billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2013 12:16:51 GMT -5
Protect? Yes Stop every small boat from coming ashore? No ... ... and if we have our destroyers patrolling the waters, we can stop all boat traffic ... Today, the U.S. Navy has more than 50 destroyers, ...
... have a top speed of about 35 miles per hour. usmilitary.about.com/od/navyweapons/a/destroyer.htm 6000 miles of shoreline. This does not take into account square miles of ocean. Lets just go two miles off shore. 12,000 square miles. So "more than 50 destroyers" - lets make 60. So one destroyer for every 200 square miles. Place it squarely in the middle of those miles. 35 miles per hour. Up to three hours or more to intercept. Sure, we can stop all traffic. EDIT: Whoops forgot the sign
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2013 12:30:54 GMT -5
there is no way the drug trade will ever be stopped. period. we can surely bankrupt ourselves trying, but at some point we really need to ask why?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 12:43:03 GMT -5
Today, the U.S. Navy has more than 50 destroyers, ...
... have a top speed of about 35 miles per hour. usmilitary.about.com/od/navyweapons/a/destroyer.htm 6000 miles of shoreline. This does not take into account square miles of ocean. Lets just go two miles off shore. 12,000 square miles. So "more than 50 destroyers" - lets make 60. So one destroyer for every 200 square miles. Place it squarely in the middle of those miles. 35 miles per hour. Up to three hours or more to intercept. Sure, we can stop all traffic. EDIT: Whoops forgot the sign Yet you're forgetting the many smaller ships that the Navy has along with aircraft and any smaller craft that the Army has along with the ~1400 ships that the US Coast Guard has that CURRENTLY patrol our borders. Can we stop all traffic? No...but no one here has said that we could.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 13:03:05 GMT -5
i agree
this is not a CAN WE problem
this is a DO WE WANT TO problem
we can easily protect our shores from drugs coming in.....will it stop EVERYTHING....no
but will it stop the lions share...hell yes
and you are not giving our military their just due
they can easily accomplish this mission.....close a few bases overseas and there are your personnel needed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 13:50:20 GMT -5
there is no way the drug trade will ever be stopped. period. we can surely bankrupt ourselves trying, but at some point we really need to ask why? The Chinese emperors never could manage to halt the opium smuggling. Why? I'm guessing that the profit motive had something to do with it...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 14:03:25 GMT -5
there is no way the drug trade will ever be stopped. period. we can surely bankrupt ourselves trying, but at some point we really need to ask why? The Chinese emperors never could manage to halt the opium smuggling. Why? I'm guessing that the profit motive had something to do with it... our technology is slightly ahead of the chinese emperors and cost is easily done....IF WE CLOSE OTHER BASES worldwide
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2013 14:17:34 GMT -5
I could go either way on the issue.
I do believe that legalizing hard drugs would increase usage over a matter of years. Especially since you'd have a whole new dimension of marketing, promotion, and a brand new lobby greasing politicians' palms. Abuse of prescription drugs is (I believe) ten times more prevalent than hard drug abuse. How much of that is due to their greater accessibility, their greater legitimacy, and their better marketing, I don't know, but those are certainly more than minor factors.
Hence the question is whether the increase in usage would be more than offset by the benefits DJ is lauding.
And as I've argued before, gangsters that aren't making money on the drug trade are going to make their money through racketeering, theft, human trafficking, and any number of other unsavory activities. Legalizing drugs doesn't address the root cause of why gangs exist.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 18, 2013 15:18:01 GMT -5
"what "stuff"? not all drugs are addictive. the addictive potential of pot, mushrooms, and many other drugs is basically nil. habitual use only, no withdrawals. the legal drugs, however, are indeed highly addictive."
I was refering to chemically addicting substances like heroin.
"just out of curiosity, why is this any of the STATES business? and if you think it IS the state's business, then why not mandating annual marriage counceling? how about sending kids to government Summer camps so they can practice flag worshipping ,and unquestioning submission to authority? how far are you willing to take this idea of family coherence at the hand of our wonderful government?"
Well, as as far as wider society is conerned, is it better thave fewer productive citizens or more productive citizens? I can see the argument that it's not the state's business, but having lots of junkies prowling the streets is not a goal to be striving for. And you seem to think drug addiction occurs in a vacume and does not affect the government or society in general. You would be mistaken.
Let's say you got a family man with three kids, a wife, and a job. He starts using heroin and gets addicted. He starts not showing up to work and he gets fired. His wife and kids leave him and have to go on a variety of of forms of government assistance because they qualify for them because of the drastically reduced income. He still craves drugs and since he can't afford them he turns to mugging people and robbing stores to get money for his "fix." The police catch him and he goes to jail (again, costing taxpayer money) for robbing people.
I think you fail to understand how poerful and overwhelming addiction is. People who are addicted to drugs will do ANYTHING to get more drugs, including seling their bodies for sex, mugging and robbing people ect. So yes, there is a affect on society as a whole and yes there is a affect on the government.
Again, I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea to legalize drugs, but the number of users needs to be weighed carefully.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2013 15:19:19 GMT -5
... Can we stop all traffic? No...but no one here has said that we could. ... and if we have our destroyers patrolling the waters, we can stop all boat traffic ... My bad, it was just all boat traffic that was claimed to be stoppable. I didn't take into account submarines and swimmers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 16:17:45 GMT -5
... Can we stop all traffic? No...but no one here has said that we could. ... and if we have our destroyers patrolling the waters, we can stop all boat traffic ... My bad, it was just all boat traffic that was claimed to be stoppable. I didn't take into account submarines and swimmers. i have changed that line to MOST...not just all hope that puts my meaning in a better perspective
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2013 16:24:17 GMT -5
My bad, it was just all boat traffic that was claimed to be stoppable. I didn't take into account submarines and swimmers. i have changed that line to MOST...not just all hope that puts my meaning in a better perspective It is certainly closer to true to say "most" than to say "all". And any movement towards that which is true gives you a "better perspective".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2013 17:33:07 GMT -5
I could go either way on the issue. I do believe that legalizing hard drugs would increase usage over a matter of years. Especially since you'd have a whole new dimension of marketing, promotion, and a brand new lobby greasing politicians' palms. Abuse of prescription drugs is (I believe) ten times more prevalent than hard drug abuse. How much of that is due to their greater accessibility, their greater legitimacy, and their better marketing, I don't know, but those are certainly more than minor factors. Hence the question is whether the increase in usage would be more than offset by the benefits DJ is lauding. And as I've argued before, gangsters that aren't making money on the drug trade are going to make their money through racketeering, theft, human trafficking, and any number of other unsavory activities. Legalizing drugs doesn't address the root cause of why gangs exist. this argument is insufficient, since eliminating gangs is not the reason to legalize drugs. the reason to legalize drugs is that it is none of your business what i choose to ingest. if there are other benefits, that is just ducky. getting you out of my personal affairs is enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2013 17:35:03 GMT -5
"what "stuff"? not all drugs are addictive. the addictive potential of pot, mushrooms, and many other drugs is basically nil. habitual use only, no withdrawals. the legal drugs, however, are indeed highly addictive."
I was refering to chemically addicting substances like heroin. and tobacco, and alcohol, both of which are perfectly legal."just out of curiosity, why is this any of the STATES business? and if you think it IS the state's business, then why not mandating annual marriage counceling? how about sending kids to government Summer camps so they can practice flag worshipping ,and unquestioning submission to authority? how far are you willing to take this idea of family coherence at the hand of our wonderful government?"
Well, as as far as wider society is conerned, is it better thave fewer productive citizens or more productive citizens? I can see the argument that it's not the state's business, but having lots of junkies prowling the streets is not a goal to be striving for. agreed, which is why we should legalize drugs, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2013 17:43:45 GMT -5
I could go either way on the issue. I do believe that legalizing hard drugs would increase usage over a matter of years. Especially since you'd have a whole new dimension of marketing, promotion, and a brand new lobby greasing politicians' palms. Abuse of prescription drugs is (I believe) ten times more prevalent than hard drug abuse. How much of that is due to their greater accessibility, their greater legitimacy, and their better marketing, I don't know, but those are certainly more than minor factors. Hence the question is whether the increase in usage would be more than offset by the benefits DJ is lauding. And as I've argued before, gangsters that aren't making money on the drug trade are going to make their money through racketeering, theft, human trafficking, and any number of other unsavory activities. Legalizing drugs doesn't address the root cause of why gangs exist. this argument is insufficient, since eliminating gangs is not the reason to legalize drugs. the reason to legalize drugs is that it is none of your business what i choose to ingest. if there are other benefits, that is just ducky. getting you out of my personal affairs is enough. That violates your own rule of universality. If we legalize drugs, their use becomes prevalent, and society goes to heck in a handbasket, what good is a "it's none of your business" argument? And if your claim is that hard drug users only harm themselves, you've obviously never had one as a family member, a close friend, an employee, an employer, or a dependant.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 18, 2013 21:53:55 GMT -5
this argument is insufficient, since eliminating gangs is not the reason to legalize drugs. the reason to legalize drugs is that it is none of your business what i choose to ingest. if there are other benefits, that is just ducky. getting you out of my personal affairs is enough. That violates your own rule of universality. don't be silly.If we legalize drugs, their use becomes prevalent, and society goes to heck in a handbasket, what good is a "it's none of your business" argument? oh joy. it is spot the false premise. the game that even a 5th grader can play.And if your claim is that hard drug users only harm themselves, you've obviously never had one as a family member, a close friend, an employee, an employer, or a dependant. before i comment on this, define "hard drug users", Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2013 22:27:46 GMT -5
That violates your own rule of universality. don't be silly.If we legalize drugs, their use becomes prevalent, and society goes to heck in a handbasket, what good is a "it's none of your business" argument? oh joy. it is spot the false premise. the game that even a 5th grader can play.And if your claim is that hard drug users only harm themselves, you've obviously never had one as a family member, a close friend, an employee, an employer, or a dependant. before i comment on this, define "hard drug users", Virgil. For sake of argument, consider a hard drug user to be anybody who spends more than $500.00 a year on any of the drugs in the categories "Opioids", "Stimulants", "Club Drugs", "Dissociative Drugs", and "Hallucinogens" in this index. You can't tell me legalizing hard drugs won't have a detrimental impact. They're extremely addictive; they cause countless health issues, including permanent damage to the brain that frequently leads to depression, psychosis, schizophrenia. Unlike alcohol, consuming them in moderation is neither safe nor healthy. Our society has bent over backwards to try and get vulnerable age groups away from them--to emphasize the danger, and to let people know that it isn't acceptable to use them under any circumstances. You legalize them, eventually their production becomes an industry. With an industry comes promotion, marketing, lobbying, lower prices, greater accessibility, and a complete gutting of the argument that hard drug use isn't acceptable. Usage wouldn't necessarily rise immediately. But steadily, over time, I see no reason to believe it wouldn't.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2013 22:56:52 GMT -5
... You can't tell me legalizing hard drugs won't have a detrimental impact. ... Legalizing hard drugs won't have a detrimental impact (above the detrimental impact they have now). Gee, I had no problem telling you that.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Apr 19, 2013 0:02:28 GMT -5
That was my point for years as well Virg, seeing a friend go down that path after knowing him for 14+ years was a very tough thing to go through, he never did get how much it was hurting the people around him. The problem is that the numbers don't jive with this POV, as I posted before Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal.(Different source this time) This is a long term study and I know for a fact that IF all drugs were legalized there would be no way mass advertising of things like Heroin would be allowed. Have you seen a pack of smokes lately? On that point how many lives does smoking take every year? In the tens of thousands right? No, but it would cut out the biggest income stream for all these aholes forcing them to take more risk to make money. Since we aren't going after the non existent dealers anymore we have more time to go after human trafficking, ect, ect...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 0:14:50 GMT -5
before i comment on this, define "hard drug users", Virgil. For sake of argument, consider a hard drug user to be anybody who spends more than $500.00 a year on any of the drugs in the categories "Opioids", "Stimulants", "Club Drugs", "Dissociative Drugs", and "Hallucinogens" in this index.. thanks, that is very clear. i know dozens of people that meet your standard, and i consider them less dangerous to the general public than i consider most of the posters on this board. they are as harmless as daisies. i think the mistake you are making here is thinking how sad it is for these "abusers" (and let's get real for a minute, shall we? $500 worth of pot a year does not mean you abuse that drug. $500 worth of coke? even less so), their friends and families, when in fact you (and i mean the general "you" here, as in, you, me and everyone else) are working right along side them, and you would never know it. people who eat massive amounts of hamburgers are also a burden on society and their familes. smokers and alcoholics, doubly so. but they are absolutely within their rights to do so. the capricious standard that you set which excludes marijuana from your list of acceptable sins is totally arbitrary and silly. if a drugs legal status were tied to the amount of societal harm it does, the legal ones would be where heroin is on the list today. yet, we allow that "disintegration of society" to take place. your whole argument makes no sense to me, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 0:24:16 GMT -5
before i comment on this, define "hard drug users", Virgil. For sake of argument, consider a hard drug user to be anybody who spends more than $500.00 a year on any of the drugs in the categories "Opioids", "Stimulants", "Club Drugs", "Dissociative Drugs", and "Hallucinogens" in this index. You can't tell me legalizing hard drugs won't have a detrimental impact. perhaps. but you can't say that it would not also have benefits. whether those outweigh one another is a matter for rational debate, imo.They're extremely addictive; not all of them. and most of them are far less addictive than legal alternatives.they cause countless health issues, the most commonly used illegal drug has never been determined to be the procuring cause of fatal illness. meanwhile, the legal alternative to that drug kills 5 million people each year.including permanent damage to the brain that frequently leads to depression, psychosis, schizophrenia. Unlike alcohol, consuming them in moderation is neither safe nor healthy. false. but in addition, you are not distinguishing between use and abuse here.Our society has bent over backwards to try and get vulnerable age groups away from them--to emphasize the danger, and to let people know that it isn't acceptable to use them under any circumstances. no matter what their legal status for adults, all of these substances are illegal to minors. i find it interesting that most kids can obtain cocaine easier than beer. if coke were also legal, do you believe that would be the case?You legalize them, eventually their production becomes an industry. it is already an industry. however, unlike the legal drug industry, it is completely unregulated. and because of THAT FACT, people die, either because they are uncertain of dose, or purity, or they get caught in the crossfire.With an industry comes promotion, marketing, lobbying, lower prices, greater accessibility, and a complete gutting of the argument that hard drug use isn't acceptable. i am not sure that is true, either. it really depends on what you mean by "acceptable". is smoking cigarettes "acceptable"?Usage wouldn't necessarily rise immediately. But steadily, over time, I see no reason to believe it wouldn't. me neither. and it is nobody's business, other than the user of those drugs, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 0:29:55 GMT -5
That was my point for years as well Virg, seeing a friend go down that path after knowing him for 14+ years was a very tough thing to go through, he never did get how much it was hurting the people around him. The problem is that the numbers don't jive with this POV, as I posted before Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal.(Different source this time) This is a long term study and I know for a fact that IF all drugs were legalized there would be no way mass advertising of things like Heroin would be allowed. Have you seen a pack of smokes lately? On that point how many lives does smoking take every year? In the tens of thousands right? No, but it would cut out the biggest income stream for all these aholes forcing them to take more risk to make money. Since we aren't going after the non existent dealers anymore we have more time to go after human trafficking, ect, ect... really smart reply, Aham. and central to the argument that LEAP makes. if we stop policing people against harming themselves, we can go back to policing people that harm each other. that would be a more prudent use of LIMITED resources, imo.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2013 1:22:36 GMT -5
Because they decriminalized it; they didn't legalize it. They put drug users through incredibly expensive rehabilitation programs. I'd say "Way to go.", only Portugal is flat-arse broke.
My coworkers could be suffering from depression, cancer, low blood pressure, and painful foot rashes. I'd never know it.
Of the few ailments that I am aware of, how am I supposed to tell if any of them were caused or exacerbated by hard drug use? How are you supposed to?
Do you see one of your coworkers popping Prozac and ask him, "Been hitting the coke again lately, Jim?"
I said the same thing above.
It's also harmless (and even beneficial) when consumed in moderation, which isn't true of any of substances I identified as hard drugs. And by 'moderation' I mean it isn't consumed to the point that it affects brain chemistry. The entire point of drugs is to affect brain chemistry.
Maybe where you live. I wouldn't have had the first clue how to obtain cocaine while I was in school.
The way the state is handling them now, borderline 'yes'.
Legal alternatives are medicinal. They have a legitimate use beyond getting high.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 1:29:33 GMT -5
Of the few ailments that I am aware of, how am I supposed to tell if any of them were caused or exacerbated by hard drug use? How are you supposed to?. by clinical trials, of course. this can be done in places like the NIH, as well as treatment centers that have long term studies. it can also be done in places where the drugs are actually legal, like Holland. and in all of those cases, the studies indicate no CHRONIC LONG TERM AFFECTS for the most commonly used illegal drug on your list. the others are less well studied, admittedly. however, i think you are going to be very hard pressed to match tobacco with any of them. dude, what are you doing up at 2AM? you should get a pot prescription for that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 1:31:14 GMT -5
It's also harmless (and even beneficial) when consumed in moderation. that is not what my insurance carrier seems to think. they made me claim in writing that i had not consumed said substance in 10 years to give me the best rates available.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 19, 2013 1:36:58 GMT -5
Legal alternatives are medicinal. They have a legitimate use beyond getting high. no more so than pot, which is useful for prevention of glaucoma and as an appetite enhancer for wasting sydrome. ironically, one study showed that it was also useful for REVERSING symptoms of cancer. amphetamines also have an approved use (or did until fairly recently) in the military for long range bomber missions. and morphine and it's derivatives also have a common medical uses as painkillers. i am sure that there are probably dozens of exceptions just like these, but none come to mind as quickly as those ones. for me all of that misses the point, however. if i choose to knowingly obliterate my mind, what business is it of yours, Virgil?
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Apr 20, 2013 2:04:23 GMT -5
Good point on the context of legalization. On that point I agree, if heroin, cocaine, ect were sold in stores like cigs were, or if there were "junkie" shops like there are pot shops we would have MAJOR issues with drugs. The case and point there would be opium dens..... As for the money part I think we lose the argument now Virg. All countries are basically flat ass broke and it's not because of their drug policies, even though we have been wasting a ton of money fighting the war on drugs. It costs like 25k a year to keep someone in Jail, that is one expensive rehabilitation program as well and the big problem there is that in the jail "rehab" program they mostly learn how to be "better crooks". So I guess it's way to go Portugal then?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2013 10:58:52 GMT -5
I could go either way on the issue. I do believe that legalizing hard drugs would increase usage over a matter of years. Especially since you'd have a whole new dimension of marketing, promotion, and a brand new lobby greasing politicians' palms. this might be true. but you don't really see a lot of cigarette ads any more than glorify smoking. ads are pretty well restricted by tobacco legislation, and i have no reason to believe that they would not be restricted for other drugs.Abuse of prescription drugs is (I believe) ten times more prevalent than hard drug abuse. i have no doubt of that.How much of that is due to their greater accessibility, their greater legitimacy, and their better marketing, I don't know, but those are certainly more than minor factors. it might just have to do with the fact that prescriptions basically require you to become addicted. for example, when i was on codeine after my leg surgury. i had one hell of a time getting off it, even though i don't have an especially "addiction prone" personality. pain sensitivity is a serious issue for people during withdrawl.Hence the question is whether the increase in usage would be more than offset by the benefits DJ is lauding. i never framed this as a tradeoff without a downside. never.And as I've argued before, gangsters that aren't making money on the drug trade are going to make their money through racketeering, theft, human trafficking, and any number of other unsavory activities. i don't think so, actually. but if they do, then we will have more law enforcement resources to go after them, which i think everyone here will agree is a good thing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2013 15:20:41 GMT -5
In a crade-to-grave society where I inherit the costs of managing the adverse consequences of your risks? It's my business.
I'm not a nanny-statist by any means. I'll pay for your double bypass even if you're 150 pounds overweight. I'll pay to mend your broken bones if you're a thrill-seeking stunt biker. I'll pay for your cancer treatment if you're a smoker, and I'm not going to ban giant sodas 'for your own good'. If you kill one of my friends while driving drunk, I won't suddenly demand that alcohol be banned, and if I see a child break his neck while jumping on a trampoline, I won't sign a petition to have them outlawed.
But shooting yourself full of a toxic, addictive substance for a fleeting rush of euphoria, predictably eating away your mind and body--I draw the line there. It's not acceptable, unless you want to sign a waiver granting hospitals the right to shoot you full of potassium chloride and your body in a mass grave rather than admit you if you can't afford treatment.
I don't know.
I see no reason why the gangs that presently control the drug trade in an area wouldn't maintain their assumed right as sole distributor. If they find somebody on their turf with coke they didn't sell him, it will be a beat down as a warning, and then a bullet if he buys from outside sources again. Even one 'demonstration' a year would be enough to ensure neighbourhood-wide compliance. And a gang member peddling crack on the street corner would be untouchable by police.
We debated it a few months back but couldn't find reliable numbers on how much money was spent per rehabilitation in Portugal. We did learn that the recidivism rate was about 30%.
Locking people up in prison is a lousy form of punishment/rehabilitation, hence I'm not averse to decriminalizing hard drugs if Portugal's costs were/are reasonable. But decriminalization is really just a constructive mode of punishment. It still starts with the premise that hard drug use isn't acceptable and ends with the ultimatum: stop it, or we'll stop it for you.
|
|
kgb18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 8:15:23 GMT -5
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by kgb18 on Apr 22, 2013 21:19:11 GMT -5
I have not read the whole thread, so if this point was raised, I apologize.
I have no issue with legalizing marijuana. I do have a problem with legalizing other drugs. I'm only speaking anecdotally based on my knowledge of drug use from my job. The addiction level with many other drugs is much higher than it is with marijuana. The reaction many other drugs cause in the user is much more dangerous. Of course you can get the angry, violent drunk. It certainly happens. But people on some of these other drugs, particularly the synthetic stuff, are out of their minds crazy. They don't seem to feel pain. They have no control over themselves. It's scary.
So many addicts commit crime as a way to support their habit. A great deal of the theft and retail theft in my area is tied directly to drug use. People steal to support their habit.
I don't see how legalizing drugs will solve the problems with addiction, adverse reactions and associated crime.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 22, 2013 21:24:11 GMT -5
Can you explain to me how that differs from drinking yourself into a stupor and getting behind the wheel of a car, Virgil? Can you explain how it differs from showing up at the hospital nearly dead from alcohol poisoning and not being able to pay your bill because you haven't worked in years because ... guess ... you're a drunk?
|
|