We know that’s what you’re doing. We’re trying to get you to knock it off already! Talk about this stuff the way it REALLY is and not the way you WISH it was. If it ain’t a poison, don’t call it poison!
Why couldn’t we make our own?
I think I know what you’re trying to say here: That if we legalized coke, the Columbian drug lords would start kidnapping and/or murdering Americans. Stuff like that? Wasn’t that the plot of Tom Clancy’s novel Clear and Present Danger? Decent writer, but he was WAY out on a limb with that book.
Well, let’s say we DID legalize coke and the cartels responded as I described above.
WHAT OF IT? If we gave in to that kind of blackmail, we’d be allowing THEM to dictate to US what OUR laws would be. They wouldn’t act that way because they know we’d respond in kind.
(Folks, that’s the same argument he made on the drug thread in GD I started back in October. I’ve given the same answer I did then.)
Or maybe you’re saying they’d lower their wholesale price a great deal in order to undercut the government. Well, they’d start losing money, wouldn’t they, unable to compete in the new market and unable to hire thugs and buy newer and better weapons. They’d go out of business.
Isn’t that what you want?
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
We know that’s what you’re doing. We’re trying to get you to knock it off already! Talk about this stuff the way it REALLY is and not the way you WISH it was. If it ain’t a poison, don’t call it poison!
Why couldn’t we make our own?
I think I know what you’re trying to say here: That if we legalized coke, the Columbian drug lords would start kidnapping and/or murdering Americans. Stuff like that? Wasn’t that the plot of Tom Clancy’s novel Clear and Present Danger? Decent writer, but he was WAY out on a limb with that book.
Well, let’s say we DID legalize coke and the cartels responded as I described above.
WHAT OF IT? If we gave in to that kind of blackmail, we’d be allowing THEM to dictate to US what OUR laws would be. They wouldn’t act that way because they know we’d respond in kind.
(Folks, that’s the same argument he made on the drug thread in GD I started back in October. I’ve given the same answer I did then.)
Or maybe you’re saying they’d lower their wholesale price a great deal in order to undercut the government. Well, they’d start losing money, wouldn’t they, unable to compete in the new market and unable to hire thugs and buy newer and better weapons. They’d go out of business.
Isn’t that what you want?
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
I started smokin’ a joint when I opened this folder. I read all the posts, had some pretty funny replies for some of them, but decided to wait until I was finished reading before posting. Well, needless to say I forgot what what I was going to say, so I think I’ll go check the frig for something to eat.
I started smokin’ a joint when I opened this folder. I read all the posts, had some pretty funny replies for some of them, but decided to wait until I was finished reading before posting. Well, needless to say I forgot what what I was going to say, so I think I’ll go check the frig for something to eat.
I started smokin’ a joint when I opened this folder. I read all the posts, had some pretty funny replies for some of them, but decided to wait until I was finished reading before posting. Well, needless to say I forgot what what I was going to say, so I think I’ll go check the frig for something to eat.
thanks nuvodada…i was getting all ready to back myself up, but youre one step ahead of me!
even though, this is pointless, rousseau, ive read your million posts, and you always have something to say about someones “reading comprehension” or what grade level there on. i dont know where you get off…i really dont. how can you say that i can’t read? i could go on about my intelligence, or the fact that ive been reading books since before kindergarten, but youd never believe me. and of course, thats not the point of this discussion.
ive already shared my views on this thread. since rousseau thinks im a “moron” i guess i’ll keep my mouth shut.
“I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t, i mean s-m-a-r-t”
Wow! The insults are flying!
This is all very entertaining - and appropriate, seeing as how this is the Pit - but I’m still waiting for an answer from Rousseau.
To recap: I say legalization would decrease or eliminate the costs to society of
hundreds of thousands on inmates in American jails who are there solely for drug violations - largely possession
the large cost of enforcement (police, court-appointed attourneys, etc.)
the violent crime that could be reduced if the police and the courts could focus on these instead, and
inner-city gang violence that would be reduced if the motivation (guarding drug territory) were removed.
You (Rousseau) stated that at least some of these objectives could be met without resorting to legalization of drugs. I’d like to know how.
I’ll take answers from anyone, actually. Because DARE just isn’t working.
Mike, the only thing close to that I’ve ever heard was from pldennison, who believed that the laws should stand on the book but that we should experiment with not enforcing them.
Sounded like a recipe for disaster to me, opening up possibilities for discrimination and harassment galore.
I’m in favor of decriminalization and switching the funding from law enforcement over to medical research and treatment of addiction.
Sorry that I passed on indulging you people for one lousy day. Sheesh. This thread is getting boring for me (not to mention irritating), and I would stop now, but I can see that you morons are about ready to throw some kind of victory party here. I should be man enough to walk away from this, but I have a hard time letting morons have their way.
I’ll deal with the most intelligent reformer here first:
quadell, I think the first and most logical step for easing the problems that you’ve mentioned is throwing away mandatory minimums for first (and perhaps second, at the state’s discretion) time drug offenders (by “drug offenders” I mean those nabbed for possession, not dealing). Giving more discretion to the judges so they can deal with drug offenders on a case-by-case basis, and making therapy an alternative to prison, can more effectively help people with drug problems, as well as saving the tax payers a load of cash. It worked in Arizona (“Prop 22” or “23” I believe). I think we should also redouble our efforts to beat the living shit out of those South American drug lords.
I have done so on more than one occasion.
You are equating today’s drug cartels with prohibition bootleggers? Mother of Mercy, why do I waste my time with you?
For a second there I forgot that I was dealing with someone incapable of drawing conclusions on their own. In suburban situations, kids use the money they make from their part-time jobs to buy drugs for parties at their parents’ houses. A few O.D. and the town goes nuts. In the inner city, drugs perpetuate and exacerbate the already-existing poverty and crime problems.
Yeah, go ahead and plant some cocoa beans in your garden. See how well you do.
I’m not. I’m just pointing out to people that it’s the height of naivete to believe that these guys are just going to give up.
Ah, right, too smart for silly things like capitalization and punctuation. Smart like bj0rn, right?
And, incidentally, they’d all been “shared” before.
I am “sheer logic,” baby. I know that the leftist media coddles you to believe that you are some kind of independent thinker, a pillar of logic in a world overrun by “sheep.” But you’re really just rehashing the views that the media has taught you, as a “young, independent-thinking reformer genius,” to hold. Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass, get over your liberal dogma, and just consider for one moment that maybe, just maybe, the government is right about this.
And that’s all I have to say on this topic.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
You probably will hate me for pointing out the irony here, Rousseau, but the text above can best be described as conservatist dogma regarding liberals. I’m sorry, but you will lose every damn argument on this board when you start making these wide generalisations. People in this thread have posted various opinions, from the “all drugs are bad” point of view to the “legalize everything, it’s our own damn choice”. If I were to condemn certain posters in this thread (and I am not, this is for arguments’ sake) of spewing dogmas of whatever sort, I’m afraid the blame would be entirely on the “ban all drugs” side.
That is, if you an I agree on this particular definition of dogma: the unverified spreading of information without individual knowledge of a particular situation or topic.
But let’s test that sheer logic factor of yours. You mention that your government is actually right about banning all drugs, and that we (being the pro-legalisation camp) should just consider believing that for a change. Let’s assume you’re right about it, and all drugs should be kept illegal.
That would mean that my government (the Dutch, for those not in the know) has been carrying out the wrong policy for the last 25, 30 years.
As a test of logic, explain to me, ceteris paribus, why the following facts are undeniably true:
Even proportionally, there are a lot less drug related crimes in the Netherlands than there are in the U.S.;
The battle against the import and trade of hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack and the like) is far more effective in the Netherlands than it is in the U.S. (from a monetary and a criminal point of view);
Even proportionally, the Netherlands has far less drug addicts than the U.S.
Of course there are countless other factors to take into account (average income, demographic spread of the population across social classes and maybe even race groups [don’t take this as racist, I’m just trying to take things into the equation], urbanisation, education, unemployment rates, et ectera, ad infinitum), but in this case, logic and the ceteris paribus tag will forbid you to address them. Surely, if your opinion (that the U.S. government is right in keeping all drugs illegal) is absolutely watertight and correct, you will have no problem in finding the right and convincing words to tell me and every other liberal sheep in this thread exactly why that is so, with reasons regarding the applied policy in the U.S. vs. The Netherlands, and those policies only, even taking the above listed FACTS into account.
Baffle us with you logic, Rousseau.
Seriously, mate. I think you’re a very, very smart guy - especially when taking your age into account. And you are by all means entitled to your own opinion. The problem is, that a government addapting that same opinion means the restriction of a harmless choice for some of its citizens.
Rousseau, the Netherlands is hardly a lab experiment. This policy has been in place for years, and it has proven its worth for everybody involved. Even the most conservative right wing uptight Dutch member of the House of Commons will admit to that.
Is it a policy that can be implemented in a lot of countries. Not all countries: the country would have to be one where people are used to making their own decisions, accepting and bearing the consequences, and are obliged by law not to mess with anyone else’s privileges and rights.
I’m sure you’ll agree that the United States of America is a country that fits that description.
Coldfire Likely Voted to Poster Most Drunk
WallyM7 on Coldfire: "Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
Rousseau, would you stop switching the argument from marijuana to cocaine everytime it’s more convenient. Much of this thread has been devoted to the legalization of marijuana. And yet, you talk about growing coca in your backyard and Colombian drug cartels. These offer no reason to ban marijuana. Marijuana is grown in the United States and AFAIK, it’s production is not controlled by any sort of cartels. Putting cocaine aside, what reasons are there for banning marijuana?
That it’s a gateway drug? Generally contradicted by any study that’s been done.
That our children will think that drugs are OK? If we say that marijuana is OK, how does that imply that heroin is OK? First, teenagers seem to generally think that marijuana is OK already. If we stop lumping it in the same category as hard drugs, wouldn’t that send the message that marijuana, like alcohol, and unlike heroin or cocaine, is OK?
That it’s lethal poison? Which would kinda require that someone, at some point, died from marijuana. Which hasn’t happened, ever.
That smoking and driving is dangerous? If doing something is dangerous if you are high, it should be illegal to do that thing when high. Taking away my rights because of what some morons do is simply wrong.
So, could you please justify making marijuana illegal to us. While I personally am in favor of all drugs being legal, that’s due to being a fairly avid libertarian, which is another discussion. Let’s keep this one focused on pot. OK?
Hoo, boy! Liberal media? You’ve been reading too much of that spoonfed pap by Wildmon and Falwell. You can, of course, point to an accurate census of drug stories in “the media” with a genuine count of how many stories were pro and how many were anti? You can describe the exact pro-drug editorial bias in each of the major news outlets?
You’re blowing your cover, here. Assigning the blame to the liberal media (I’m still giggling over that one) is not making you look anything like pure logic, it does, however, make you look like one of the many whiners who would rather blame evil, uncontrolled powers for the world’s ills than look at the actual events that occur.
(FTR, there are a number of areas in which “the media” has shown a fairly consistent liberal bias. These generally take the form of “individual rights” issues such as racism, sexism, sexual orientation, etc. On the other hand, “the media” has clearly been shown to have a conservative bias when dealing with the military and a great many economic issues. However, most of the time, “the media” is simply on the side of what story is the most sensationalist and will sell the best, regardless of viewpoint. And I’m sure that you will get letters, soon, from the lawyers of William F. Buckley and several of his companions in regards to accusimg him of being a part of the “liberal” media.)
Why is that an invalid comparision? During alcohol prohibition there was a sharp rise in organized criminal activity due to the government outlawing a popular substance. Same with drugs today. Yes, there are minor differences, but you’re not looking at the big picture.
Every time someone compares the U.S. drug war to ANYTHING, you proclaim the situations incomparable for rather dubious reasons, switching your focus back and forth between hard and soft drugs whenever convenient. Dutch soft drug policy is sucessful. U.S. policy has proven to be a waste of time, money, resources, and jail space. Free the potheads and let anyone grow pot, thereby eliminating the violent crime associated with high level pot dealers.
You’re suggesting heroin addiction can be supported by a part time job and reserved for use at parties? Have I got news for you, kiddo. A heroin addiction can cost upwards of $100,000 a year in drug war America. What do addicts do to support such an expensive habit? They rob people in Plano just like they rob people in the hood. Maybe it’s a few forged checks from mom instead of holding up a liquor store. Doesn’t matter. No matter what its form, prohibition-related crime occurs in every place that has a prohibition policy!
Prescribe drugs for addicts, like they do with heroin in England. If heroin was free, the heroin dealers would go out of business. The money that would have been spent incarcerating the dealer and the user can be spent on more heroin for the addicts, rehab if they want to try to get off the heroin, and honest education so fewer people get hooked on the stuff in the first place. Presto! No drug-related crime! One less way for gangs to make money! Proven effective! So what the hell is the problem?
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
