No. Alcohol is more lethal than marijuana yet the former is legal while the latter is not. What makes you think legalizing other drugs would be some kind of requirement?
Because the heart of the argument here is about
wanting to legalize drugs. Not what is already legal and what isn't. If America went along with it, what would be the point of legalizing pot but not cocaine. You'd have the potheads cheering and cokeheads booing. The people for crack can make the same arguments that those for pot can. It's like guns, generally most members here would like all guns legalized. Many are not happy with the current standing of semi-autos being legal yet full auto's requiring a lot of red tape and application fee bs.
I'm not denying that the war on drugs is a failure. Already said as much. And yes, putting the issue side by side with our fight against anti's does put it in a different light and perspective I didn't consider before.
So why don't we outlaw motorcycles? I don't care who rides them but I don't want to pay for the idiocy of bikers that don't wear helmets. Sound good?
Ok, good point. So I would propose that if we legalize drugs, then we also enable taxpayers to choose exactly what their tax money is spent on. I'm not sure who does make that decision, but that would resolve my concern as far as the tax issue. As well as granting another freedom.
What do you do each day about the way your taxes are being misused right now,
What are you doing right now about getting drugs legalized? Is it a requirement for being able to post your beliefs here that you must be part of some movement or lobbying group? I'm expressing my views same as everyone else here, doesn't mean I have to pick up and go push those views in Washington. But, if there is somewhere I can vote or someone I can write to to try to change the tax laws, then I would appreciate the info. Thanks for asking.
You may be paying for some coked up junkie walking into traffic but you're also not paying for the gang members that got shot up fighting over two blocks of downtown.
How so, the same police, ems, and coroner personnel investigate both incidents. All are paid for through taxes.
Just because you don't trust some of your neighbors to use their freedom wisely does not give you the right to support requiring *me* to sign a goddamn log every time I buy Sudafed. If you support such nonsense, then I don't ever want to hear another peep out of you about having to fill out 4473s or ammo logs, or asking for permission to carry a weapon.
Take a deep breath. Civil argument, such as that being made by leadcouncil, antipitas, and redworm, even though I may not like being made to see my errors in judgement, will enable me to see your side, and point of the debate. Cursing, especially from a staff member, and especially that particular word, won't. You've never heard a "peep" from me regarding 4473's. I've never had a problem filling one out. I think an instant check is a good thing when it comes to weapon sales. And I've never had to fill out an ammo log.
As for asking to carry a weapon. I've never had to ask to carry a weapon. I had to ask to conceal it yes. Which is a form of gun control, which is wrong. But Zurich didn't just legalize drugs no holds barred. They came up with drug control in the form of regulated doses, rehab, and safe houses. Because they recognize that drugs are bad for people and an epidemic. Since guns aren't an epidemic or bad for people, though some people use them in bad ways, I don't see how you can argue the point for one issue without lending merit to the other. So through control and education, according to 2nd Amendment's link, Zurich is trying to eliminate the problem. So are you arguing that gun control is wrong while drug control is right? If you want to fix the country through legalization, like Zurich, it would have to be regulated, which includes rehab. I'm not sure if this says the same thing as the brady bunch, and I don't stand with them on anything, but if you throw guns into the same context as drugs in regards to control, it gives the brady bunch more ammo. If we can legalize yet control drugs to eventually do away with them, why not guns? We may be able to differentiate between the two, but they won't. So how do you propose getting around this? I hope this came out clearly, I'm not sure if I wrote it accurately enough to get my question across.
It's no secret that hard drugs are dangerous. However, MUCH of that danger comes from the illegal importation, sale, purchase, possession, and impuritities inherent in the drugs, and the violence associated with buying and selling, prostituting oneself for drug money, and associated crime to steal or rob for drug money (which just doesn't happen much for inexpensive drugs like booze or smokes).
The best way to fight it is through education.
I understand much of the danger comes from all that. But there is also danger in that the more people use hard drugs like crack and heroin, the more brain damaged they become. Without your brain, how are you going to make good decisions. Now maybe legalization will work for marijuana. Maybe pot doesn't hurt the brain anymore than tobacco does, I don't know, I'm not a doctor. But I'm willing to bet that crack does.
So please, someone explain to me what the long and short term effects of tobacco, marijuana, and crack are on a person, and how fast these effects come about respectively. I understand the political point you are all trying to make. And yes, I will agree that you can't trample one freedom and uphold another. I apologize for my ignorance on that point. But you cannot argue for one drug while not doing so for the others, because we can't argue for one gun type while not arguing for all the others can we?
Much like police pursuits, they are falling out of favor because they are so dangerous. In Denver there have been several no knocks that resulting in the police at the wrong address and shooting and killing an innocent homeowner.
That is a terrible thing indeed.
Yes it is a very tragic thing. It sounds like someone didn't do their job right. What alternative are they are employing to collect evidence and make cases? Calling ahead to verify the address so the police can do a raid is counterproductive. With a little more carefull planning and research, tragedies like this would not happen. Regardless of the type of offense. Better training and management is the solution for that problem, not barring cops from an effective tool, that works most of the time, to collect evidence against real criminals.
So, while I understand how drug laws punish people who might commit crimes, just like gun laws punish people who might commit crimes. Owning a gun and doing drugs don't have the same effect on people. For the most part, doing drugs changes how someone acts, and thinks. For the most part, owning a gun does not. Maybe marijuana has a less detrimental effect than other drugs, so maybe it can be used with more common sense and safety. But one type of gun is essentially the same as another. They do the same basic thing for everyone. It is true that some people who get ahold of a gun, think it makes them more powerfull or tougher thus leading to decisions that aren't clearly thought out. That is due to a lack of immaturity. This attitude can be controlled though. When some people are under the influence, it changes how their brain functions, thus making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to think clearly about, and control what they are doing.
No. Alcohol is more lethal than marijuana yet the former is legal while the latter is not. What makes you think legalizing other drugs would be some kind of requirement?
.