Drug legalization trial-run

The same can certainly be said for alcohol and tobacco....oh, yes, and guns, too. Doesn't the double standard bother you at all?
Click to expand...
It certainly does. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to keep people from doing what they wish to their own bodies. My point is that we all know how public opinion massaged by media coverage would turn this five year experiment into a circus. The first college student dying from a bag of coke he bought at 7-11 would send people on both sides into a tizzy and it would be over long before real results could be measured.

On the one hand, we say you cannot be trusted with items that can harm you; on the other, we harp about personal responsibility. Seems to me you either believe in personal responsibility or you don't. What on earth is the difference between alcohol, tobacco and heroin? Answer: the quality of the first two is regulated.

Rich
Click to expand...
I certainly believe in personal responsibility. If a man wants to shoot heroin, let him as long as he's not hurting anyone else. If a man wants to take a dozen Vicodin, let him. I just don't want his physician held liable because he decided to combine Vicodin, Allegra, and a few lines of coke and winds up in the hospital with a bleeding ulcer and an aneurysm.

I have no problem with these drugs being available to the public but I really think that simply putting them on the shelf and expecting positive results over a five year period ignores the general stupidity of the masses. Marijuana is one thing; you can't die from that. Mushrooms you can die from. Heroin and Ecstacy can kill with a single use if the indivudual has a very low tolerance. If these people want to take the risk, let them....but you know full well those deaths will not look good in the public eye.
 
I have no problem with these drugs being available to the public but I really think that simply putting them on the shelf and expecting positive results over a five year period ignores the general stupidity of the masses.
Click to expand...
That's what separates a Nanny State from a Republic....the Nanny State frets constantly about "the masses".

But lemme ask you: Have you ever met one person who ever stated, "Hell, if cocaine or heroin was legal, sure I'd try it." Just one? Of course not. So fretting about overdoses is a bit clumsy when the alternative is allowing those interested in putting this garbage in their bodies to buy it on the black market where there is absolutely no standard for synthesis or purity.

No, you can't use the "people will overdose" argument on this. That's what got us into the Enormously Failed War on [Some] Drugs in the first place.

It seems to me the only points here worthy of debate are the relative costs to society; because drug users and abusers have already proven they'll exist no matter what you do. So, lets look at the societal costs:

Legalization:
- Uncovered costs of Medical Care for drug overdoses

Continuing the War on Drugs:
- Uncovered costs of Medical Care for drug overdoses

- Millions (count 'em....millions) of drug users continue to be sent to prison at tax-payer expense; Millions more end up on the Welfare roles after the government seizes homes, cars and breadwinners to fund "The War"

- Billions of American dollars will continue to flow from this nation to criminal elements from Hong Kong to Paraguay

- Billions of Taxpayer Dollars will continue to flow into federal police agencies for use against.....American Taxpayers

- Gang violence will continue to grow as street gangs claim more and more "turf" as their exclusive "market"

- The Bill of Rights will continue to be seen as "relative" to the "old days" when America was ostensibly born to bucolic tranquility; and a luxury so long as we're "At War"

What happens with these debates is that some inevitably insert their personal values on others....and then agree with .gov enforcing those values at the point of a gun. That opens us up for the exact same treatment by .gov when enough of our neighbors object to our own behaviors. Simple as that for me.

Rich
 
But lemme ask you: Have you ever met one person who ever stated, "Hell, if cocaine or heroin was legal, sure I'd try it." Just one? Of course not.
Click to expand...
:confused: Yes. But I'm pretty sure that all of them eventually tried it anyways.

It seems to me the only points here worthy of debate are the relative costs to society; because drug users and abusers have already proven they'll exist no matter what you do. So, lets look at the societal costs:
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm not opposed to legalization. I think it's a great idea. Honestly, I'd like to be able to smoke a joint at a bar along with a beer but I know I can't do that and it's mighty illogical.

But when talking about recinding all drug laws in a five year trial to judge the effects of legalization, putting all the stuff on the market would lead to a massive failure of this experiment and probably leave us with laws that are worse than what we have today.
 
I can "handle" the trial legalization as long as it is taxed to the max and controled like alcohol.

I have to pay skyhigh prices for certain medications that pharmaceutical companies are making huge profits on. So,why can't the government step in and do the same?

And no,I don't use drugs,just medications prescribed because of the results of a reckless driver.
 
What makes you think that something from the ground is safer than something made in a lab?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing, I never said anything about safe. Economically affordable is more like it. It can be grown cheap, no processing lowers price and then tax it high. Make it affordable with most of the final price being the taxes levied on it.
 
I can "handle" the trial legalization as long as it is taxed to the max and controled like alcohol.

I have to pay skyhigh prices for certain medications that pharmaceutical companies are making huge profits on. So,why can't the government step in and do the same?
Click to expand...

I agree with taxing it, but I don't agree with the pharma. comparison. Private companies should be able to charge whatever they want -- they don't have an obligation to the customer to be affordable. The gov't, however, shouldn't charge more for services rendered than the people say it can -- it's obligated to do so (or so they say).

Cheers,
Wolfe.
 
Re: Tax to the max -
Bad idea. Really bad idea. I mean really really really bad idea.
Once that dog is let off it's leash there's no stopping it.
I used to think that making somt=ething legal, then taxing it to the hilt was a good idea.
Like the old adage though,,they came for my neighboor,,blah,blah, then they came for me and there was no one left..

It came and bit me in the wallet with the taxes on cigarettes.
It now costs me an additional $1500 over what it did last year to smoke.
Why? Simply because an additional $10.00 per carton of taxes was added on.
That's a 50% increase BTW.
(If they imposed a $5.00 per box tax on ammuniton,,,then doubled it on a whim would that PO anyone?)

Want to tax it to the max?
Fine - just be ready for when it comes around to you too.
Firearms and ammunition are on the list of "to be taxed to the max", make no mistake about it.....
 
Absolutely nothing, I never said anything about safe. Economically affordable is more like it. It can be grown cheap, no processing lowers price and then tax it high. Make it affordable with most of the final price being the taxes levied on it.
Click to expand...
Just because something is grown doesn't make it cheaper than processing. Besides, if I can grow a better bud than anything I could buy at Walgreens why would I bother with the latter? Not much different from growing my own tomatoes...
 
This thread is absolutely ridiculous. No... I suppose it's not the thread, so much as it is the drudge that I'm actually reading here. Shooting heroin is no different than smoking cigarrettes?? Think of the tax incentives?? Widespread, rampant use of narcotics will improve America?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

I understand if some of you simply want to play devil's advocate, for the sake of a good debate. But do you really believe this crap?? Do you really believe that legalizing crack cocaine would improve the quality of life in your neighborhood? Maybe it wouldn't affect some of you, because maybe some of you are from rural areas where your closest neighbor is over the hills and across the valley. But in much of modern America, people live in populated communities. Many of these heavy-populated communities, what we like to call cities, are already stained with the ugly effects of drug users and all the supplement crimes that follow its use. Why deepen these scars for the sake of taxes? For money? I prefer to pay higher taxes elsewhere if it means the police in my area can lock up the spank addict across the street.

While we're at it, let's also legalize prostitution and tax the AIDS infested hookers as a business entity. I'm sure there's a few of you here that would have absolutely no problem with that. YEE HAW. Good for you. But I, on the other hand, believe in the little notion of public order. These crimes are not "victimless," as is the typical categorization of the weak minded. The hooker standing down the street from here victimizes her community. The crack head psychopath who goes on a shooting spree because he feels like Superman is victimizing everyone.

"But, ZingZang, alcohol gets people really messed up and they commit crimes, too," you ask? 'UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE' is my response. You not only want to compare my Marlboro Light (even though I don't smoke) to your PCP-laced joint, but NOW you want to even compare my glass of shiraz to your needle full of harmless, gentle heroin. Gee... you ever get home late, after sweating your ass off all day at the job, plop down at your couch with the a/c blasting, and just feel like cracking open a niiiice, coooold... vile of morphine? Yeah, me neither. But, I'm sure those who do are REALLY productive members of society... right...
 
"But, ZingZang, alcohol gets people really messed up and they commit crimes, too," you ask? 'UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE' is my response. You not only want to compare my Marlboro Light (even though I don't smoke) to your PCP-laced joint, but NOW you want to even compare my glass of shiraz to your needle full of harmless, gentle heroin.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's a valid comparison, regardless of how "un-freaking-believable" you find it. The legal drug alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined, by a very large margin. You can kill yourself with a bottle of Smirnoff just as easily as with a syringe of heroin, and both are physically addictive substances. What about that comparison is so far-fetched...the fact that you can justify indulging in one, but not the other?
 
some of you are from rural areas where your closest neighbor is over the hills and across the valley. But in much of modern America, people live in populated communities. Many of these heavy-populated communities
Click to expand...

ZingZang, my opinion here is that your just repeating the anti drug hysteria that's spread by those who haven't taken an objective look at the drug problem. (much like those who think a 30 round magazine will make you go on a shooting spree).

I'm from a small island in the east coast, known as Manhattan, which has a fairly large population. I've also dealt with more drug users than most of the people on this board.
I'm convinced beyond any doubt that a) alcohol is much more dangerous, both to the user and the people around him, than any of the illegal drugs out there, and b) the majority of the problems caused by drugs are the result of them being illegal. People don't commit crimes to support a tobacco habit because tobacco doesn't cost $3000 an ounce. Nor do you have to deal with violent gangs if you want to buy a bottle of wine.

I never seen, or heard of some crackhead go on a shooting spree because he thinks he's superman. The crackhead locking himself in his room because he's too paranoid to go out is more likely scenario.

I don't disagree that taking certain drugs is a REALLY BAD IDEA, but fact is that our current laws aren't doing anything to stop people from taking them, make it difficult for those who want help to get help, and create far more problems than they solve.
 
ZingZang-
Meaning no personal insult, the only post I find ridiculous is your own; as it's laden with mischaracterization, untempered emotion and pure hyperbole.

Let's look at it:
Do you really believe that legalizing crack cocaine would improve the quality of life in your neighborhood?
Click to expand...
Who said any such thing? This is the equivalent of a Morris Dees preaching that your position on the First Amendment supports the rights of children to freely purchase full auto weapons and IED's at neighborhood basement gun shows. It's tantamount to claims by HCI that the Castle Doctrine in Florida is a thinly veiled "license to kill".

Repeal of Prohibition was fought with the same arguments and guess what: Sales of Moonshine, brewed in lead soldered radiators, disappeared as a result.....and remained illegal. What makes you think that anyone advocated legalizing kitchen brewed crack?

While we're at it, let's also legalize prostitution and tax the AIDS infested hookers as a business entity.
Click to expand...
Ummm, the "AIDS infested hookers" are already plying their trade on every street corner in this nation....just not in places like Las Vegas where prostitution is legal and regulated.

These crimes are not "victimless," as is the typical categorization of the weak minded.
Click to expand...
They are until the individual victimizes someone. To argue that A must result in B is to argue that all who imbibe in alcohol consumption should likewise be criminalized; as to your guns....well, the possession and use argument for criminalization is identical.

But, I'm sure those who do are REALLY productive members of society... right...
Click to expand...
You got me there. Let's make 'em REAL productive; let's spend $40K per year on incarceration for the crime of self destructive behavior; let's spend it for millions more, too. In fact, let's expand the doctrine to alcohol use and (my favorite) obesity.

Like I said earlier:
What happens with these debates is that some inevitably insert their personal values on others....and then agree with .gov enforcing those values at the point of a gun. That opens us up for the exact same treatment by .gov when enough of our neighbors object to our own behaviors.
Click to expand...
Rich
 
right on

Right on, rich. Again, I'm impressed with people on this forum.

Decriminalization of most drugs would be a good thing, IMO. Why jail people for possession? I don't buy the argument that by using, they are harming everyone. This is an argument without end--gun bans, dog breed bans, forced seat belt use, air bag requirements in all cars (even though they injure small drivers often), smoking bans even outdoors, etc. Where will it end?
 
You have a point pitz96...

Since when have we become a nation of "Cannot?" I thought we were a country of "Can do, will do" has American society just become a mere empty shell of what the Founding Fathers fought for? Why have we allowed our own government to lower the bar on what we can and can't do? Blame it on bleeding heart left who want to take away our guns? Blame it on imperialistic right who favor mixing government with religion? I think the problem stems from lack of compromise, we all want something, but none of us are willing to sacrafice for the greater good, or greater progression of America as a whole. This works even on the personal level, how you ask? Look at the divorce rate, surely something is wrong when society sees divorce as okay, yet makes the double standard of banning homosexual marrige. Let's not forget that when we let government dictate our personal lives, it means that we are not taking responsibility for ourselves. Democracy starts from a personal level, and spreads outwards, here's what's always bothered me (and possibly a new thread to make.) how come we are never taught as children to MEMORIZE the Constitution, we memorize math, English, etc. but we're not taught the laws that make this country so great? Kinda frightening if you think about it.


Epyon
 
Wow,
It's Ok until YOUR ox gets gored. If legalizing drugs would up the abuse level then you have to believe gun control lowers the gun crime level. You don't get it both ways.

The only entity that has as much stake in keeping drugs illegal as the drug dealers is the Gov. What would they do without using that as a boogeyman for continually eroding our rights and lining their coffers with "asset seizures"?

If you feel the only thing keeping yourself from being a junkie, is prohibition, I would suggest looking inward rather than out.
 
just not in places like Las Vegas where prostitution is legal and regulated.
Click to expand...
Just to pick a nit,,,hooking isn't legal in Vegas....
it's only regulated in Vegas to the extent of how much the hotel/casino gets in the form of a kick-back.

Take a walk from the Stratosphere down to where the strip starts sometime.

There's plenty of scuzzy disease ridden,,err,,,I mean,,,painted ladies and young men, along the way.

Legalized prostitution just outside of Las Vegas has had nill effect on the still illegal practice within Las Vegas, which florished while the legal houses went under...

Wanna dip your wick in Vegas - just ask the bartender...or pit boss...

Conversely, if there were examples of legalization gone bad, the same folks would waste no time pointing it out and saying, "See? Legalization doesn't work."
Click to expand...
Missed that one - - Alaska circa 1975.
It failed miserably.
The reasons are many and diverse as to why the experiment failed though.
Just as the reasons why the experiment in The Netherlands apppeared at first to have worked.
 
I cite the sorry state of that financial sinkhole known as "public schools"
as a good example of what easily obtainable drugs gets us. The public schools
are as bad as they are because so many students and teachers come to school stoned so little if any learning takes place. I think it is absurd to go after the tobacco companies for selling a legal product that has harmful after
and side affects and then say marijuana should be legalized when studies have shown that potheads have the same incidence of lung cancer and respiratory diseases as tobacco smokers. And I have yet to hear of tobacco
smokers "getting high" and causing fatal accidents.
 
Shades of Reefer Madness hysteria.

The public schools are as bad as they are because so many students and teachers come to school stoned so little if any learning takes place.
Click to expand...
Source as to stats and cause/effect conclusion, please.

studies have shown that potheads have the same incidence of lung cancer and respiratory diseases as tobacco smokers.
Click to expand...
Studies? Source, please. After you've provided that you can answer this: Am I to understand that you'd prefer to jail a man, at my tax expense, rather than allow him to contract lung disease on his own time?

And I have yet to hear of tobacco smokers "getting high" and causing fatal accidents.
Click to expand...
How about smoking in bed fires? How about all those supposed deaths from "secondhand cigarette smoke"? How about alcohol drinkers? Come to think of it, how about Cell Phone using Drivers? As to all those pot heads '"getting high" and causing fatal accidents.'....once again, Source, Please.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top