|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 29, 2004 15:42:48 GMT -5
Despite the fac that I have never taken drugs, I beleive very strongly that all drugs should be legalized.
Instead of arguing my case on this one, I'm going to let any of you provide me with arguments as to why they shouldn't be legalized, to which I will respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on May 29, 2004 16:42:39 GMT -5
First of all, what do you mean by "legalization"? Simply abandoning the war on drugs, or marketing them as products available at the local Mini-Mart? Legalization in terms of Philip Morris producing marijuana cigarettes available to anyone over 18? Guess that's a whole different issue, but I agree that the "war" on drugs is futile. Drug addicts are not violent criminals. They pose no particular physical threat to my life or well-being. I think the legalizing drugs is not a bad idea, but on one condition. Taxpayers should not be obligated to fund government programs designed to treat and rehabilitate drug addicts. If someone wants to do drugs, that's their business. I don't care about them or the damage they do to their bodies. I don't care if their addiction leads to job loss or financial distress. I don't care if they end up sleeping in a box on the side of the road. But at the end of the day, I don't want one single penny of my money funding any social program that gives any sort of aid whatsoever to a drug addict. They made their bed, they can sleep in it. They don't deserve to go to jail simply for doing drugs, but they don't deserve any sympathy, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 29, 2004 17:26:47 GMT -5
I agree with much of this.
I think one of the strongest arguments in favour of the legalization of drugs, is the effect it would have in reducing levels of crime. However, Crime levels would only really be reduced if drugs were provided free, or at a heavily reduced price, to addicts who would otherwise have to resort to crime.
How we would distinguish between those truly in need, and those who are not, would perhaps be difficult.
Although this would probably cost the taxpayer a little more money, the money saved by the reduction in crime would perhaps cancel it out.
Furthermore, if drugs were available in shops, they could taxed in the same way that cigarrettes (sp?) are. The money gained from this could be used to create better rehab centres perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 29, 2004 17:53:49 GMT -5
Absolutely not!
I can understand the libertarian view point on this and I think they make valid points. There are a few problems with their logic. First of all, they constantly compare it to alcohol which is a silly comparison. I can have a glass of wine with a steak or beer with my crabs at a social event and have no intention of altering my state of mind. The same can not be said for drug use.
I don't agree with the statement above that implies there is no link crime to drugs. It would be tough to find a long rap sheet that didn't include a few drug busts. People who do drugs now are all people who have a problem with drugs, otherwise they wouldn't risk their freedom to do it. It may just be that folks willing to break that law are the ones willing to break others, but there are plenty of connections.
I see no reason to change the drug laws. Of what benefit would that be to society? Personal liberty, you say? Fine, I agree. But the heath care system in this country is already 60% socialized. If the liberals have their druthers, it will be 100% socialized. You DON'T have the right to do what you want with your own body if you're expecting others to pay for the consequences. Do away with all forms of forced social collectivism and I will be all for it. The fiscal personal responsibility has got to come first!
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on May 29, 2004 18:17:29 GMT -5
I agree MO. If you're going to abuse your body, then you alone are responsible for it. If someone wants to be stupid and do drugs, fine. But don't hold taxpayers responsible. It's no crime to be addicted. The crime is committing illegal acts (robbery usually) to support your addiction. That's what gets most addicts thrown in jail in the first place. If an addict is living on the streets and has to resort to robbing convenience stores to support his habit, throw him in jail. The law doesn't need to chase drugs. Drugs will lead addicts to the law. Inevitably these people will end up committing a REAL crime in order to support their drug habit. If you arrest someone for cocaine possession, more times than not, that person escapes with community service or some other slap-on-the-hand type punishment. They end up back on the streets doing their thing. Nothing is gained, and it costs taxpayers money tying up courts with petty offenses. These people will eventually end up committing a more serious crime. Wait and let them REALLY screw up. They always do. Then throw the book at them.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 29, 2004 18:39:57 GMT -5
It's mostly the same people who are crowing for cradle to grave socialized health care that are making the most noise about legalizing drugs. I don't buy it. I'm paying for enough crack hos to spit out babies. I'm more concerned with the lack of personal responsibility for the liberties people already have. I'm tired of paying confiscatory taxes that are stolen from me so others can make poor choices and still get by on my dime. We have too much of that already.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 30, 2004 2:47:52 GMT -5
I agree, in terms of the effect it has on your body, alcohol and cigarrettes are in a different legue. However, the long term effects of cigarrettes and heavy drinking are much worse than the long term effects of smoking cannabis for example.
The link between crime and drugs is simple. People become addicted, they then have to commit petty crimes (usually shoplifting or robbery) in order to fund their habit. The prosecution of addicts who are committing these crimes, and those caught with drugs on their person, uses a massive amount of police time and tax money. Furthermore drugs are heavily linked to the prostitution business, pimps usually enslave prostitutes to work for them through getting them addicted to heroin. Thus the legalization of drugs would also break the pimp/prostitute cycle.
Firstly it would massivly reduce crime, as I have said. But also it probably end up saving lives. Many of the deaths from drug use occur because the drug contains impurities, impurities that wouldn't exist if the quality of the drug was regulated companies who would be selling them in shops, or providing them to hospitals. But also, when people overdose, under the current law they are afraid to go to call for help, and it is usually that delay rather than the overdose itself which costs the most lives.
But legalizing drugs would likely result in tax cuts in the long term. Think of all the money that would be saved by the massive reduction in police time. Think of all the money that could be gained by taxing drugs as they as sold in the same way cigarrettes are taxed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on May 30, 2004 21:41:24 GMT -5
That's simply not true. Cannabis has a much higher tar content than tobacco(especially when it is combined with tobacco, as is common in Europe)* and since you hold marijuana smoke in your lungs longer than tobacco smoke, it naturally causes more damage. Sure because drugs would be regulated by the government like tobacco, and we know how cheap it is to support a tobacco habit today.  Have you ever seen anyone who has a real heroin habit? My uncle had a really bad habit and needed a hit every six hours. How could anyone hold down a legit job if they need to blow out every six hours? By the way, he ended up dying of an OD when he was twenty-nine years old. As I've said, look at tobacco. It's not cheap and if it had the same effects as heroine, there would be no way anyone could support a habit legitamly. My point exactly. There are always two sides to a "solution". *The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970’s, just in case anyone felt like calling me on it. |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 31, 2004 5:11:09 GMT -5
I would propose that addictive drugs, such as heroin and cannabis, would be provided for free to addicts. However, drugs such as cannabis, extacy, LSD etc... would available in shops, and taxed.
In such serious cases as this, heroin would be provided free to the addict, otherwise the whole point of legalizing drugs to reduce crime would be missed.
Many people beleive that the legalization of all drugs would result in a massive increase in drug users. But to be honest, those who want to take drugs, will take them regardless of their legality. I wouldn't start taking heroin as soon as it became legal just because I could, in the same way I don't want to start smoking now despite the fact I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 31, 2004 11:57:27 GMT -5
They already go to meth programs on the tax payer dime. I resent having to pay for that. I resent any and all social programs that are funded through confiscatory taxes (government theft) and I have no sympathy for addicts. Throw them in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 31, 2004 12:22:16 GMT -5
Surely throwing each and every single addict in jail would actually cost more tax money than giving them methodaine?
The plans I am advocating would actually save tax money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on May 31, 2004 12:28:46 GMT -5
And how much is that going to cost? I don't feel like paying my money to fund programs that help people, let alone ruin their lives. Any program like that is 1. going to cost taxpayers great sums of money, and 2. be abused just like any other public help program, e.g. WELFARE.
I disagree with that. All people hooked on heroine started out smoking dope largely due to the fact that people like frankie told them it was harmless. Should we fund their habits? Ofcourse not. But I don't think throwing away the key is the best solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 31, 2004 18:28:58 GMT -5
See my post directly above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on May 31, 2004 18:30:00 GMT -5
Well show me some facts. I could say it would cost us billions more if I felt like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004 6:15:55 GMT -5
There are no facts, its reasonable conjecture.
The amount of money it would cost to provide free drugs would be cancelled out by a massive reduction in police time and the money the government would gain from taxing cannabis exctacy lsd etc...
|
|
