|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 12, 2011 13:11:02 GMT -8
Just saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jul 12, 2011 15:06:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 12, 2011 15:54:01 GMT -8
I have said a couple other places that we should look at this issue very closely again. Taking the profit motive out of drugs would get criminals out of the business. Maybe the sale of drugs should not be a crime but the use could be made a three strikes and to the gas chamber or something. Another idea is if people want to kill themselves, let them go ahead and if they get caught a few times then help them along with their plan. Too harsh? How about three strikes driving under the influence?
The battle against the use of drugs has not worked as now constituted so lets look at another way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 13, 2011 19:34:42 GMT -8
The way I see it as long as you aren't harming anyone else then why should it matter to you.
Also ending the war on drugs wouldn't mean drugs would be automatically legal.
Really I don't understand why certain things are ok (prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc.) and others aren't (marijuana, coke, heroin etc.). Anyone want to bother explaining why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 7:12:02 GMT -8
The way I see it as long as you aren't harming anyone else then why should it matter to you. Also ending the war on drugs wouldn't mean drugs would be automatically legal. Really I don't understand why certain things are ok (prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc.) and others aren't (marijuana, coke, heroin etc.). Anyone want to bother explaining why? Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 7:33:24 GMT -8
The way I see it as long as you aren't harming anyone else then why should it matter to you. Also ending the war on drugs wouldn't mean drugs would be automatically legal. Really I don't understand why certain things are ok (prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc.) and others aren't (marijuana, coke, heroin etc.). Anyone want to bother explaining why? Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. Last time I checked they were legal. Do you think they should be made illegal? |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jul 14, 2011 10:35:49 GMT -8
The way I see it as long as you aren't harming anyone else then why should it matter to you. Also ending the war on drugs wouldn't mean drugs would be automatically legal. Really I don't understand why certain things are ok (prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc.) and others aren't (marijuana, coke, heroin etc.). Anyone want to bother explaining why? Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. This is silly. People drank alcohol like crazy during Prohibition. Prohibition begot crime, just like the war on drugs does. It's all about supply and demand - As long as Americans smoke pot or shoot heroin, there will be criminals who will to take the risks to produce or import drugs in order to make a lot of oney. "Illegal" drugs is destroying Mexico and its economy and potentially, its government. Legalization is the only way to get rid of the cartels in Mexico and the drug dealers in the US. Do you seriously think we would have a pot crime problem if you could simply legally grow a plant on your patio? If you want to reduce the use of drugs, you have to do it through "value" change. Surgeon General Coop proved this could be done in his anti-tobacco campaign (in combination with taxing the hell of of it). Having drugs be illegal only makes them more appealing to young people wanting to rebel and be anti-establishment. Once again, the answer to behavior change is education, not legislation. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a financial boon to those running the system, and that's the reason it continues. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 10:47:55 GMT -8
Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. This is silly. People drank alcohol like crazy during Prohibition. Prohibition begot crime, just like the war on drugs does. It's all about supply and demand - As long as Americans smoke pot or shoot heroin, there will be criminals who will to take the risks to produce or import drugs in order to make a lot of oney. "Illegal" drugs is destroying Mexico and its economy and potentially, its government. Legalization is the only way to get rid of the cartels in Mexico and the drug dealers in the US. Do you seriously think we would have a pot crime problem if you could simply legally grow a plant on your patio? If you want to reduce the use of drugs, you have to do it through "value" change. Surgeon General Coop proved this could be done in his anti-tobacco campaign (in combination with taxing the hell of of it). Having drugs be illegal only makes them more appealing to young people wanting to rebel and be anti-establishment. Once again, the answer to behavior change is education, not legislation. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a financial boon to those running the system, and that's the reason it continues. You would think people would have learned their lesson from prohibition. It just doesn't work, how long have we had the war on drugs? Has it stopped anyone from doing drugs? All it does is prop up gangs and mobsters. You take that money away from them, then they've got nothing. Really just wondering what kind of justification there is for keeping it illegal and who gets to decide what should be legal and what shouldn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 11:36:15 GMT -8
Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. Last time I checked they were legal. Do you think they should be made illegal? Where did I say that? My point is that making things "legal" is by no means a panacea. All it does it change the dynamics of the problem. In this case, fewer criminals but more addicts, more death and more mayhem in the lives of the people surrounding the addicts. This may seem like an acceptable trade-off to you but not to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 11:43:44 GMT -8
Who says any of those mentioned are "OK"? It's illegal to abuse prescription drugs, cigarettes have been under attack legislatively and socially for well over 2 decades in an attempt to minimize the obvious damage they do and alcohol (abuse of) kills both the abusers and their innocent victims by the 10's of thousands yearly. If you want more of something, say, junkies, crack heads and tweekers, legalize it, have Madison Avenue develop marketing campaigns for it and Wal Mart turn it into a commodity such that a gram of Meth will be cheaper than a can of Red Bull. Sorry, but I don't see how we as a society benefit from this approach. This is silly. People drank alcohol like crazy during Prohibition. Prohibition begot crime, just like the war on drugs does. It's all about supply and demand - As long as Americans smoke pot or shoot heroin, there will be criminals who will to take the risks to produce or import drugs in order to make a lot of oney. "Illegal" drugs is destroying Mexico and its economy and potentially, its government. Legalization is the only way to get rid of the cartels in Mexico and the drug dealers in the US. Do you seriously think we would have a pot crime problem if you could simply legally grow a plant on your patio? If you want to reduce the use of drugs, you have to do it through "value" change. Surgeon General Coop proved this could be done in his anti-tobacco campaign (in combination with taxing the hell of of it). Having drugs be illegal only makes them more appealing to young people wanting to rebel and be anti-establishment. Once again, the answer to behavior change is education, not legislation. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a financial boon to those running the system, and that's the reason it continues. Prohibition was an attempt to take something that had been legal since the founding of our country and well beyond and make it illegal. what you people are suggesting is the exact opposite; making the illegal suddenly legal. Don't you recognize the difference? Will dealers simply go away if WalMart sells a heavily taxed Meth? Only if they can keep the market price below what a street dealer will sell an untaxed bindle for on the corner. The dealer will benefit because he'll have WalMart building his customer base for him. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 11:48:36 GMT -8
Last time I checked they were legal. Do you think they should be made illegal? Where did I say that? My point is that making things "legal" is by no means a panacea. All it does it change the dynamics of the problem. In this case, fewer criminals but more addicts, more death and more mayhem in the lives of the people surrounding the addicts. This may seem like an acceptable trade-off to you but not to me. Didn't say you said that, just was asking if you thought they should be. What makes you think there would be more addicts? If drugs were legal would you start doing them? Any evidence to back this up? Do you really think a law is going to stop an addict from taking drugs? I mean if that's the way you view things why not make alcohol, cigarettes, etc. illegal. Unless you enjoy the company of all those drunks that surround you. Really who gets to decide what is legal or not? What kind of criteria is used? etc. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 11:53:51 GMT -8
This is silly. People drank alcohol like crazy during Prohibition. Prohibition begot crime, just like the war on drugs does. It's all about supply and demand - As long as Americans smoke pot or shoot heroin, there will be criminals who will to take the risks to produce or import drugs in order to make a lot of oney. "Illegal" drugs is destroying Mexico and its economy and potentially, its government. Legalization is the only way to get rid of the cartels in Mexico and the drug dealers in the US. Do you seriously think we would have a pot crime problem if you could simply legally grow a plant on your patio? If you want to reduce the use of drugs, you have to do it through "value" change. Surgeon General Coop proved this could be done in his anti-tobacco campaign (in combination with taxing the hell of of it). Having drugs be illegal only makes them more appealing to young people wanting to rebel and be anti-establishment. Once again, the answer to behavior change is education, not legislation. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a financial boon to those running the system, and that's the reason it continues. Prohibition was an attempt to take something that had been legal since the founding of our country and well beyond and make it illegal. what you people are suggesting is the exact opposite; making the illegal suddenly legal. Don't you recognize the difference? Will dealers simply go away if WalMart sells a heavily taxed Meth? Only if they can keep the market price below what a street dealer will sell an untaxed bindle for on the corner. The dealer will benefit because he'll have WalMart building his customer base for him. They were all legal until someone decides to make it illegal. I mean that's just using common sense and logic. Of course you could also spend the few minutes fact checking. For instance Marijuana regulation started in the mid/late 1800's and it took until the 1930's for all states to have some form of regulation on Marijuana (again still not illegal until around the 1960's) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 12:13:51 GMT -8
Where did I say that? My point is that making things "legal" is by no means a panacea. All it does it change the dynamics of the problem. In this case, fewer criminals but more addicts, more death and more mayhem in the lives of the people surrounding the addicts. This may seem like an acceptable trade-off to you but not to me. Didn't say you said that, just was asking if you thought they should be. What makes you think there would be more addicts? If drugs were legal would you start doing them? Any evidence to back this up? Do you really think a law is going to stop an addict from taking drugs? I mean if that's the way you view things why not make alcohol, cigarettes, etc. illegal. Unless you enjoy the company of all those drunks that surround you. Really who gets to decide what is legal or not? What kind of criteria is used? etc. There will without question more addicts by virtue of the fact that it will be more readily accessible and with less social stigma attached to the partaking of drugs. Why do you think there are more alcoholics than tweekers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 12:29:37 GMT -8
Prohibition was an attempt to take something that had been legal since the founding of our country and well beyond and make it illegal. what you people are suggesting is the exact opposite; making the illegal suddenly legal. Don't you recognize the difference? Will dealers simply go away if WalMart sells a heavily taxed Meth? Only if they can keep the market price below what a street dealer will sell an untaxed bindle for on the corner. The dealer will benefit because he'll have WalMart building his customer base for him. They were all legal until someone decides to make it illegal. I mean that's just using common sense and logic. Of course you could also spend the few minutes fact checking. For instance Marijuana regulation started in the mid/late 1800's and it took until the 1930's for all states to have some form of regulation on Marijuana (again still not illegal until around the 1960's) Some one doesn't decide to make a thing legal or illegal, society does. It really boils down to the wisdom of crowds. People see what these poisons do you and decide to place them out of bounds. I'm not sure you wnat to make the argument that Meth , horse and crack are good, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 12:38:25 GMT -8
They were all legal until someone decides to make it illegal. I mean that's just using common sense and logic. Of course you could also spend the few minutes fact checking. For instance Marijuana regulation started in the mid/late 1800's and it took until the 1930's for all states to have some form of regulation on Marijuana (again still not illegal until around the 1960's) Some one doesn't decide to make a thing legal or illegal, society does. It really boils down to the wisdom of crowds. People see what these poisons do you and decide to place them out of bounds. I'm not sure you wnat to make the argument that Meth , horse and crack are good, do you? Society doesn't make laws, government does. I never said drugs are good for you (there may be benefits, they're taking it for a reason), but it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Why are you so afraid of people making their own decisions? BTW way to side step the legalization part, you know, the basis of your argument of how this isn't like prohibition. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 12:40:24 GMT -8
Didn't say you said that, just was asking if you thought they should be. What makes you think there would be more addicts? If drugs were legal would you start doing them? Any evidence to back this up? Do you really think a law is going to stop an addict from taking drugs? I mean if that's the way you view things why not make alcohol, cigarettes, etc. illegal. Unless you enjoy the company of all those drunks that surround you. Really who gets to decide what is legal or not? What kind of criteria is used? etc. There will without question more addicts by virtue of the fact that it will be more readily accessible and with less social stigma attached to the partaking of drugs. Why do you think there are more alcoholics than tweekers? Is it tougher for a teenager to get pot (a dealer who would deal to anyone) or alcohol (a store the is required to card you by law)? And what makes you think there would be less social stigma attached to drugs? Just look at how cigarettes and smoker are treated, all done without having to make it illegal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 13:07:53 GMT -8
There will without question more addicts by virtue of the fact that it will be more readily accessible and with less social stigma attached to the partaking of drugs. Why do you think there are more alcoholics than tweekers? Is it tougher for a teenager to get pot (a dealer who would deal to anyone) or alcohol (a store the is required to card you by law)? And what makes you think there would be less social stigma attached to drugs? Just look at how cigarettes and smoker are treated, all done without having to make it illegal. It's taken 30 years or more of a concerted effort and LAWS to make smoking a socially unacceptable thing to do. What you propose is that society openly sanction an activity and then turn around and say "but we don't want you to do it". Seriously, is that a smart way to go about it? It's without a doubt easier to get their hands on booze. Often times, they can simply steal it from their parents but notice I haven't mentioned weed in any of my arguments. Not because I think it's good but because it seems to be becoming more acceptable and the laws are changing to reflect this reality. You cannot say the same for the others. Maybe you should start a "Medical Meth" campaign and claim it cures Lazy Eye or how it's an aid in the war against obesity or how the founding fathers cooked in their barns or some such other nonsense. It's working for the potheads. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jul 14, 2011 13:10:20 GMT -8
They were all legal until someone decides to make it illegal. I mean that's just using common sense and logic. Of course you could also spend the few minutes fact checking. For instance Marijuana regulation started in the mid/late 1800's and it took until the 1930's for all states to have some form of regulation on Marijuana (again still not illegal until around the 1960's) Some one doesn't decide to make a thing legal or illegal, society does. It really boils down to the wisdom of crowds. People see what these poisons do you and decide to place them out of bounds. I'm not sure you wnat to make the argument that Meth , horse and crack are good, do you? Okay, per your reseaoning, we should outlaw obesity, the single greatest threat to the health of ALL Americans. There's much more to be gained by outlawing polyaturated fats than by banning pot. Pot was made illegal , federally, in 1937. Up to then, pot was in wide use with out any apparent threat to National Security. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 13:34:26 GMT -8
Some one doesn't decide to make a thing legal or illegal, society does. It really boils down to the wisdom of crowds. People see what these poisons do you and decide to place them out of bounds. I'm not sure you wnat to make the argument that Meth , horse and crack are good, do you? Okay, per your reseaoning, we should outlaw obesity, the single greatest threat to the health of ALL Americans. There's much more to be gained by outlawing polyaturated fats than by banning pot. Pot was made illegal , federally, in 1937. Up to then, pot was in wide use with out any apparent threat to National Security. I'm not proposing anything of the sort. Being a fatass is perfectly legal now, although I suspect if the Nanny Staters stay in power much longer, it won't be. my argument all along is that it's is impractical and radical to make something legal suddenly illegal and just flat out stupid to make something illegal suddenly legal, especially if that something is known to be poisonous and uniformly bad . and once again; I have not mentioned weed. See my post above. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 13:40:06 GMT -8
Okay, per your reseaoning, we should outlaw obesity, the single greatest threat to the health of ALL Americans. There's much more to be gained by outlawing polyaturated fats than by banning pot. Pot was made illegal , federally, in 1937. Up to then, pot was in wide use with out any apparent threat to National Security. I'm not proposing anything of the sort. Being a fatass is perfectly legal now, although I suspect if the Nanny Staters stay in power much longer, it won't be. my argument all along is that it's is impractical and radical to make something legal suddenly illegal and just flat out stupid to make something illegal suddenly legal, especially if that something is known to be poisonous and uniformly bad . and once again; I have not mentioned weed. See my post above. I don't think it should be suddenly legal. I do think the war on drugs should end and the states should decide how to deal with it. If they feel that legalizing a certain drug is better than the alternative shouldn't they be allowed to? |
|
