Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Walrus

Drug Legalization

Recommended Posts

Walrus    0

Drug Legalization

• Significant tax reduction (50% of all persons in jail are completely non-violent drug offenders).

• Lower crime (street gangs lose their number one source of income, in addition to the technical aspect of drug offenders no longer being criminals).

• Harder for teenagers below eighteen to get drugs (drug dealers want your thirteen or fourteen year old addicted to heroin, the gas station attendants and the liquor store attendants don't).

• Easier to treat addicts (addicts have a higher tendency to admit their problem when it is legal).

• Taxing the drugs would bring in billions of dollars of revenue for the state.

• War on Drugs only leading to more street gangs, more addicts, and more criminals.

What is your stance on drug legalization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34759

I'm strongly internally divided, especailly if you remove the nation-centric perspective. People who jump all over the US constitution tend to lose some credibility when you look at this internationally.

Essentially I agree with most of your points, but I still have a fundamental issue with state-sanctioned solicitation of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OraCLe    21

My body, my choice on whether or not to use drugs.

Same argument for a woman's right to abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walrus    0
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

But my points are. I didn't put that on their for a reason, even though that point alone should be sufficient.

@rei : But banning the drugs does nothing except create street gangs and create more junkies. There's also the case of lower drug use in The Netherlands that may be a result of getting rid of the mindset of "it's illegal so it must be great" or any deviation of that, but that cannot be proven so I did not put that in their either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Endless    333

You can buy enough alcohol and advil to kill you this thread is stupid and your all fucking stupid for keeping this thread open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OraCLe    21
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

What if said drugs cause you to lose your inhibitions and do something that hurt someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D'Haiti    4

this is why we have rape and dd laws on the books

edit: i have to disagree with a point of the op's. i really doubt that legalization will put more addicts in rehab. i really doubt that many addicts fear jail in general, and you're not gonna be arrested for going to betty ford. if anything, addicts could very well expand their tastes as it wouldn't be a black market system for much longer after a drug's legalization. it'd be a legitimately taxed market that's open to the majority public (or it could be for 21 and older if it came to that). if anything, legalization could affirm an addict's addiction: he/she has another reason to not quit (it's no longer illegal).

while i agree with drug legalization, the real reason we're not getting drug legalization is because no big corporation(s) has taken a sizable interest on said illegal drug. if we're not making money off it, it's not going to be sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OraCLe    21
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

What if said drugs cause you to lose your inhibitions and do something that hurt someone else.

Then that action in question is punished? Lol? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grandpa    0

listen, the government can't tel you what to do, its simple as that

they can tell you how fast to drive, or to pay taxes

but if you want to smoke weed, they can't stop you

its simple as that

now, COULD america pull off legalizing drugs, im sure we could

would it be a struggle, yes

will it ever pass, no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Col. Star    36

The government can tell you to wear a seat belt. Drugs ought to be monitored, yet legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

What if said drugs cause you to lose your inhibitions and do something that hurt someone else.

Then that action in question is punished? Lol? Seriously?

I'm just saying, there has to be some limit.

I'm not saying everything has to be banned or w/e, but there should be limitations, like on Alchohol, cigarattes etc.

There are also some drugs that are just REALLY dangerous, like PCP. IMO there should be a limit to what drugs are not restricted. Just for the safety of people in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walrus    0
The government can tell you to wear a seat belt. Drugs ought to be monitored, yet legal.

Yeah I messed up on my wording. I should have put regulation, not legalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Ryu    2416

grandpa you live in jenks? i used to live in miami, OK, do you know where that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OraCLe    21
'My body, my choice' isn't a sufficent argument.

Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

What if said drugs cause you to lose your inhibitions and do something that hurt someone else.

Then that action in question is punished? Lol? Seriously?

I'm just saying, there has to be some limit.

I'm not saying everything has to be banned or w/e, but there should be limitations, like on Alchohol, cigarattes etc.

There are also some drugs that are just REALLY dangerous, like PCP. IMO there should be a limit to what drugs are not restricted. Just for the safety of people in general.

=[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SixShooter    0
Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

No and no political position has acknowledged that.

Also once again, I can murder under your premise without judical consequence seeing as it is a jurisdiction of my body to which no entity can infringe on.

Also to accept that position society in itself has no premise in providing you with health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walrus    0
Yes it is... Nobody has jurisdiction over my body but me.

No and no political position has acknowledged that.

Also once again, I can murder under your premise without judical consequence seeing as it is a jurisdiction of my body to which no entity can infringe on.

Also to accept that position society in itself has no premise in providing you with health care.

Except banning the drugs has only lead to increasing numbers and no actual discussion on how awful they are.

If you're pro-War on Drugs, you're an idiot. Period.

EDIT : Also, murder infringes on another persons freedom of their body, and the "reasoning" for drugs being illegal is that people taking it are harming themselves, thus the government has to step in and stop them. Which is infringing on personal freedoms, and also doesn't stop any drug users significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some drugs should remain illegal because they infringe on others personal safety.

If a person wants to hurt themself, fine, thats one thing.

I am fine with removing the ban on some of the less dangerous drugs, ones that do not so much cause people to hurt others, like Marijuana. However driving while impaired can infringe upon the right of safety of others. Hence why I believe that the less dangerous drugs should not be entirely banned, but they should still be regulated to some extent, like alchohol and cigarettes.

Also some drugs cause some people to act violently towards others, and when people are on these drugs, they can be very hard to stop. Case in point, PCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sykotic   
Guest Sykotic
Some drugs should remain illegal because they infringe on others personal safety.

If a person wants to hurt themself, fine, thats one thing.

I am fine with removing the ban on some of the less dangerous drugs, ones that do not so much cause people to hurt others, like Marijuana. However driving while impaired can infringe upon the right of safety of others. Hence why I believe that the less dangerous drugs should not be entirely banned, but they should still be regulated to some extent, like alchohol and cigarettes.

Also some drugs cause some people to act violently towards others, and when people are on these drugs, they can be very hard to stop. Case in point, PCP.

Alcohol is more dangerous to both the user and other people than a majority of illicit drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some drugs should remain illegal because they infringe on others personal safety.

If a person wants to hurt themself, fine, thats one thing.

I am fine with removing the ban on some of the less dangerous drugs, ones that do not so much cause people to hurt others, like Marijuana. However driving while impaired can infringe upon the right of safety of others. Hence why I believe that the less dangerous drugs should not be entirely banned, but they should still be regulated to some extent, like alchohol and cigarettes.

Also some drugs cause some people to act violently towards others, and when people are on these drugs, they can be very hard to stop. Case in point, PCP.

Alcohol is more dangerous to both the user and other people than a majority of illicit drugs.

A majority perhaps, but not all of them.

My point is simply that we shouldn't lift the ban on every single drug, it should be a case by case basis, and it should be regulated along the lines of alchohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walrus    0
Some drugs should remain illegal because they infringe on others personal safety.

If a person wants to hurt themself, fine, thats one thing.

I am fine with removing the ban on some of the less dangerous drugs, ones that do not so much cause people to hurt others, like Marijuana. However driving while impaired can infringe upon the right of safety of others. Hence why I believe that the less dangerous drugs should not be entirely banned, but they should still be regulated to some extent, like alchohol and cigarettes.

Also some drugs cause some people to act violently towards others, and when people are on these drugs, they can be very hard to stop. Case in point, PCP.

Alcohol is more dangerous to both the user and other people than a majority of illicit drugs.

A majority perhaps, but not all of them.

My point is simply that we shouldn't lift the ban on every single drug, it should be a case by case basis, and it should be regulated along the lines of alchohol.

Except regulating the "dangerous" drugs such as PCP would not waste a ridiculous amount of money and allow freer education surrounding the subject, as opposed to "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW YOU FILTHY CRIMINAL".

I would never, ever, even experiment with PCP. However, banning the substance does nothing towards stopping it and only causes more deaths and addiction.

Anyone who would buy government or pharmaceutical manufactured PCP would buy it from a dealer, regardless of its status on the DEAs controlled substance list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SixShooter    0
Except banning the drugs has only lead to increasing numbers and no actual discussion on how awful they are.

The ban is a result of that discussion having been made. When B becomes of A, you cannot arrive at B without A. All attempts at removing illicit drugs from the system is a result of an established discussion which has found them to be damaging.

This itself arrives at Marijuana whose illegality is aligned to the conception of alcohol and why it remains legal. This conception is easily dealt with; both have a net negative impact on society. Yet because alcohol is fundamentally attached to the recreational sphere of our daily lifes as a social WHOLE, it will not be removed because it is seen as normalcy. Marijuana doesn't enjoy this same space because it resides within a minority upon the recreational sphere of our social whole and is unacceptable at many levels.

As opposed to both I believe in the demotion of alcohol's position as such.

If you're pro-War on Drugs, you're an idiot. Period.

Not sure how specific you are being with this comment. I'll treat it as Ronald Reagen's proclamation and agree.

EDIT : Also, murder infringes on another persons freedom of their body, and the "reasoning" for drugs being illegal is that people taking it are harming themselves, thus the government has to step in and stop them. Which is infringing on personal freedoms, and also doesn't stop any drug users significantly.

I wasn't sure which direction to take this but I'll defend the position of the welfare state instead of opting for why illicit drugs negatively impact upon citizen's rights as a collective whole in their pursuit for private interests.

You cannot and will not accept a position of complete freedom of body within a welfare state, a state of liberalism in which you are positioned. Nor can you argue against it because you cannot provide an alternative.

Except regulating the "dangerous" drugs such as PCP would not waste a ridiculous amount of money and allow freer education surrounding the subject, as opposed to "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW YOU FILTHY CRIMINAL".

You tout your knowledge of the subject while making the point that access to education concerning the subject is limited because it is illegal. Which way do you want it?

The problem with legalization remains in an act of promotion being had alongside such an action. For example the difference in drinking age and as a result the acceptance of drinking in Australia and America is 18 and 21 respectively. So as for now it is seen within an American society that drinking under the age of 21 is incorrect; an illegality. Yet in contrast the position is the opposite in Australia for the years leading up to such an age, from 18 onwards, displaying a difference in opinion on the same issue from much the same position.

One position remains correct between the two, as to which a great deal of research would need to be done so I don't have to answer such a question, and therefore one country is at fault with the issue but cannot see this fault within itself for it does not fault itself on issues of legality or else it wouldn't be a position of legality (you cannot exercise a component of the law if its incorrect because the intent of the law is to imply what is correct). Yet because the contrasting position of American / Australia society deems their positions on the subject of the age of legal drinking and one of them has to be incorrect, the only explanation remains that internally a position of fault is accepted as otherwise as by acceptance from individual citizens as majority (or a political position of majority).

Now to the point I wish to make with the legalization of Marijuana. The problem in doing so is it would create this internal dynamic of shifting a position of fault to otherwise and therefore promoting its position to the point it's almost irreversable, as is the acceptance of alcohol.

It is this position that ultimately eclipses any proposed idea of legalization as to reduce crime caused by its illegality! You cannot have legalization without demoting the use of illegal drugs at the same time. Until such a contradiction can be solved legalization cannot be mobolized!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaet0n    0

i say legalize drugs !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×