When people say all drugs should be legal, do they realize how wrong that is?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Congrats on avoiding the question entirely.

worlock77

Except your "actual argument" didn't have a thing to do with what I asked.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

the point was that you have a problem with people wanting to buy crack in order to party, but no problem with selling alcohol for people to "party" (aka binge drink, get drunk, "shitfaced") which is dangerous.  

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Sorry for responding to your dumb question with an actual argument instead of "yes" twice. Here I thought maybe people wanted to discuss things and perhaps actually talk about solutions and issues rather than reaffirming things even high schoolers know. Ace6301

Except your "actual argument" didn't have a thing to do with what I asked.

You didn't answer my question at all. You did not address my question at all. Perhaps the question was not dumb, but rather you are just too dumb to understand it. My question was related gang/cartel violence, not to the effects of the drugs themselves, or the socio-economic status of those who use them. I asked a question related to apples, you answered with a response about oranges.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

I'd like to know who's saying to legalize every drug

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

the point was that you have a problem with people wanting to buy crack in order to party, but no problem with selling alcohol for people to "party" (aka binge drink, get drunk, "shitfaced") which is dangerous.  

rastotm

Alcohol was banned, it was not just addicts drinking during prohibition.

and people dont start out as addicts, they start out as recreational users.... and what is wodka?

Danger is defined by the dose and the normal dose is defined by the average user. Attempting to define the normal dose of a banned product creates a skewed view of reality, as a banned product is less likely to be used for recreational purposes. Or in other words, a substance ban has a far greater impact on recreational use than it has on addictive use.
Picture the situation with alcohol as a banned product, most of the noticeable alcohol drinkers are addicts. As most addicts, they tend to drink substances high in alcohol, take wodka for example. Your view of alcohol, as a non alcohol drinker, would be based on wodka. This wodka obviously does not portray a just image of alcohol in terms of damage and effect, as a single beer bottle is significantly less problematic than a wodka bottle. The same principle applies to the recreational use of hard drugs.
The only danger that these drugs have is in their addictive properties. In which banning or not banning should have little effect on the long term. rastotm

You didn't answer my question at all. You did not address my question at all. Perhaps the question was not dumb, but rather you are just too dumb to understand it. My question was related gang/cartel violence, not to the effects of the drugs themselves, or the socio-economic status of those who use them. I asked a question related to apples, you answered with a response about oranges.

worlock77

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] I was just using that as an example, and I already admitted that my impressions of most hard drugs was largely informed by anti-drug propaganda. I'm not an expert and I've never thoroughly studied crack, I'm just operating off of what "society" has told me about it. If crack is no more dangerous than alcohol, then crack is no more dangerous than alcohol. Once someone demonstrates that to me then I'll happily admit that I was wrong about crack. Having said that, crack was just a single example in a discussion about legalizing ALL drugs. Crack might not be "too dangerous" to legalize its sale, but not all drugs are equally dangerous. As long as there exists ANY drug which is "too dangerous" to allow people to sell it, then I'd still be against legalizing the sale of ALL drugs for recreational purposes. Which drugs would be allowed and which drugs wouldn't? I don't know, but that ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis.BeardMaster

Alcohol was banned, it was not just addicts drinking during prohibition.

and people dont start out as addicts, they start out as recreational users.... and what is wodka?

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] Danger is defined by the dose and the normal dose is defined by the average user. Attempting to define the normal dose of a banned product creates a skewed view of reality, as a banned product is less likely to be used for recreational purposes. Or in other words, a substance ban has a far greater impact on recreational use than it has on addictive use.
Picture the situation with alcohol as a banned product, most of the noticeable alcohol drinkers are addicts. As most addicts, they tend to drink substances high in alcohol, take wodka for example. Your view of alcohol, as a non alcohol drinker, would be based on wodka. This wodka obviously does not portray a just image of alcohol in terms of damage and effect, as a single beer bottle is significantly less problematic than a wodka bottle. The same principle applies to the recreational use of hard drugs.
The only danger that these drugs have is in their addictive properties. In which banning or not banning should have little effect on the long term.

rastotm

Alcohol was banned, it was not just addicts drinking during prohibition.

and people dont start out as addicts, they start out as recreational users.... and what is wodka?

Alcohol was deeply ingrained in the culture at the time of it's ban and it's extremely easy to aquire the basic materials for brewing. I used alcohol as a example for clarity, I'm not referring to the US ban.

Furthermore genetics play a  definite role in addiction, so in some ways people do start out as addicts. Not to mention that many addicts actually suffer from mental illnesses and use the drugs to feel decent again. Your idea of every addict starting out as a recreational user is simply false. Many addictions start out as a result from existing problems.rastotm

I'm not sure why people want the government to be as big as it is. I mean. I can support some core responsibilities. Safety. Justice. All good. But um, Mr. President? Stay the f*ck out of my bedroom. My phone calls. My Skype logs. My IRC logs. My browser. Barry and EU? Please stay out of my personal decisions. My choices. My actions. That do not infringe upon the liberty of others. That do not violate the non aggression principle. That hurt nobody. Leave me be. Let me smoke and drink and pop and f*ck myself to death. F*ck off and leave me alone. Thanks a lot. xoxoMrPraline

[QUOTE="rastotm"]Danger is defined by the dose and the normal dose is defined by the average user. Attempting to define the normal dose of a banned product creates a skewed view of reality, as a banned product is less likely to be used for recreational purposes. Or in other words, a substance ban has a far greater impact on recreational use than it has on addictive use.
Picture the situation with alcohol as a banned product, most of the noticeable alcohol drinkers are addicts. As most addicts, they tend to drink substances high in alcohol, take wodka for example. Your view of alcohol, as a non alcohol drinker, would be based on wodka. This wodka obviously does not portray a just image of alcohol in terms of damage and effect, as a single beer bottle is significantly less problematic than a wodka bottle. The same principle applies to the recreational use of hard drugs.
The only danger that these drugs have is in their addictive properties. In which banning or not banning should have little effect on the long term. MrGeezer

Fast food should be banned.

Fast food should be banned.

The_Lipscomb

no thanks

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

Fast food should be banned.

lostrib

no thanks

I can see why, from a certain point of view, how that would be a good thing but dear god the negatives outway the pros. Sure, that would cripple the power the drug lords have over the US and hey, a super responsible well built person could enjoy some heroin every now and then and walk away problem free but for every responsible joe schmoe, you have many irresponsible sallys. People are weak, people cave in, people do things they normally wouldnt during dark times. These people, who there are many of, would be given an opportunity to simply walk to a pharmacy and pick up some meth and then ruin their lives. They would get addicted and become a wreck. Families, would break, stores would get robbed, and many would simply OD. Too many innocent lives would get lost and ruined over something like this. Do you agree? Do you disagree?

Capitan_Kid

Unless you're good friends, where do other people get off by telling others what's best for them and at the same time using force to back that up? Look, I'm not druggie and I wouldn't advocate or advise anyone to do cocaine or heroin. But I'm not gonna fine someone or throw them in jail for using a certain substance. That's morally wrong. Have a little faith in humanity in that more freedom will work out for the best in the long run.

This whole business of "oh let's ban this for the families' sake" is a con. Alcohol easily ruins more families than all of the banned drugs combined. All that this war on drugs causes is more violence. If you legalize it, then the crime goes down, and people then have a legal avenue to protect their drugs/property/rights rather than having to carry a gun and kill people in the streets.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

Fast food should be banned.

The_Lipscomb

no thanks

no thanks

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]

I can see why, from a certain point of view, how that would be a good thing but dear god the negatives outway the pros. Sure, that would cripple the power the drug lords have over the US and hey, a super responsible well built person could enjoy some heroin every now and then and walk away problem free but for every responsible joe schmoe, you have many irresponsible sallys. People are weak, people cave in, people do things they normally wouldnt during dark times. These people, who there are many of, would be given an opportunity to simply walk to a pharmacy and pick up some meth and then ruin their lives. They would get addicted and become a wreck. Families, would break, stores would get robbed, and many would simply OD. Too many innocent lives would get lost and ruined over something like this. Do you agree? Do you disagree?

Amvis

Unless you're good friends, where do other people get off by telling others what's best for them and at the same time using force to back that up? Look, I'm not druggie and I wouldn't advocate or advise anyone to do cocaine or heroin. But I'm not gonna fine someone or throw them in jail for using a certain substance. That's morally wrong. Have a little faith in humanity in that more freedom will work out for the best in the long run.

This whole business of "oh let's ban this for the families' sake" is a con. Alcohol easily ruins more families than all of the banned drugs combined. All that this war on drugs causes is more violence. If you legalize it, then the crime goes down, and people then have a legal avenue to protect their drugs/property/rights rather than having to carry a gun and kill people in the streets.

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

no thanks

lostrib

no thanks

I don't care about the other drugs man, I just want weed to be legalized. 

I know that it was about the gangs and cartels. I assume you know what happened with the cartels too, right? I'm assuming you asked the question with intention of following it up and not with the expectation that I would tell you. That's why I responded with why the two situations are different. It's a false equivalency to compare alcohol prohibition to say prohibition of meth as the two are very different drugs and the circumstances of the two are entirely different. Ace6301

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"] It's bad for your health.. I don't think we as citizens have the ability to keep it in moderation.. Needs to be banned.The_Lipscomb

no thanks

the courts beg to differ. So no thanks

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I know that it was about the gangs and cartels. I assume you know what happened with the cartels too, right? I'm assuming you asked the question with intention of following it up and not with the expectation that I would tell you. That's why I responded with why the two situations are different. It's a false equivalency to compare alcohol prohibition to say prohibition of meth as the two are very different drugs and the circumstances of the two are entirely different. worlock77

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

no thanks

lostrib

the courts beg to differ. So no thanks

You could make the exact same case for alcohol, but you probably wouldn't want that to be illegal now do you?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I know that it was about the gangs and cartels. I assume you know what happened with the cartels too, right? I'm assuming you asked the question with intention of following it up and not with the expectation that I would tell you. That's why I responded with why the two situations are different. It's a false equivalency to compare alcohol prohibition to say prohibition of meth as the two are very different drugs and the circumstances of the two are entirely different. worlock77

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I know that it was about the gangs and cartels. I assume you know what happened with the cartels too, right? I'm assuming you asked the question with intention of following it up and not with the expectation that I would tell you. That's why I responded with why the two situations are different. It's a false equivalency to compare alcohol prohibition to say prohibition of meth as the two are very different drugs and the circumstances of the two are entirely different. BeardMaster

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I know that it was about the gangs and cartels. I assume you know what happened with the cartels too, right? I'm assuming you asked the question with intention of following it up and not with the expectation that I would tell you. That's why I responded with why the two situations are different. It's a false equivalency to compare alcohol prohibition to say prohibition of meth as the two are very different drugs and the circumstances of the two are entirely different. BeardMaster

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

No, the same could not be said at all. Murder is a clear violation of liberty. It violates the victim's liberty. Injecting yourself with a needle full of heroin doesn't infringe on anyone's liberty.

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

worlock77

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

 

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

Ace6301

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

Then why are alcohol and tobacco not banned? Why are opiate painkillers prescribed and distributed for the patient to freely take whenever and however they like (rather than, say, only administered under carefully controlled clinical situations). Addiction to all three can quickly set it.

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, I asked the question with the expectation that you would address it directly. Obviously I was mistaken. The point is that alcohol prohibition in the 1920 gave rise to the mafia. Certainly the mafia existed before then, but it was fairly small bands of crooks looking to eke out an easy living for themselves rather than working in legitimate employment. Because of prohibition legitimate brewers were no longer able to manufacture or market their product and were forced scramblesustain themselves while staying within the bounds of the law. This left the manufacture and distribution of liquor to people who had no qualms with operating outside the law. This gave them a source of money (and vast quantities of it), it gave them power and it emboldened them. This turned them into a organized criminal network that soon covered the whole of the nation. And violence at the hands of the mafia was at an all-time high. Once prohibition ended legitimate companies were once again able to take control of the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol and the mafia's power and influence wained. Sure, the mafia still exists, but they've never been as powerful as they were during the 20s and 30s.

This is no different than any other drug. Outlaw them and you put control in the hands of outlaws. You put money into the hands of outlaws. You put power and influence into the hands of outlaws. Legalize them, let legitimate companies manufacture and distribute, and you take that power away from the outlaws.

worlock77

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

worlock77

Then why are alcohol and tobacco not banned? Why are opiate painkillers prescribed and distributed for the patient to freely take whenever and however they like (rather than, say, only administered under carefully controlled clinical situations). Addiction to all three can quickly set it.

perhaps opiate addiction is far stronger and more debilitating and causes a greater level of societal harm?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

worlock77

Then why are alcohol and tobacco not banned? Why are opiate painkillers prescribed and distributed for the patient to freely take whenever and however they like (rather than, say, only administered under carefully controlled clinical situations). Addiction to all three can quickly set it.

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

BeardMaster

through appropriate licencing, it is.

bad analogy, though. drugs aren't going to explode if they aren't handled properly. 

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

Jimn_tonic

through appropriate licencing, it is.

bad analogy, though. drugs aren't going to explode if they aren't handled properly. 

I dont even know why we are having this conversation; In 2001, Portugal decrimilized nearly every substance.

5 years later, a 2009 study showed that results looked promising.

12 years later, a 2013 analysis showed results look good.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

 

Same could be said of the murder for hire business. Wanna legalize that too?

BeardMaster

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

You're a big fan of the false equivalence aren't you?

You're a big fan of the false equivalence aren't you?worlock77

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

Ace6301

through appropriate licencing, it is.

bad analogy, though. drugs aren't going to explode if they aren't handled properly. 

Is that meant to be a meth lab?

Is that meant to be a meth lab?

lostrib

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Is that meant to be a meth lab?

Ace6301

Which was irrelevant to the topic at hand

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

Is that meant to be a meth lab?

lostrib

Which was irrelevant to the topic at hand

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You're a big fan of the false equivalence aren't you?Ace6301

I haven't.

lostrib's stupidity is excruciatingly painful.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You're a big fan of the false equivalence aren't you?worlock77

I haven't.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You get you've been doing that in pretty much every post with me, right?

Ace6301

I haven't.

I'm not sure you quite understand the term.

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Murder, by necessity, harms others. Drug use, in and of itself, does not. But you're bright enough to understand this I'm sure.

worlock77

So as long as something doesnt neessarily harm others, it should be legal? so i guess high powered explosives should be legally available to your average citizen?

You're a big fan of the false equivalence aren't you?

says the guy trying to compare crack rocks to alcohol. This is halrious.

my false equivalencies are made in an attempt to force you to recognize your false equivalencies, which is what your entire argument is based on. Im not sure what you think the "alcohol and tobacco are legal so all drugs should be legal" argument is, if not the spitting image of a false equivalency.