The Official (Not Official At All) Drugs & Alcohol Thread

[Abu3baid]

I don't use drugs, and I really don't even drink much.  But even though I've argued against your position, I'm not really for legalizing all drugs.  In fact, I don't know what I'm for ... all I know is that I'm against the status quo.  What we have been doing hasn't worked, so why not at least consider other options?  One of those options happens to be legalization.

I thought this statement was pretty good.. I am open to exploring other options, and your statement above shows that.. However, that is not the stance of everyone arguing in this thread.. it seems like most are for full legalization.. Till now, everything I have discussed has been why full legalization is stupid, but that doesn't mean that I am not open to other options just like you and some others as well!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

1. Give MUCH stiffer penalites for drugs. Millions arrested here compared to 400 hanged in Singapore over a 13 year period debunks the "Penalties don't dissuade behavior" line.

2. The status quo. Which obviously only costs me tax dollars and stops nothing. Druggies don't even mind doing a little time and getting 3 meals a day and some R&R.;

3. Decriminalize pot in small amounts and at least free up a few of my tax dollars for something worthwhile.

4. Legalize. Hate to even think about how easy it's going to be to purchase and sell to minors then but ought to be interesting.

My choice is number 3 reluctantly because we sure are never going to go the Singapore route (thankfully). Even I'm not that hardline.

I like the options you mentioned above, and I'll comment accordingly

1.  This option is always a good one, but if the judicial system doesn't systematically execute child molesters and rapist then I highly doubt that they will go after drug users and sellers in this manner, so this is really not a feasible solution that could be implemented anyway.

2.  Jails are being filled up according to the reports I have read, and money is wasted on people that will eventually get replaced out in the real world, so really keeping the status Quo is not an option either!

3.  If someone wants to smoke pot, do cocaine and smoke crack in the privacy of his own home then so be it.. he is doing this anyway.. However, if someone is driving under the influence of any of these drugs then they should have the book thrown at them just like drunks do.. (I just want to mention that I believe that someone who drinks 1 beer should be giving a DUI).. Basically you let all the small time dealers and users go, or give them like 7 warnings before you jail them or something like that.. However, you go after the big distributors and dealers with all the resources and money that you have saved, and you actually start putting a dent until it becomes financially prohibitive to do what they do.

4.  This is not an option as far as I am concerned, or a dumb one really.. to open things up and allow people of age to go ahead and buy drugs openly is just stupid.. if we think that addiction rates are high now.. wait until your kid can send his friend to the drug store to buy him a pure line of coke!  With the option of number 3 why would anyone really explore this one?

I would have no issue going with number 3 really, with the only difference being that maybe we still go after anyone that deals, and just not the users who have a certain amount for personal use.. I mean if you catch a user driving with stuff on them, but they are not high.. can't you just take them in, find out who sold them the stuff and then confiscate their stuff and let them go?  Then go after the person who sold the stuff?  I just think things have gotten so muddled that even the DEA doesn't know what the hell they are doing anymore.. You can easily and systematically tackle this issue, but it is so bogged down with red lines that no one wants to really because they have some pretty good paying jobs!

[zipazoid]

Well, I surrender now. Didn't know you were on the debate team. Alot of last place finishes I bet. Like I said........ senseless liberal banter

Ad hominem argument. We have a winner, and it's not @jusanothajoe . When you cannot defend your point any more, just attack the person.

Hey look - want to know the real reason there's such opposition to legalizing pot or any other drugs? The profitability of prisons.

Building prisons is one of the few growth industries in our country at the moment. And each one built has to be operated. Most are privatized. And there is lots of money to be made in doing so. And with that money comes people (lobbyists) who argue for them to continue to be built. So they get politicians on their side - for the politician, it's a simple, easily defendable public stance - they're "tough on crime." But what is really happening is they're feeding the incarceration machine. And they're also a handy way to keep certain demographics under control -

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

[k-troop]

STOP ALL WAR!! WAR IS AWFUL! WAR HAS NEVER HELPED ANYONE EVER! WAR IS FOR IDIOTS! PEACE MAN.

War gave the U.S. industrial superiority via the destruction of Europe and Veterans' programs like the G.I. Bill and VA subsidized home and business loans.  As an Army officer, the threat of war has given me one undergraduate and two graduate degrees.  Ergo, war is good.  :-)

How many of you supporting legalization of all kinds of drugs would support:

- Babies born addicted to drugs because the mother took them.

- Someone doing drugs in the morning and driving a busload of kids to school.

- Someone doing drugs and being an air traffic controller.

- Someone doing drugs and doing all kinds of jobs.

Make drugs legal and more people will do drugs.-I get not criminalizing things that dont affect others but drugs do affect others.-Just like alcohol.-So do you treat it like booze-Legal to buy but SEVERE penalties if youre caught abusing it-Or what? What is legalization and what does it mean?

Also isnt CO spending a lot of money still monitoring the new pot trade?

Nothing specifically against you, Phil, but your post is (IMO) a good collection of fallacies in the drug-legalization argument, so I'll begin my foray into this thread here.  Most of these points have been made, but I'll throw my opinion in here for the record.

More babies are harmed because mommy smoked and drank during the pregnancy, and that's legal.

It's also illegal to drive the school bus drunk.

It's also illegal to be drunk on duty as an air traffic controller, and even if drugs were legalized this is a good example of a job/task that would remain illegal to perform while under the influence of a substance.

CO might be spending money to monitor the drug system, but at least now they have a revenue stream (taxes from legal pot sales) to finance it.  Illegal drug enforcement has no analogous funding stream, except for seizures, which are a drop in the bucket of total enforcement cost.

Undoubtedly more people used alcohol after prohibition than during it.  However, alcohol use is a personal choice.  The issue is whether the government should act to curtail a personal choice.  Most would agree the answer is no, unless there is a significant public good at stake (and even then many on the right would still argue against government interference).  If your argument is that protection of the "public good" weighs in favor of prohibiting drugs because of the costs to public health, risks of abuse, and consequences of drug-related incidents, then you should also be in favor of banning alcohol, because it has more adverse effects than all "drugs" combined.

[MS256]

It's the Bible Belt.

It's about not questioning authority (in general),

which is why it's the Bible Belt.

And you are completely wrong about that IMO.

Most people I know question authority almost to an extreme (you would call them radicals) and absolutely hate with a passion the government dictating anything they should do...and most aren't in church this morning.

[jusanothajoe]

Ad hominem argument. We have a winner, and it's not @jusanothajoe . When you cannot defend your point any more, just attack the person.  Hey look - want to know the real reason there's such opposition to legalizing pot or any other drugs? The profitability of prisons.  Building prisons is one of the few growth industries in our country at the moment. And each one built has to be operated. Most are privatized. And there is lots of money to be made in doing so. And with that money comes people (lobbyists) who argue for them to continue to be built. So they get politicians on their side - for the politician, it's a simple, easily defendable public stance - they're "tough on crime." But what is really happening is they're feeding the incarceration machine. And they're also a handy way to keep certain demographics under control -  [URL=http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289]http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289[/URL]

Did you just attack me Zippy ?

[Mr. Desmond]

And you are completely wrong about that IMO.

Most people I know question authority almost to an extreme (you would call them radicals) and absolutely hate with a passion the government dictating anything they should do...and most aren't in church this morning.

Thinking about it, yes, you are correct. Bible Belters tend to have a fierce independence.

I should have said they tend not to be open to new ideas when it comes to social issues. And too many of them tend to pound the Bible and quote Scripture. I just love it when I see them going after each other in biblical verse after biblical verse. It's confusing as heck, but amusing.

But the point is they are slow, more than other areas of the country, to accept new ideas on social issues like decriminalization of drugs.

[zipazoid]

Did you just attack me Zippy ?

Nope. Just your argument.

[jusanothajoe]

Th[quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/76240/the-official-not-official-at-all-drugs-alcohol-thread/330#post_1037481"] Nope. Just your argument. [/quote] T I think the first part talks about me directly. But don't worry none of your cronies will call you out on it. Got news for you zippy, you did the same thing you were calling me out for.

[zipazoid]

I think the first part talks about me directly.

But don't worry none of your cronies will call you out on it. Got news for you zippy, you did the same thing you were calling me out for.

It points to you directly as it regards your poor argument.

So lemme make sure I understand - me pointing out that your personal attack meant you lost the debate, you consider a personal attack?

You do understand the difference between attacking the post as opposed to the post er , right?

[jusanothajoe]

It points to you directly as it regards your poor argument. So lemme make sure I understand - me pointing out that your personal attack meant you lost the debate, you consider a personal attack? You do understand the difference between attacking the post as opposed to the post er , right?

If you concider a joke, which I told the person it was, an attack then you just can't get over the fact that someone disagrees with you. And if you look back a couple of posts, it will be a while before I agree because we southerners are "slow" to change

[Mr. Desmond]

If you concider a joke, which I told the person it was, an attack then you just can't get over the fact that someone disagrees with you.

And if you look back a couple of posts, it will be a while before I agree because we southerners are "slow" to change

As a Southerner for 50 years, yep ... slow to change or to think  of social issues other than in conventional terms, unless of course, there is profit to be made...

[zipazoid]

If you concider a joke, which I told the person it was, an attack then you just can't get over the fact that someone disagrees with you.

And if you look back a couple of posts, it will be a while before I agree because we southerners are "slow" to change

Okay, now I have no idea where you're going or what you're trying to say. So we're done.

[Abu3baid]

If you concider a joke, which I told the person it was, an attack then you just can't get over the fact that someone disagrees with you. And if you look back a couple of posts, it will be a while before I agree because we southerners are "slow" to change

And you don't need to, your position is a perfectly respectable and smart position! Drugs are evil and any justification to legalize and sell via drug shops is misguided at best! Stick to your position and don't worry about everyone else! If you ran a pole as I mentioned before on who is on favor of legalizing "all" drugs you will find that this number isn't worth mentioning.. Even a pole that was posted about legalizing pot didn't go past 60% and this is after like 60 years of polling, before the past 10 years it didn't make it to 50%!!

[jusanothajoe]

And you don't need to, your position is a perfectly respectable and smart position! Drugs are evil and any justification to legalize and sell via drug shops is misguided at best! Stick to your position and don't worry about everyone else!

If you ran a pole as I mentioned before on who is on favor of legalizing "all" drugs you will find that this number isn't worth mentioning.. Even a pole that was posted about legalizing pot didn't go past 60% and this is after like 60 years of polling, before the past 10 years it didn't make it to 50%!!

Oh believe me I will never agree with this. Even though it seems it will make this country and my life better ? I will somehow profit from it ? And when legal drug use will decline ?

But I will do this; I am sorry if I offended anyone in this post. Used my very dry humor a few times and some took it wrong. I have no hard feelings for anyone and if any of you are ever in Alabama look me up we will play golf.

PS.  If you won't make me smoke weed, I won't make you shoot my gun.

[RJH999]

War gave the U.S. industrial superiority via the destruction of Europe and Veterans' programs like the G.I. Bill and VA subsidized home and business loans.  As an Army officer, the threat of war has given me one undergraduate and two graduate degrees.  Ergo, war is good.  :-) Nothing specifically against you, Phil, but your post is (IMO) a good collection of fallacies in the drug-legalization argument, so I'll begin my foray into this thread here.  Most of these points have been made, but I'll throw my opinion in here for the record. More babies are harmed because mommy smoked and drank during the pregnancy, and that's legal. It's also illegal to drive the school bus drunk. It's also illegal to be drunk on duty as an air traffic controller, and even if drugs were legalized this is a good example of a job/task that would remain illegal to perform while under the influence of a substance. CO might be spending money to monitor the drug system, but at least now they have a revenue stream (taxes from legal pot sales) to finance it.  Illegal drug enforcement has no analogous funding stream, except for seizures, which are a drop in the bucket of total enforcement cost. Undoubtedly more people used alcohol after prohibition than during it.  However, alcohol use is a personal choice.  The issue is whether the government should act to curtail a personal choice.  Most would agree the answer is no, unless there is a significant public good at stake (and even then many on the right would still argue against government interference).  If your argument is that protection of the "public good" weighs in favor of prohibiting drugs because of the costs to public health, risks of abuse, and consequences of drug-related incidents, then you should also be in favor of banning alcohol, because it has more adverse effects than all "drugs" combined.

:-P

[jusanothajoe]

War gave the U.S. industrial superiority via the destruction of Europe and Veterans' programs like the G.I. Bill and VA subsidized home and business loans.  As an Army officer, the threat of war has given me one undergraduate and two graduate degrees.  Ergo, war is good.  :-)

Nothing specifically against you, Phil, but your post is (IMO) a good collection of fallacies in the drug-legalization argument, so I'll begin my foray into this thread here.  Most of these points have been made, but I'll throw my opinion in here for the record.

More babies are harmed because mommy smoked and drank during the pregnancy, and that's legal.

It's also illegal to drive the school bus drunk.

It's also illegal to be drunk on duty as an air traffic controller, and even if drugs were legalized this is a good example of a job/task that would remain illegal to perform while under the influence of a substance.

CO might be spending money to monitor the drug system, but at least now they have a revenue stream (taxes from legal pot sales) to finance it.  Illegal drug enforcement has no analogous funding stream, except for seizures, which are a drop in the bucket of total enforcement cost.

Undoubtedly more people used alcohol after prohibition than during it.  However, alcohol use is a personal choice.  The issue is whether the government should act to curtail a personal choice.  Most would agree the answer is no, unless there is a significant public good at stake (and even then many on the right would still argue against government interference).  If your argument is that protection of the "public good" weighs in favor of prohibiting drugs because of the costs to public health, risks of abuse, and consequences of drug-related incidents, then you should also be in favor of banning alcohol, because it has more adverse effects than all "drugs" combined.

This statement is absolutely not true

[k-troop]

This statement is absolutely not true

Yes it is!  Yes it is!  I WIN!!!

Obviously the statement "more adverse effects" is extremely vague.  Your statement (and mine) may be true or untrue, depending on how we define that term.

I would count marriages broken, jobs lost, health problems, incarcerations due to intoxicated conduct, and thousands of other things among the "adverse effects" because they impose direct and indirect societal costs.  I would not count incarcerations simply for the manufacture, sale, possession, and/or use of these substances because that's a government response that treats alcohol and other drugs differently, so therefore not a fair comparison.

I also wouldn't count gang-land shootings and other organized crime related to the trafficking in illegal drugs, because that would more or less be eliminated by legalizing drugs.  However, even if we did count all of the drug and cartel-related shootings in countries that supply drugs to the U.S., they wouldn't remotely compare to the number of DUI-related fatalities just in the U.S.

So there.

[jusanothajoe]

Yes it is!  Yes it is!  I WIN!!!

Obviously the statement "more adverse effects" is extremely vague.  Your statement (and mine) may be true or untrue, depending on how we define that term.

I would count marriages broken, jobs lost, health problems, incarcerations due to intoxicated conduct, and thousands of other things among the "adverse effects" because they impose direct and indirect societal costs.  I would not count incarcerations simply for the manufacture, sale, possession, and/or use of these substances because that's a government response that treats alcohol and other drugs differently, so therefore not a fair comparison.

I also wouldn't count gang-land shootings and other organized crime related to the trafficking in illegal drugs, because that would more or less be eliminated by legalizing drugs.  However, even if we did count all of the drug and cartel-related shootings in countries that supply drugs to the U.S., they wouldn't remotely compare to the number of DUI-related fatalities just in the U.S.

So there.

Oh, didn't know you were just making up the rules. I would count ALL adverse effects as adverse effects. And by doing so, your statement is untrue.

You count all adverse effects of alcohol but not of drugs....................Yeah right. The only way you can back your argument about drugs is to make special exceptions.

So there right back at you.