Legalizing drugs?

[joshtpa]

It absolutely is A CHOICE. Someone has the choice to do drugs or not do. The same way they have a choice to speed or not to or break any other law or not to.
You obviously have not been around the legal courtroom much, because thousands of inmates every year are given a choice at conviction to go to rehabilitation. In my county almost every inmate convicted of a drug offense that pertains to use and not trafficking is given that option on first offense, so that argument holds no value.

Your study that you list was done over a half a decade ago. Things have changed a lot since then. Treatment is offered to tons of people.

But going back to my point, the choices are still there. But different consequences are out there. Instead of just having the choice of getting high and not getting high, the person has the choice of not getting high or getting high with a chance of bad things happening to the end. The same is out there for any law there is.

[immts007]

It absolutely is A CHOICE. Someone has the choice to do drugs or not do. The same way they have a choice to speed or not to or break any other law or not to.

Every time you speed you put others safety at risk. This is NOT true of drug use. It may be true at times, but not directly because of the drug use itself, but because of other attendant, possibly poor choices. And when one of those choices endangers or harms another life -- without the consent of the other,

that's the crime and that's what our legal system should address.

Your study that you list was done over a half a decade ago. Things have changed a lot since then. Treatment is offered to tons of people.

Saying a "half a decade ago" doesn't really make 6 years ago seem like a long time. Not much has changed.

But going back to my point, the choices are still there. But different consequences are out there. Instead of just having the choice of getting high and not getting high, the person has the choice of not getting high or getting high with a chance of bad things happening to the end. The same is out there for any law there is.

Again, and here's my number one point: Getting high should not be a crime. You keep trying to make that an predecided assumption in this argument.

[joshtpa]

[QUOTE=immts007;207949]Every time you speed you put others safety at risk. This is NOT true of drug use. It may be true at times, but not directly because of the drug use itself, but because of other attendant, possibly poor choices. And when one of those choices endangers or harms another life -- without the consent of the other, that's the crime and that's what our legal system should address.
QUOTE]

You contradict yourself in your own post. You say it is NOT True, and then you say it is true at times.

A lot has changed in our legal system in 6 years. Again, you obviously have not spent much time in a courtroom. 4 years ago many were not offered rehab and now almost all are. Your point is not valid, because you continue to say that they need rehab instead of incarceration, but they are offered rehab. So what is your next point on the matter?

[julie_m]

I would be interested if someone looked at crime stats etc between the US and the Netherlands to see what they found.

It's tricky - if you legalize almost everything, then nothing is a crime. "It's been said the Netherlands has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe because whenever something becomes a criminal problem, the Dutch make it legal, thereby reducing crime with a stroke."

http://www.frommers.com/destinations...043020452.html The Netherlands has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe, yes, but Amsterdam's is one of the highest in the Netherlands*. The main problem in Amsterdam is theft*. Do drugs, need more drugs. Need more drugs, need more money. Need more money, just steal it from tourists*. * http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/162-amsterdam-livability I was just curious, that's what I found.

[joshtpa]

Same page, I just read those exact same reports.

[julie_m]

Same page, I just read those exact same reports.

LOL, just Googled "crime rate amsterdam." I feel like I'm in college again.

[immts007]

The Netherlands has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe, yes, but Amsterdam's is one of the highest in the Netherlands*. The main problem in Amsterdam is theft*. Do drugs, need more drugs. Need more drugs, need more money. Need more money, just steal it from tourists*.

The article you reference attributes the crime rate to poverty and not drug use. Perhaps there is a case to be made that the poverty is related to drug use, but it is not made there.

I don't have a reference right now, but I've heard many times that drug use by citizens of the Netherlands leveled off and even decreased in the years following decriminalization and that the problems associated with drugs are now overwhelmingly due to drug tourists. In other words, those who come on vacation from more repressed societies specifically in order to "be free" and get wasted.

[immts007]

You contradict yourself in your own post. You say it is NOT True, and then you say it is true at times.

Birdieman, I'm getting a little tired of you trying to trip me up with my own words and not doing a good job of it.

Reread my words carefully. There is no contradiction. For there to have been a contradiction, I would have said "Every time you do drugs you put others lives at risk" and you know I didn't say that. Is this the way you always debate? Edit: I just reread, and if you want to nitpick semantics, perhaps I could have worded it more precisely. But you know very well what I meant. Here, I'll fix it for you:

It may be true at times that those who have used or are using drugs put the safety of others at risk, but not directly because of the drug use itself, but because of other attendant, possibly poor choices.

[joshtpa]

Im still waiting for your argument against the fact that they already offer rehab? What is your next point Sir. As far as it being a contradiction, it certainly is. You say "it is not true of drug use" and then say "it is true at times". Please tell me again, your debate here. You say that drug abusers belong in rehab and it is a medical issue, not a criminal one, yet again, you missed that they are all offered rehab!

[immts007]

Im still waiting for your argument against the fact that they already offer rehab? What is your next point Sir. As far as it being a contradiction, it certainly is. You say "it is not true of drug use" and then say "it is true at times". Please tell me again, your debate here. You say that drug abusers belong in rehab and it is a medical issue, not a criminal one, yet again, you missed that they are all offered rehab!

I'm getting tired of this. I think I'll take a break. I don't have an argument against the "fact" that they already offer rehab. It wasn't something I was arguing against. My argument is that it shouldn't be a crime and that we would be better off it weren't.

And see my clarification above.

[joshtpa]

I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that your argument you started with during this entire thread was not actual since you said that it should be handled with rehab instead of jail. Yet it already is.

[julie_m]

The article you reference attributes the crime rate to poverty and not drug use.

I was making the assertion that drugs cost money (and a lot of it), and can often lead junkies into impoverished situations. I figured that was accepted enough of a fact to not have to cite it.

...drugs are now overwhelmingly due to drug tourists. In other words, those who come on vacation from more repressed societies specifically in order to "be free" and get wasted.

Agreed.

[immts007]

I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that your argument you started with during this entire thread was not actual since you said that it should be handled with rehab instead of jail. Yet it already is.

Dude, this is getting a little infuriating. Quit misrepresenting my words. My argument is that drug use should not be a crime. There should be no legal penalty for adults who choose to take a drug.

An attendant argument is that moneys are better spent on treatment rather than incarceration. Not in addition to.

[joshtpa]

Once again, that is an opinion, with no basis to support it other than your opinion. Im done arguing with you about this. Just like the other thread, your point is made. You vote entirely democatic based on religious and social issues rather than each case independently. Your choice entirely!

Talk to any "former addict" at all, and they would not agree with you. People are going to continue to do drugs whether the law is there or not. Just like speeding or anything else. To give these same people the choices with no consquences is not fair to society. have you ever seen some on heroin up close? Or someone on meth? It is scary!

I know you say that "you are not condoning these things", but the fact is, seeing these things up close and personal changes minds.

[immts007]

Once again, that is an opinion, with no basis to support it other than your opinion.

That is not true I've offered plenty of support for my arguments. More than you have for yours.

[T.J.K.]

That is not true I've offered plenty of support for my arguments. More than you have for yours.

Yes he has. He said drugs don't directly harm anyone else except sometimes. Just like drinking beer by yourself in your house affects no one else. Go drive a car, it could.

That was his point, not that difficult to figure. I sure don't think heroin or anything like that should be legalized, but I do think marijuana should be. Talk about harmless.

[immts007]

To give these same people the choices with no consquences is not fair to society. have you ever seen some on heroin up close? Or someone on meth? It is scary!

So is a drunk passed out in his own vomit, So is guy who smokes through a hole in his throat because of cancer. So is the guy who dashes out his brains bunjee jumping off a cliff or skydiving. The lonely guy gambling away his daughter's college education in a smokey casino is scary too. And on and on with any example of execution of personal liberty that has a risk factor to it. In all of these cases, and with drug use as well are examples on the other end of the spectrum of responsible people who don't trash their lives.

I think it is not fair to society to have a system that removes personal liberty and in the process spends exorbitant amounts of $ that could be spent better elsewhere and create a black market that brings devasting voilence and crime and gang warfare.

[joshtpa]

No where in any thread did I say that any of those were not scary. But you have said atleast once that drugs cannot cause harm except to oneself. That is flat out not true. The actions done by individuals on drugs are as risky and riskier than the examples you gave. So why add fuel to the fire.

It all goes back to choices. People can do all the drugs they want to. And they do. But deal with the consequences, if those are your choices.

You have sooooooo many issues with the way this country is run. Everything bothers you. And you want drastic change. Sometimes change is a very good thing. But I dont think you have seen any of the things you are speaking about up close. You are basing it off news reports and internet speak. I assure you someone on meth is a little bit scarier than someone losing their college fund due to gambling.