, there's a huge difference between lifetime junkies and people that smoke a little weed on the weekend, but otherwise are successful mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, employees, voters, etc.
Yes, there is a clear issue when it comes to dealing with addicts who are committing crimes to feed their habit, but the bulk of people going to jail for drug offenses are not otherwise criminals, and are contributing members of society (or would be, if we hadn't fucked their lives by throwing them in jail with legitimate criminals)
"Very often" is not "to lump everything."
Booze breath smells horrible. Smoke breath smells horrible. Addicts very often don't bathe (they are chemical fanbois). It's smelly business.
The idea is that people on drugs are willfully making themselves more harmful to society.
Is this all people on drugs? Most of them? Some of them? Few of them? How many?
And in what ways would you say these people are making themselves harmful to society? Is it the drugs that are the crime or are the harmful actions towards society the crime?
I'm sure this isn't why the law is written that way, but I support drug use being labelled as an offense because it acts as a deterrent. As it stands, whether you like to admit it or not, people are not in any way educated enough to use hard drugs like cocaine and heroine responsibly. If they could, I would have no issues with decriminalizing all of them, but that's just not how it is. I think that if drug use was legalized tonight, we would have major issues on our hands.
My biggest fear is that we could have a lot more drug consumption, until it becomes roughly as popular as drinking alcohol. With that, you'd probably see a rise in drug-related crime, because it's now being committed by people who otherwise would not be using, in addition to existing users. Law enforcement's job would be as difficult, if not moreso than it is now, in this scenario.
I admit that's all conjecture, and I don't really know that is what would happen, but all I'm arguing is that the US is simply not prepared to legalize all these substances. There might be a time for it later on, but right now I think it's best left alone.
Edited for wording.
Last I heard prohibition was, supposedly, to stop husbands from getting drunk and beating their wives and children.
You say 'it' as if alcohol and other drugs are in two separate categories, but they're not. You'd see a level of migration and if drugs were legalised alcohol consumption would probably go down as the use of other drugs went up, or as the users of other drugs increased the overall number of drug users including alcohol would remain static. There's no such thing as 'deterrence'; the only way the law stops drug use is by limiting supply. Of course by doing this with addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, you increase their price and thus the crime surrounding them, and again a clear example of how the law, and not the drugs, harm society.
Not to mention, as has been stated many times in this thread, that heroin and marijuana are not the same level of drug. I have never in my entire life heard of a valid reason that alcohol should be legal while pot should not. Please. Take up the challenge.
Why would there be a rise in drug-related crime? Drug related crime right now usually comes from people trying to get money (theft) so they can purchase more drugs right? How often do you hear stories about someone robbing a 7-11 so they can get another bottle of booze or pack of smokes? If drugs were decriminalized chances are price would go down, there's no danger in selling so supply should increase. The drug related crime you see would be parallel with alcohol, people DWI, starting fights and causing disturbances etc. I doubt these crimes would go up as much as the theft/murder would go down.
Indeed, right now it's more important to waste billions of federal tax-dollars keeping people locked up for consuming a substance that inspired them to crave cheetos and sit on the couch than to try to make drug-legislation make some form of sense.
Wow at you. Just fucking think about what you've typed, thats one of the dumbest retarded views you could hold on this.
go here and read some info about shit.
Then don't legalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.
You know, when I'm out in the woods surrounded by people on ecstasy and shrooms, I feel pretty damn safe. When it comes to night life, I know that out of all the possible options that's one of the least likely environments for violence to break out.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Say you had to get a license to use pot, and you could only get it in a designated place, and only so much per week, and you had to use it there so you couldn't sell it to a (psychological) addict waiting outside.
Then go from there.
For the most part, I agree, except for the bit about having to use it there. Especially when it comes to psychedelics, the setting matters so much.
However, if you look at what San Francisco and Oakland have done with medical marijuana, it kind of makes sense. They only allow a limited number of businesses to operate within their respective city limits, and if a new pot clinic wants to open up, it's not that they can't, but they will be fighting an uphill battle.
I do think that there needs to be a certain amount of deliberate decision making that goes into the choice to do psychedelics. You shouldn't be able to walk into the neighborhood 7/11 to buy a sheet of acid, but neither should carrying a reasonable amount for a party be a federal offense akin to possession of a nuclear bomb. There's a middle ground to be found there.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's about how things work in California as far as cannabis is concerned. You get a Doctor's note, you buy from licensed dispensaries and you can't have it taken away or be arrested for possessing up to 8 oz.
True the feds can bust down your door. But they don't, and they won't. They only records of the card holders are in the doctors offices and the federal gov't has no rights to those files. So most people aren't worried.
Serious addictions are still easy to come by. Ever been to the bad parts of a city? take a walk down to the corner and score some rock.
As far as legalization goes, I'm for legalization of most drugs. Meth can go fuck itself. Same for crack.
Heroin should be prescription for maintenance only. Or something, all I know is that the reason people die doing heroin is because theyre getting shitty street quality stuff.
There will always, ALWAYS be a black market for something.
But there's only so many kids with access to huge supplies of oxycontin compared to pot.
oxy is prescription. I dont know why that would even figure into this conversation.
Have you fricking read my previous posts?
It's also basically the pill form of the awful heroin you mentioned two posts up.
In some ways pills are worse than illegal drugs. People think because a doctor prescribes them they're somehow better than their street counterparts. It's not really a legality thing but a stigma one
Speak for yourself.
I've used coke and it hasn't done me any harm and I never committed any other crime or harmed another person while doing it.
The biggest problem with your "drug-related crime" spiel is that you're assuming that all drug users steal to buy drugs. When I was 17 I went out and got a job at Burger King to earn money for pot and CDs.
What? So, you freely admit that you're pulling baseless assertions out of your ass, but you still think they are a sound basis for deciding a drug policy.
I've got to ask; are you on drugs?
Thanks for the nice anecdote about your cocaine use. I should have specified, but I am most concerned about people who have never used before. I don't see how anyone can possibly disagree with me that this country is not sufficiently prepared to educate the public enough that they can all use safely and responsibly. I think my comparison to alcohol's treatment in the US is still a valid one, and as soon as a lot of kids turn 21, they immediately take it as a free pass to get obliterated every night. I understand and support the notion that people should certainly be allowed to do as they please if they aren't hurting anyone else, but you have to assure that the risk of them doing harm to others is minimized before you open up the floodgates.
I'm not here to attack drug users, I just want some honest opinions on what should be done to make legalization more reasonable than just anyone, anytime, and anywhere. I'm also sorry for not distinguishing between marijuana and other drugs; I realize they are different, and I believe marijuana alone could be legalized safely if it were done today.
Which is funny because I'm 21 and have passed the adolescent stage of drinking. But then, it's not so funny after all because I had it when I was 16 thanks to frankly lax drinking laws in the UK. I'd rather have kids acting like kids than adults acting like kids, and I don't think America's draconian drinking laws help.
I'm curious as to how you came up with that, because I have observed the exact opposite. I've known a lot of people who turned 21, and in most cases their intake dropped off sharply within a week of their birthday.
When less dangerous drugs become cheaper and more commonplace, I think you wouldn't see nearly as many amatuer chemists blowing up their apartments trying to make a quick buck.
The first time I tried it, I'd never done it before. Same with every other drug I've tried.
It would be hard to legalise it unsafely when our current standards of comparison are alcohol and tobacco.