The issue was whether the reasoning that “hey, there’s no demonstrated good in making them legal, so why should you complain if they’re illegal?” is valid, and I demonstrated that it isn’t, in super crunchy comic book format.
Mexico’s War Against Drugs Kills Its Police. From just a few days ago, a nice little horror story from the NY Times about what prohibition can wreak upon a government and police force.
It works both ways, of course, but in my (limited) experience cops are more commonly affected by the selection bias involved in their daily routine than by whatever inspired the cops linked to in the OP.
Yeah, I got it, I was on your side in that tiff.
Mexico is the real front in the war on terror that we should be concerned about. The Mexican Narco-Traffickers are well assimilated in the US right now. We could crush these terrorists simply by legalizing the drugs, and yet no one is willing to do that.
Cops are like the Iraqi soldiers. They have put everything on the line and do not want to think it was all a big waste. I understand their reluctance. That is why it is good to respect those that can throw off that and make an intelligent decision.
In other words, you got nothin’.
The purpose of the debates in this Forum (aside from protecting society by keeping a bunch of loons off the streets at night) is to provide a place where people who disagreed over the reality of the straight dope (i.e., correct facts) and how those facts affect our world, can argue over what the real facts may be. When someone wanders into a thread and posts opinions that are not supported by facts, (as you are wont to do), it undermines the purpose of the Forum.
Now, you are hardly the only poster who posts their personal beliefs as though they were facts, but you are certainly the most persistent poster to interrupt threads with claims of facts that just do not exist.
That being the case, your little act of faux condescension in your statement that I quoted is teetering very near the edge of violating your prohibition to refrain from that sort of insulting language. If you are simply unable to support your claims with facts, once you have posted your beliefs, simply wander away from the threads rather than hijacking them with one more round of silliness.
In that way, you will have gotten your ideas out of your system without actually inflicting aggravation on the other posters, here.
The preceding is a suggestion.
This is not a suggestion: any further posts in which you insult some poster with a condescending remark will garner official sanctions.
[ /Moderating ]
Now, as to the following:
As Bricker observed in another context in the last day or so, a gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. Your claim, here, never happened.
There have been a few efforts in limited contexts to provide addicts with drugs. They have never been “freely given” and the programs were never large–certainly they were never national in scope in the U.S. or China.
Interestingly, the program in the United Kingdom actually had a certain amount of success before Reagan’s adminstration persuaded Thatcher’s administration to cancel the program–not because it was failing, but because having our great ally doing something that offended our more Puritanical bent embarrassed our administration.
Whether the program was really a success or a failure was never demonstrated, because it was cancelled before any serious long term studies were completed.
I don’t agree with Happy Wanderer’s list, but I do think that police agencies have a financial interest in supporting the “war on drugs.” A great deal of law-enforcement funding is premised on the need to fight the drug trade, and that funding (and the associated jobs) would be in jeopardy if the war on drugs were to end, or even if the “war” were retooled to focus on treatment rather than incarceration.
Everyone else:
Every poster wo has responded to lekatt knows his methodology of posting. Why you bother to interact with him beyond a sinlge post, I have no idea.
You know that he is going to post “history” and “science” that has never happened.
You know that he is going to refuse to acknowledge any informnation that contradicts his personal beliefs.
You know that interacting for post after post will simply hijack the thread.
You already pretty much ignore the various one-trick-posters whose only contributions to most threads are “Bush/Clinton/politician-of-your-choice is the suxxors” and posters who wander into threads claiming either “religion is evil” or “repent to be saved” and posters who jump into every political thread to claim that “the party I do not like is utterly evil and stupid.” You could make all our lives easier by simply ignoring the one-trick-poster who displays his personal beliefs on other topics. He would get to post his beliefs. You could giggle at them in the privacy of your homes or offices, and the threads could continue among serious posters who have something to contribute. You do it with other posters on other topics, why not here with this poster?
[ /Moderating ]
Tom, with all due respect, I almost never post in GD, and I had never interacted with lekatt before. Now I know better.
I see the thread has gone off-topic to be primarily about me instead of the OP due to my opposing views so I will leave it now.
Because as long as it is illegal, no one would ever smoke pot while driving. :rolleyes:
Not directed at neither you or relative, just the logic.
Right. As long as it’s illegal, everyone who uses it uses it responsibly in fear of prison time, but the instant it’s decriminalized, half the drivers on the road would immediately whip out a fat joint and start playing Grand Theft Auto in their Buicks.
I know plenty of weekend users. By weekend I mean only on the weekends - but not every weekend. Maybe 12-24 times per year, and certainly not addicted.
The program I saw said the addicted were 1 1/2 to 2 percent before the act of 1914 . It claims that it is the same now. There are a lot more users but the truly addicted are less common.
To my knowledge, there are only two successful approaches to dealing with illegal drug trade.
The first is the one advocated here. Legalize, regulate, and tax it. I would also suggest applying the proceeds of taxation to researching addiction, its treatment, and a possible cure. At the very least, create a regiment that minimizes harm by allowing drug users and drug addicts to obtain and use drugs in the safest circumstances possible. Imagine how we could re-allocate resources if we did so. The law enforcement officers currently policing drugs could instead investigate the crimes that harm non-consenting bystanders.
The second approach was the one I believe was used by China. Any person found with any amount of illegal drugs on them is immediately tried, and if convicted, executed. If you’re feeling particularly thrifty, you can bill the convicted’s family for the cost of the bullet. Be prepared for a social holocaust, though. After a generation or two, drug use will most likely dwindle to a non-significant level, and the money lost to businesses who provide law enforcement support can be recouped by mortuaries, cemetaries, and munitions manufacturers.
I cross a busy street when I walk my dogs. It is not unusual for a car to reek of weed. The rest are using cell phones.
And the cars smelling of weed are probably less dangerous…
Really, the inebriation is different from alcohol. Motor skills hold out ok, concentration and judgment take a hit, but still not as severely as with alcohol. The largest danger I see is if they fixate on something besides driving for more than a moment. If the driver consumes cannabis to the point of being sleepy, then they are about as dangerous as a tired person. Pretty damn dangerous, but not the danger that a person with a liter of gin in them usually is. Someone stoned on a cellphone, they’re probably approaching that level of dangerous.
Basically, if you had two race drivers, one required to consume alcohol, and the other having to consume cannabis until each felt they were “drunk” and “stoned”. I’d bet on the one having to consume cannabis every race. I bet, I don’t gamble. If you had a sober driver in the race, that would muddy the handicapping to the point I would not bet, but the cannabis driver still might have a chance, depending on how skilled each are. The one consuming alcohol would lose to a student driver even if he was Ayrton Senna when sober.
And alcohol is friggin legal? Needless to say, I find NajaNivea’s relative’s position baffling.