The War on Drugs is Useless

I told you before. This thread is about legalizing smack, crack and meth. Not banning alcohol. You're trying to divert the discussion.

You aren't trying to argue that we should sell crack at the liqour store because of hypocracy are you?

Okay, try this:

I am against the banning of several of the currently banned substances due to the fact that if I were in favour of banning these substances, in order to maintain a consistent view, I would need to be in favour of banning alcohol too, and I don't want to do that because I quite like a drink.

Go on, attack that position.
 
Unfortunately we've had 70 years of drug paranoid propaganda from "reefer madness" to "this is your brain on drugs." Now THAT should be illegal. I await virus to respond with a deprecating statement about anyone who wants drug legistlation to make sense and be consistent is a druggy who wants the end of civilisation.
 
Cocaine and methamphetamine are still legal when prescribed. Not sure today, but heroin was used in England in hospitals as preferable to morphine for extreme pain. Its not a huge leap to imagine said drugs becoming more available by prescription.
 
Okay, try this:

I am against the banning of several of the currently banned substances due to the fact that if I were in favour of banning these substances, in order to maintain a consistent view, I would need to be in favour of banning alcohol too, and I don't want to do that because I quite like a drink.

Go on, attack that position.

OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.
 
OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

Yeah it's much better to let murderous thugs become so rich and powerful selling drugs that they destabilize entire countries than to let consenting adults do what they please with their own bodies.

And despite the $1 trillion that the US has flushed down the toilet, anybody who wants drugs can get them anyway and they are cheaper than ever. And drug dealers don't even check IDs.
 
Cocaine and methamphetamine are still legal when prescribed. Not sure today, but heroin was used in England in hospitals as preferable to morphine for extreme pain. Its not a huge leap to imagine said drugs becoming more available by prescription.

If anyone is still prescribing cocaine, heroin and meth as a therapeutic I'm pretty sure it would only be in extreme cases, closely supervised and only for the short term. There are derivatives now that are less addictive with fewer side effects.

Besides, that's not legalization in the sense that people here are talking about.
 
OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

You're admitting that your position is inconsistent?


Well, it's a start, I suppose, we'll have you thinking critically in no time.
.
 
Yeah it's much better to let murderous thugs become so rich and powerful selling drugs that they destabilize entire countries than to let consenting adults do what they please with their own bodies.

And despite the $1 trillion that the US has flushed down the toilet, anybody who wants drugs can get them anyway and they are cheaper than ever. And drug dealers don't even check IDs.

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.

Law enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement. Pocket change compared to the $92 billion a year cost of tobacco use alone. I could add the cost to the community of alcohol abuse. I could add the cost of illicit drug abuse, but that would just be laboring the point wouldn't it?
 
How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.

Considering the fact that drug users already pay for drugs, and at highly inflated rates, I fail to see what your point is.

Law enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement.

Maybe that's what the US federal government pays for enforcement. But you also have many state and local police agencies doing the same thing. And, of course, millions of people being locked up for victimless crimes.

Pocket change compared to the $92 billion a year cost of tobacco use alone. I could add the cost to the community of alcohol abuse.

So we should ban them in order to save the money, yes? I mean it works with drugs that are now illegal. Oh wait....

I could add the cost of illicit drug abuse, but that would just be laborih the point wouldn't it?
 
How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you?

Seriously? You seem to think that the drugs would be given out for free. People would pay for them, that's where the money comes from. It wouldn't cost anything; there'd be a profit. Your question is exactly the same asking "how much do you think it costs to keep all the alcohol addicts supplied with alcohol?". It doesn't cost anything, it brings in profits.

enforcement costs? $19 billion a year on drug enforcement.

...that mostly goes towards arresting and prosecuting drug users, rather than suppliers. If they were legal, then these people wouldn't be arrested, so these enforcement costs would not exist.

I have never taken, and never will take, heroin. Even if I could get it legally, I would not take it. What makes you think that millions of people would? It is already extremely easily available; if people want it, they can get it. I don't think there are many people who say, 'you know what, I would really like to try some heroin, but I won't, because it's illegal'.
 
So now the victim and the perp are the same person?

Hm, I see the problem. No I don't think persecuting drug users for drug abuse is any good, however this is but one aspect of the war on drugs, is it not? This aspect I do disagree with, but that doesn't mean the entire effort is useless.
Persecuting drug users for offenses caused due to their addiction should stay.

McHrozni
 
I have never taken, and never will take, heroin. Even if I could get it legally, I would not take it. What makes you think that millions of people would? It is already extremely easily available; if people want it, they can get it. I don't think there are many people who say, 'you know what, I would really like to try some heroin, but I won't, because it's illegal'.

Hell, most drug users I know won't even touch heroin (or meth).
 
OK, I couldn't care less if it was "consistent" to dole out dirt-cheap crack, smack and meth to anyone that flashes a driver's license. It's still a retarded idea.

Oh, and another point is that, at the moment, dirt-cheap crack is doled out to anyone, no driving licence required.
 
I told you before. This thread is about legalizing smack, crack and meth. Not banning alcohol. You're trying to divert the discussion.
Oh for chris'sake. You are the one who's been ranting nd raving about alcohol and tobacco since your first post. We aren't the ones who got that discussion going, all we're doing is trying to get you to explain your views, that you brought up.

And a drug addict isn't [a victim]?

McHrozni
Of course a drug addict is a victim. He or she may be a victim of his or her own stupidity or ignorance, but I would say having your life ruined qualifies you as a victim in my eyes. This doesn't change the fact that taking up use of narcotics, tobacco or alcohol is a free choice.

It's funny, really. I have, as I've said, voluntered for three quarters of a year for people selling street magazines. Only once have I heard a drug addict state that it wasn't his or her fault he or she became an addict. Well, there is this one girl I met on Facebook, but she started drinking when she was 10, and you can't really expect kids to know much about the ramifications of such choices at that age. Those two exceptions aside, the only people I hear saying that "it's not you fault if you become an addict"... are people who have probably never touched the stuff, and don't know anyone who have.

How much do you think it's going to cost to keep all the addicts, plus the new pool of them you've just created, supplied with high quality, pure gear? Gonna pull that money out of a hat are you? Gotta pay for it to be produced. Gotta pay people to work in crack factories. Better keep that gear flowing nice and good too. I hear addicts can get pretty nasty when they don't get their fix.
How do you get the money? Same way you get money for any other industry, from carpets to cars to chocolate. You sell the products.

Edit: and don't give me any of that "can't hold down a job" ********. The addicts who have the selling of street magazines as their job in Bergen show up at the publishing house when they open at 10 in the morning, buy their magazines, and go out to sell them on the street. One of them told me that they consider themselves lucky if they're done by six in the evening, by which time they have been standing and walking for eight hours already, in rough Norwegian weather that can vary from uncomfortably hot to freezing cold, with freezing winds and rain, sleet and snow. They have one of the most demanding jobs in the city, both mentally and physically, and make fairly good money (up to and over 150-300 USD) on good days.
 
Last edited:
Most drug users you don't realise do use drugs, most addicts you don't realise are addicted, and most drugs don't have anywhere near the addictive potential prohibitionists say they do.

Again, can we get a straight (pun most definitely intended) answer from you virus? Is the present legal availabilty of alcohol and tobacco causing more harm than a prohibitionist approach for those drugs? And if you believe this is the case, do you also follow the yellow logic road down to the inevitable proposal that these two legal drugs should be prohibited? If not, why not? This is a genuine question I wish to have answered. It's one that those who support the current system of prohibition seem rather uneasy about for some reason...
 
Last edited:
Most drug users you don't realise do use drugs, most addicts you don't realise are addicted, and most drugs don't have anywhere near the addictive potential prohibitionists say they do.

Again, can we get a straight (pun most definitely intended) answer from you virus? Is the present legal availabilty of alcohol and tobacco causing more harm than a prohibitionist approach for those drugs? And if you believe this is the case, do you also follow the yellow logic road down to the inevitable proposal that these two legal drugs should be prohibited? If not, why not? This is a genuine question I wish to have answered. It's one that those who support the current system of prohibition seem rather uneasy about for some reason...

Ill bet you he won't give you a straight answer.
 
Why not? If someone sits in a bar and has a drink there's no victim. Which proves there are no victims of alcohol abuse.
 

Back
Top Bottom