Should Prostitution Be Legalized?

[Sayonara]

Blike:

 

"I don't believe you're stupid enough..." etc was for fafalone.

Faf does not need to have said anything about the media for me to bring up the subject. His dismissal of the point with "Who said anything about the media..." and a lack of any further consideration infers that he does not believe the effect worth mentioning, whether he wants to discuss it further or not, which is clearly a fallacy since the legalisation of drugs by an administration would be an absolute media circus that will affect the outcome of legislation and political directive.

 

 

Thread:

 

The argument for legalisation of drugs so far in this thread is nothing more than one big hole surrounded by a thin strip of reasoning.

 

Yes, legalisation will through necessity bring about government-sanctioned supplies which will be of a higher standard than those found currently on the streets.

This does not mean that street supplies will magically disappear. Theoretically the problem could get worse:

 

* Street suppliers can undercut the government by providing an impure supply, with no cost due to changes of methods.

 

* The government can either expend exactly the same amount of money dealing with illicit suppliers AND the extra legal costs of setting precedent for dealing with these people without the facility of having the law on their side in terms of prosecuting for possession, or they can drop the cost of legally obtained drugs which will no doubt mean further costs to the tax-payer since they are purer and will require more advanced refinement technologies.

 

* Survival of street suppliers in an environment where making a sale is potentially more difficult means adaptation. As we know, adaptations to hostile environments are usually extreme. I'm thinking this will probably mean increased violent crime, but thankfully one might reasonably expect that to be between drug barons and dealers so frankly 'who cares', as long as they keep the collateral damage down to a minimum.

 

* People who are already involved in a life of crime that began as a means of funding their habits are not likely to suddenly and magically be able to afford drugs with 'clean' money just because they are legally obtainable.

 

* People who are developing a drug habit - whether using legally obtained drugs or not - are not affected by whether the actual acquisition of the drugs themselves is a legal transaction if it is necessary for them to turn to crime in order to feed their habit.

 

* "It's not illegal so people won't bother to do it" sounds like a great plan. Let's make theft, rape and murder legal too, then they won't be 'cool' any more and only the hard core posse will commit these crimes.

[blike]

good points

[fafalone]

Your reasoning is a weak rebuttal that while on the surface seems plausible ultimately gives way to more sound logic.

 

-Streets suppliers would undercut the government? While the black market certainly exists for a variety of products, its unlikely to be a large effect for drugs, which are generally cheap to produce. Furthermore, why don't street suppliers undercut alcohol and tobacco sales? In rare circumstances they do, but it's certainly not common. If the currently illegal drugs were in the same class as currently legal drugs, there's no reason to believe there would be a larger black market for them. Consider the market for illegally obtained prescription drugs: While it's possible for dealers to synthesize them on their own, virtually all prescription drugs are menufactured by pharmaceuticals. Independent suppliers cannot undercut major corporations... come on now, this is a introductory economics idea.

 

-The government would be regulating production, not producing drugs itself. Duh? The finanical burden would be limited because the number of illicit suppliers would be limited. Furthermore, small-time jobs supplying the drugs would be legal, as it is with currently unscheduled drugs that are not under patents. Your reasoning simply ignores why there's no black market for legal substances now.

 

-I'll refer you to the example of prohibition. Violent crime spiked when alcohol was made illegal. Unregulated distribution chains inexorably result in violence, and putting these chains out of business would logically reduce violence, and this is not an unprecedented remark. The major dealers and suppliers would more likely go to another country where drugs are still illegal, quit the business altogether, or join a corporate distribution chain... all three of these outcomes are far more likely than starting cartel wars. Again, your logic is fatally flawed.

 

-People who are living a life of crime to fund their habit will be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Way to ignore that point. While it's true not 100% would seek help, looking into the future it would result in a long-term reduction of drug related crimes.

 

-People are less likely to use drugs if they are legal. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the psychology PhDs who did the studies. Who are you to assume your logic is superior to psychologists who dedicate years to their lives completing these studies. I'll take their word for it over yours any day. Apparently you missed out on the principle of wanting what is forbidden in introductory psychology class.

 

-This last point is blatant ignorance. I'm shocked and appalled at this cretinistic display. Rape, murder, etc all cause physical harm to a non-consenting individual, while drug legalization would result in the reduction of harm to the vast majority of individuals.

 

And in conclusion, media support would be a prerequisite to political support, because the way our political system is strucutured it would be political suicide for a lawmaker to introduce such a law without media support. Too many people work with the weak assumptions of the ignorant.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post

#53:

-Streets suppliers would undercut the government? While the black market certainly exists for a variety of products, its unlikely to be a large effect for drugs, which are generally cheap to produce. Furthermore, why don't street suppliers undercut alcohol and tobacco sales? In rare circumstances they do, but it's certainly not common.... Independent suppliers cannot undercut major corporations... come on now, this is a introductory economics idea.

I can't comment on your utopian, godly society but here in the UK cigarettes are sold illegally by the million every month because it's cheaper to take a trip to Amsterdam and buy 2000 than it is to buy them here. I accept that this is going to be less of a problem in countries where fags - for example - are cheaper. The cost of 20 is now approaching £5.00 in the UK (a crime in itself).

The comparison ultimately falls down because people supplying cigarettes have either bought them outside the country or stolen them from a supplier/distributer. Production cost: Zero.

 

-The government would be regulating production, not producing drugs itself. Duh? The finanical burden would be limited because the number of illicit suppliers would be limited. Furthermore, small-time jobs supplying the drugs would be legal, as it is with currently unscheduled drugs that are not under patents. Your reasoning simply ignores why there's no black market for legal substances now.

There is a black market for all sorts of things, knock-off Gucci handbags and Rolexes for instance. The fact that pharmaceuticals with closely guarded formulas and expensive, proprietary manufacturing techniques are more expensive to produce than crack or heroine is neither here nor there.

What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'. This is worlds away from legalising use. Do you honestly think that "legalising drugs" would spur a sudden group decision on the part of drugs producers to start trusting the government and carrying out business with the same people who have been trying to shoot them dead for decades? "Duh" indeed.

 

-I'll refer you to the example of prohibition. Violent crime

spiked when alcohol was made illegal... Again, your logic is fatally

flawed.

Yes, I'm so embarrassed. What a great example. As we all know kids, when prohibition was repealed violent crimes related to alcohol just vanished overnight and have never returned to the US of A. Score one for US.gov!

 

-People who are living a life of crime to fund their habit will be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Way to ignore that point. While it's true not 100% would seek help, looking into the future it would result in a long-term reduction of drug related crimes.

People who have committed crimes to feed their addiction will still be charged with the crimes they have committed. Hello?

What sort of an idiot is going to declare "drugs-related crime amnesty for all users!" and expect a quiet weekend?

The concept of 'seeking help' only actually appeals to a minimum of users in this situation regardless. And let's not forget there will always be people hooked on drugs who cannot pay for them - no matter where the drugs come from, and with new members joining the club every day.

 

-People are less likely to use drugs if they are legal. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the psychology PhDs who did the studies. Who are you to assume your logic is superior to psychologists who dedicate years to their lives completing these studies. I'll take their word for it over yours any day. Apparently you missed out on the principle of wanting what is forbidden in introductory psychology class.

I don't assume that my logic is better. I have no interest in disputing those studies. What I ridicule is the act of using that as the basis of an entire argument without giving due consideration to the other factors, and speculation as to how the rest of the system will adapt if it has that to hang off of.

 

This last point is blatant ignorance. I'm shocked and appalled at this cretinistic display. Rape, murder, etc all cause physical harm to a non-consenting individual, while drug legalization would result in the reduction of harm to the vast majority of individuals.

If you use sardony to illustrate a point, it's "ok" - but if I do it it's "ignorance and a cretinistic display"? I don't think so.

That point was so loaded as to be quite obviously not the product of ignorance. You may also want to look up 'cretin' as you seem to be using it a lot against users (and does that makes me laugh when you tell the mods you want this forum to look professional) despite the low probability that they are all suffering from cretinism. If you want to offend my intelligence, 'fool' will suffice.

Stop throwing your weight about. "I am right and anyone who disagrees will be crushed" is not good enough reason to actively quash any chance of participation in a discussion (even if the discussion is way off topic).

 

Your second proposal there does not make any logical comparison.

 

And in conclusion, media support would be a prerequisite to political support, because the way our political system is strucutured it would be political suicide for a lawmaker to introduce such a law without media support. Too many people work with the weak assumptions of the ignorant.

*Sigh*

 

I said that "reported use would drop" referring to the old principle of "if we don't call this a crime any more, then it won't officially be happening as we only count crimes". The relevance of the media to this is obvious.

[Dudde]

wow , you guys are getting into this...

 

doing survey's on drug use has nothing to do with it being a crime or not

if people aren't afraid to be prosecuted for using drugs, they will most likely be more truthful in a survey to begin with. This would gain more accurate results for drug use; granted, not even the larger percentage who don't admit it now would change their minds, but some would;)

 

everybody stop calling each other croutons, that's just low.

Besides, name calling isn't really debating is it;) Starting to sound like a lot of politicians we are

[matter]

I know you can't make death threats or scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, but saying something like "I do drugs" isnt breaking any law I would assume. If you're just saying it, and not possessing anything, they have no proof if you do or don't. You could have fun and say it even if you don't do drugs. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. Maybe it's not free speech, and more of just a bratty thing to do. Either way you don't really have to fear prosecution.

[fafalone]

Sayonara³ said in post #54 :

I can't comment on your utopian, godly society but here in the UK cigarettes are sold illegally by the million every month because it's cheaper to take a trip to Amsterdam and buy 2000 than it is to buy them here. I accept that this is going to be less of a problem in countries where fags - for example - are cheaper. The cost of 20 is now approaching £5.00 in the UK (a crime in itself).

The comparison ultimately falls down because people supplying cigarettes have either bought them outside the country or stolen them from a supplier/distributer. Production cost: Zero.

The United States does not work like this. We have very few illegal cigarettes around. That's a simple fact.

 

 

There is a black market for all sorts of things, knock-off Gucci handbags and Rolexes for instance. The fact that pharmaceuticals with closely guarded formulas and expensive, proprietary manufacturing techniques are more expensive to produce than crack or heroine is neither here nor there.

What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'. This is worlds away from legalising use. Do you honestly think that "legalising drugs" would spur a sudden group decision on the part of drugs producers to start trusting the government and carrying out business with the same people who have been trying to shoot them dead for decades? "Duh" indeed.

The distribution chain would shift to existing corporations. This is not an issue.

 

Yes, I'm so embarrassed. What a great example. As we all know kids, when prohibition was repealed violent crimes related to alcohol just vanished overnight and have never returned to the US of A. Score one for US.gov!

 

 

People who have committed crimes to feed their addiction will still be charged with the crimes they have committed. Hello?

What sort of an idiot is going to declare "drugs-related crime amnesty for all users!" and expect a quiet weekend?

The concept of 'seeking help' only actually appeals to a minimum of users in this situation regardless. And let's not forget there will always be people hooked on drugs who cannot pay for them - no matter where the drugs come from, and with new members joining the club every day.

 

Committing crimes to feed an addiction WOULD BE REDUCED as more resouces are available to reduce the number of addictions. If you're trying to fault the logic that a great number of addicts would seek help if it were available at no risk, you really have no idea what you're talking about. People in general do not want to be addicted to something. Go out on the streets and ask drug addicts if they like being addicted. And a minority of people who will continue to commit crimes for drugs is not a factor in legalization, because not only would the number be reduced, it is no different than people who steal items that are legal to possess.

I don't assume that my logic is better. I have no interest in disputing those studies. What I ridicule is the act of using that as the basis of an entire argument without giving due consideration to the other factors, and speculation as to how the rest of the system will adapt if it has that to hang off of.

I have given consideration to other factors, and have outlined where the faults lie.

 

If you use sardony to illustrate a point, it's "ok" - but if I do it it's "ignorance and a cretinistic display"? I don't think so.

That point was so loaded as to be quite obviously not the product of ignorance. You may also want to look up 'cretin' as you seem to be using it a lot against users (and does that makes me laugh when you tell the mods you want this forum to look professional) despite the low probability that they are all suffering from cretinism. If you want to offend my intelligence, 'fool' will suffice.

Don't criticize my use of 'cretin' when you're using 'sardony'. And cretin does sound more professional than fool.

 

Stop throwing your weight about. "I am right and anyone who disagrees will be crushed" is not good enough reason to actively quash any chance of participation in a discussion (even if the discussion is way off topic).

Throwing my weight about? I have at no point used my status to defend my argument. I have not made any threats.

 

Your second proposal there does not make any logical comparison.

 

 

*Sigh*

 

I said that "reported use would drop" referring to the old principle of "if we don't call this a crime any more, then it won't officially be happening as we only count crimes". The relevance of the media to this is obvious.

 

Reported use would not drop. It would either remain the same or rise. We monitor substance abuse with legal substances. It's that simple. We monitor alcohol trends in adults and kids, we monitor tobacco use in both kids and adults. It would not be described as a crime, however drug use would still be tracked.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #57 :

The distribution chain would shift to existing corporations. This is not an issue.

How exactly would that occur?

 

That looks like evasion of the "What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'" point to me, because it doesn't really matter who is producing the drugs - numerous major laws will have to be changed.

 

 

Committing crimes to feed an addiction WOULD BE REDUCED as more resouces are available to reduce the number of addictions. If you're trying to fault the logic that a great number of addicts would seek help if it were available at no risk, you really have no idea what you're talking about. People in general do not want to be addicted to something. Go out on the streets and ask drug addicts if they like being addicted. And a minority of people who will continue to commit crimes for drugs is not a factor in legalization, because not only would the number be reduced, it is no different than people who steal items that are legal to possess.

 

So basically the way you see the solution to this problem is:

 

1) Make drugs legal

2) Make drugs readily available, cheaper than on the streets even

3) [something happens]

4) End to drug-related crime

5) All addicts decide to give up

6) No need to produce drugs except in small amounts for letting those wacky kids experiment when they start getting rebellious.

 

What goes in step 3?

 

 

I have given consideration to other factors, and have outlined where the faults lie.

Yes, ex post facto.

 

You also forgot to put the words " or at least the ones you mentioned" between 'factors' and the comma.

 

 

Don't criticize my use of 'cretin' when you're using 'sardony'. And cretin does sound more professional than fool.

Sardony is easier and faster to type than sardonicism, and most people accept it as being a proper word

It's not the choice of the word 'cretin' that's unprofessional, it's the fact that an admin calls members that in the first place.

 

 

Throwing my weight about? I have at no point used my status to defend my argument. I have not made any threats.

I didn't say you had. The phrase also means "to create an air of superiority". But that's just my interpretation of the way in which you posted - feel free to completely ignore it, as I'm well aware that my posts read like they were made by a grumpy pompous arse too.

 

 

Reported use would not drop. It would either remain the same or rise. We monitor substance abuse with legal substances. It's that simple. We monitor alcohol trends in adults and kids, we monitor tobacco use in both kids and adults. It would not be described as a crime, however drug use would still be tracked.

What I originally meant is so redundant now (in terms of where this thread has gone) as to be hilarious when compared with what you think you're arguing against.

[fafalone]

Sayonara³ said in post #58 :

How exactly would that occur?

 

That looks like evasion of the "What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'" point to me, because it doesn't really matter who is producing the drugs - numerous major laws will have to be changed.

 

Despite the income of your typical drug lords, the major pharmaceuticals still have vastly larger amounts of money at their disposal, and possess the facilities to rapidly produce a large quantity of drugs. It's like how the big chains put the smaller companies right out of business.

 

So basically the way you see the solution to this problem is:

 

1) Make drugs legal

2) Make drugs readily available, cheaper than on the streets even

3) [something happens]

4) End to drug-related crime

5) All addicts decide to give up

6) No need to produce drugs except in small amounts for letting those wacky kids experiment when they start getting rebellious.

 

What goes in step 3?

Here's how it should go:

1) Make drugs legal

2) Make drugs available in quality controlled forms for a competitive price.

3) Drug use is discussed more openly.

4) Drugs lose their appeal as forbidden pleasures.

5) Counseling for addicts is more readily available and the legal status encourages more particiapnts.

6) Drug use decreases.

7) Drug related crimes decrease. Drug related medical issues decrease.

 

 

Sardony is easier and faster to type than sardonicism, and most people accept it as being a proper word

It's not the choice of the word 'cretin' that's unprofessional, it's the fact that an admin calls members that in the first place.

 

You're not a normal member, you're a super moderator.

What I originally meant is so redundant now (in terms of where this thread has gone) as to be hilarious when compared with what you think you're arguing against.

 

I still don't see how reported use would go down.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #59 :

Despite the income of your typical drug lords, the major pharmaceuticals still have vastly larger amounts of money at their disposal, and possess the facilities to rapidly produce a large quantity of drugs. It's like how the big chains put the smaller companies right out of business.

What's that got to do with changing the legal landscape?

(Or is the mention of large amounts of money a subtle hint?)

 

 

Here's how it should go:

1) Make drugs legal

2) Make drugs available in quality controlled forms for a competitive price.

3) Drug use is discussed more openly.

4) Drugs lose their appeal as forbidden pleasures.

5) Counseling for addicts is more readily available and the legal status encourages more particiapnts.

6) Drug use decreases.

7) Drug related crimes decrease. Drug related medical issues decrease.

I still see 3&4 as being somewhat speculative. Not so much because I don't believe the applicable research, but because group behaviour and individual behaviour don't always coincide - especially in a causally exotic situation. But then this is probably what comes of growing up in a country that laughs at people who use psychologists.

 

 

You're not a normal member, you're a super moderator.

I'm also not the only person you've called a cretin.

Most managers, supervisors etc - in fact anyone in a position of authority - is normally aware that if you're going to berate your subordinates, you don't do it in public.

 

 

I still don't see how reported use would go down.

Forget it. Seriously. We're on different channels.

[Dudde]

at this point in time in the discussion, he's more of a debator than a superior, the latter only comes about when rules are broken

 

speculating possible outcomes is really the only way you're going to come up with a hypothesis on what would happen until you actually try it, which is what comes before the experimentation stage;)

 

as to how people act, I know there are a number of people in this world that quite enjoy their drugs, many being in denile that they are addicted. Those who realize they have a problem nowadays are probably afraid to admit and get help; legalizing their use would bring forth more people and reduce the number of users

 

however, there's also that percentage that DON'T do it because it's illegal, who would start up as soon as it were legalized. You'd also need to set rules for the use of drugs, i.e. how much one person is allowed to consume (which would be hard to monitor), how old you could be to use (get rising levels of use in the age category directly under this most likely) and all the other stuff normally associated with regular drugs (tobacco and alcohol)

[fafalone]

Sayonara³ said in post #60 :

 

What's that got to do with changing the legal landscape?

(Or is the mention of large amounts of money a subtle hint?)

 

Small production is inefficient. Large corporations produce more product at a lower cost. This is why large companies control the distribution systems of alcohol and tobacco (in the US at least).

 

 

I still see 3&4 as being somewhat speculative. Not so much because I don't believe the applicable research, but because group behaviour and individual behaviour don't always coincide - especially in a causally exotic situation. But then this is probably what comes of growing up in a country that laughs at people who use psychologists.

 

The studies are a measure of group behavoir. Human nature doesn't change dramatically from region to region.

 

I'm also not the only person you've called a cretin.

Most managers, supervisors etc - in fact anyone in a position of authority - is normally aware that if you're going to berate your subordinates, you don't do it in public.

 

 

Most subordinates are aware that you shouldn't call your superiors either stupid or a pseudotroll in public.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #62 :

Small production is inefficient. Large corporations produce more product at a lower cost. This is why large companies control the distribution systems of alcohol and tobacco (in the US at least).

Still avoiding the issue.

 

 

The studies are a measure of group behavoir. Human nature doesn't change dramatically from region to region.

For the sake of argument (so to speak) I'm going to take your word for it that those studies are infallible. Dudde does raise some interesting points however.

 

 

Most subordinates are aware that you shouldn't call your superiors either stupid or a pseudotroll in public.

Clearly I did not:

 

Sayonara³ said in post #42 :

I don't believe for an instant you're stupid enough to not know what I'm talking about so I have to assume this is some kind of deliberate pseudotroll.

I still don't believe you are stupid - all evidence ever collected suggests otherwise.

One person's assumption that a single post is made as a pseudotroll is not the same as specifically calling somebody a pseudotroll, particularly where it has become clear that the post in question was due to mutual misunderstanding. Apologies if you were offended - it was not intentional.

[fafalone]

Sayonara³ said in post #63 :

Still avoiding the issue.

 

How so? The big businesses would put the little dealers out of business. Basic economics.

 

 

For the sake of argument (so to speak) I'm going to take your word for it that those studies are infallible. Dudde does raise some interesting points however.

 

The studies are in line with my point about human nature... the principle of wanting what we can't or shouldn't have is deeply rooted in psychology, and refuting the studies would involve refuting decades of modern psychology. Possible? Sure. But not likely correct.

 

Clearly I did not:

 

 

I still don't believe you are stupid - all evidence ever collected suggests otherwise.

One person's assumption that a single post is made as a pseudotroll is not the same as specifically calling somebody a pseudotroll, particularly where it has become clear that the post in question was due to mutual misunderstanding. Apologies if you were offended - it was not intentional.

 

I was offended. That's why my reply after that was so hostile.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #64 :

[sayonara said: "...still avoiding the issue."]

 

How so? The big businesses would put the little dealers out of business. Basic economics.

Because the issue I raised was:

 

What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'...

...it doesn't really matter who is producing the drugs - numerous major laws will have to be changed.

 

fafalone said in post #64 :

I was offended. That's why my reply after that was so hostile.

Is an apology for inferring I am an ignorant cretin too much to expect? I did after all apologise to you just on the off chance that I had offended you.

[fafalone]

What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'...

...it doesn't really matter who is producing the drugs - numerous major laws will have to be changed.

 

This makes very little sense. There is absolutely no reason worse offenses would have to be legalized as a result.

[Sayonara]

You say manufacturing and distributing narcotics is not legally worse than using them?

 

And I see the answer is "yes".

[fafalone]

Is manufacturing guns legally worse than actually using them for destructive purposes?

 

What people choose to do for/with drugs is worse than making them, since as I've already illustrated drugs do not always cause health problems/crime/addiction/etc.

[Sayonara]

Bringing guns into the debate is pretty pointless. The analogy is flawed for a start, and if this was reason enough legalisation of drugs would have happened by now.

 

Nor is "Drugs do not always cause health problems/crime/addiction/etc" justification for sweeping the problems that do exist under the carpet.

 

If drugs were to be legalised in the US in the way that we are discussing, your opinion on what people do with them will doubtless have no bearing on the fact that various legal issues will have to be dealt with before anyone can safely, lawfully and profitably manufacture or distribute drugs. That is a fact that really can't be skirted around.

 

And that's before we even start on the social upheaval, O/D teething pains and Mothers Against Free Drugs for our Children marches, etc.

[fafalone]

The analogy with guns is apt. Same with legal drugs. Tradition.

 

Your last post, and other posts, have not differentiated between why some drugs are legal and some are not.

 

I'm not saying that legalization wouldn't require a massive social attitude shift, because I believe I've mentioned that being the main obstacle. Just because mainstream society believes something is evil does not make it so. And yes many laws would have to be passed outlining regulations and such, but that's the process of legalization that I'm referring too.

 

Drugs are already manufactured safely, legally, and profitably... for legal research purposes. If I wanted to research the mechanisms of action for a drug, I could obtain a license to purchase drugs from a company licensed to sell those drugs to researchers.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #70 :

The analogy with guns is apt. Same with legal drugs. Tradition.

What?

Had you asked if they were morally different, you might have a point.

 

Your last post, and other posts, have not differentiated between why some drugs are legal and some are not.

I don't see any reason why they need to, considering I have not stated that they are any different.

 

I'm not saying that legalization wouldn't require a massive social attitude shift, because I believe I've mentioned that being the main obstacle. Just because mainstream society believes something is evil does not make it so. And yes many laws would have to be passed outlining regulations and such, but that's the process of legalization that I'm referring too.

There's a huge difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. Huge. You can't repeal or 'nullify' laws against the distribution of Drug A by making a new law that deals with its regulation, it doesn't work like that.

"Just because mainstream society believes something is evil does not make it so." Quite, but nobody in their right mind thinks that drugs are evil. They think that what people will do for drugs is evil, that the people who sell or manufacture them are evil, that the effects they can have on the body are evil.

 

What the existing laws do is put a buffer zone between the world of illicit or seductive drugs and the world of everyone else. This buffer zone protects the people who don't want to be involved with the drugs world.

 

What you are proposing is that the removal of that buffer zone and its replacement with regulation will be more effective at protecting society.

Because as we all know regulation is an infallible system that won't at all be screwed every which way by politicians, corporations, drugs barons, and the very people it is put in place to help.

 

Drugs are already manufactured safely, legally, and profitably... for legal research purposes. If I wanted to research the mechanisms of action for a drug, I could obtain a license to purchase drugs from a company licensed to sell those drugs to researchers.

Under the right conditions in the US a police officer can shoot you in the face and not experience any consequences as a result. Therefore murder should be decriminalised. Yes, we're back to the irrelevant nonsense arguments again.

[fafalone]

Sayonara³ said in post #71 :

What?

Had you asked if they were morally different, you might have a point.

The point is just because something is legal doesn't mean the things people do for or with them should be legal.

 

 

I don't see any reason why they need to, considering I have not stated that they are any different.

 

Then you believe alcohol and nicotine, being addictive psychoactive drugs, should be illegal?

There's a huge difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. Huge. You can't repeal or 'nullify' laws against the distribution of Drug A by making a new law that deals with its regulation, it doesn't work like that.

Yes... it does actually. I don't know how it works in your country, but in our country Congress is free to make changes to existing laws, until the constitution is involved, where it's more complicated but still happens. All we'd have to do is pass a new law stating the previous law is repealed, and then go on to create laws regulating it. Furthermore, regulation would not even be done by acts of Congress, the FDA would regulate it, and its protocols for regulation are not "laws" -- the FDA can approve products as it sees fit.

"Just because mainstream society believes something is evil does not make it so." Quite, but nobody in their right mind thinks that drugs are evil. They think that what people will do for drugs is evil, that the people who sell or manufacture them are evil, that the effects they can have on the body are evil.

So they should get to dictate the rules the rest of the world has to follow?

What the existing laws do is put a buffer zone between the world of illicit or seductive drugs and the world of everyone else. This buffer zone protects the people who don't want to be involved with the drugs world.

This is a violation of rights. Should every group who doesn't want anything to do with something have what they don't like made illegal for all those who do like it? And again, your argument here does not demonstrate the case for why alcohol and nicotine should be legal.

 

What you are proposing is that the removal of that buffer zone and its replacement with regulation will be more effective at protecting society.

Because as we all know regulation is an infallible system that won't at all be screwed every which way by politicians, corporations, drugs barons, and the very people it is put in place to help.

I've illustrated how the current regulation system, if applied to all drugs instead of only those with a strong tradition, would actually reduce various problems associated with drug use. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it sure is better than going around ruining peoples lives for having a little bit of powerful psychoactive substances on them.

 

Under the right conditions in the US a police officer can shoot you in the face and not experience any consequences as a result. Therefore murder should be decriminalised. Yes, we're back to the irrelevant nonsense arguments again.

 

Ignorance. Your analogy is not relevant. Furthermore, murder is in fact legal under certain circumstances. It's legal for a police officer to shoot you with a reason, it's legal to execute death row inmates, it's legal to shoot someone who breaks into your home with a weapon. The rules are clearly defined to not compromise the rights of the individual.

[Dudde]

actually, I do believe you cannot shoot somebody unless they're brandishing another weapon with lethal capabilities or are in fact attacking you themselves

 

though it is true the FDA would in fact have control over the drugs, and would regulate which would be legal and which illegal. This means there would still be a market for those that are illegal (unless you're planning on not giving control of some drugs to the FDA, or making all drugs legal, period.) This itself also raises several issues, of which I think I posted up there somewhere ^^

[fafalone]

Yeah, the intruder has to pose a threat, hence I said "with a weapon". The illegal market would not be a large factor because of the same reasons theres little black market for alcohol/tobacco in the united states.

[Sayonara]

fafalone said in post #72 :

The point is just because something is legal doesn't mean the things people do for or with them should be legal.

I fully recognise that this should be so, but even if you apply it to my question "you say manufacturing and distributing narcotics is not legally worse than using them?", it just proves the point I was making about guns not being relevant.

You are considering the problem as if all drug production was legal already, which it clearly is not. I am trying to highlight here the problems with getting from A: the current situation, to B: Happy Shining Sing-Song World.

I am not describing a rigid (B) situation where nothing works properly because of bad methodology.

 

Then you believe alcohol and nicotine, being addictive psychoactive drugs, should be illegal?

You have failed to state that you do not find hippos sexually attractive. Shall I assume then that you do? Maybe not.

I have no interest in debating the morality of laws or which drugs "I think" should be legal and which not. Again, I have consistently tried only to highlight issues with the vague and wooly "legalise drugs" plan and the only reason we're still arguing is because you won't accept anything in your head might be wrong, or contingent on a factor you haven't considered.

 

Yes... it does actually. I don't know how it works in your country, but in our country Congress is free to make changes to existing laws, until the constitution is involved, where it's more complicated but still happens. All we'd have to do is pass a new law stating the previous law is repealed, and then go on to create laws regulating it. Furthermore, regulation would not even be done by acts of Congress, the FDA would regulate it, and its protocols for regulation are not "laws" -- the FDA can approve products as it sees fit.

Your faith in the system after describing it in that way is just disturbing.

And yeah, like nothing was ever sold without FDA approval.

 

So they should get to dictate the rules the rest of the world has to follow?

What, the sane people? As opposed to the mad ones who blame the drugs themselves for society's problems? Are you serious?

 

This is a violation of rights. Should every group who doesn't want anything to do with something have what they don't like made illegal for all those who do like it? And again, your argument here does not demonstrate the case for why alcohol and nicotine should be legal.

A violation of rights? So you're saying that it's better to let people find their own way with drugs, even if they end up dying in an alley with festering abcesses in their track-ridden arms and skin hanging off their starved frames, because their rights won't have been violated? How naive are you? Did it occur to you some people need and even want these decisions to be made for them?

And exactly what makes you so sure that you have the right idea, and everybody else is wrong?

Given enough time and coffee I could use your logic to dismiss every law in the US as being a violation of somebody's rights, and by the same logic that would make them repealable. Clearly that is a very silly thing.

And for the last time, I have no reason to prove or even demonstrate either way whether or not alcohol or nicotine should be legal, as they are not relevant to the issues I am raising.

They are only relevant to the issues you want to argue with me about, and I will not be drawn into that.

 

I've illustrated how the current regulation system, if applied to all drugs instead of only those with a strong tradition, would actually reduce various problems associated with drug use. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it sure is better than going around ruining peoples lives for having a little bit of powerful psychoactive substances on them.

Where did you illustrate that? Was it when you mentioned the FDA that time? You know, when you said "the FDA can approve products as it sees fit". Yeah, that was illustration all right. Cleared up that whole pesky issue of "how regulation will work".

 

By the way, the fact that you carefully glossed over FDA approval pretty much being voluntary to the people who manage to produce drugs without it already and with the added pressure of operating outside the law did not pass me by unnoticed.

 

I do agree that some sort of system for controlling what gets used, and how, is going to be much better than just locking people up for 'offences' (although controlling what gets used and when is clearly one of your "violations of rights"). However, all my points are being made to draw attention to the reasons it's not happened yet and it's a little difficult to make those points when you're bashing me over the head constantly with a big WRONGNESS MALLET.

 

Ignorance.

I've seen it happen. It goes on all the time, you naive child. Somehow I think the chap I watched (this was on TV last night, btw) being blown away by a cop while trapped - unarmed - in a stationary vehicle by police cruisers would have something to say about his "individual rights being compromised" if he still had a head to speak out of.

 

Your analogy is not relevant.

It most certainly is, and you even demonstrated why yourself:

 

Furthermore, murder is in fact legal under certain circumstances. It's legal for a police officer to shoot you with a reason, it's legal to execute death row inmates, it's legal to shoot someone who breaks into your home with a weapon. The rules are clearly defined to not compromise the rights of the individual.

Huzzah! A breakthrough! You actually do understand that different circumstances dictate different responses. I guess then it follows that you also understand that the reports you were originally talking about might actually not be the ones I was talking about, particularly since - shock horror - I brought up the subject of "Reported Use" in this thread [Reply 26] and by reply 32 you were making sweeping statements about my complete wrongness without even bothering to ask what I was talking about first.

I even plainly stated in the next reply that there was "a difference between 'reported use' and 'reported use'", but no - on and on the fafalone Crusading Juggernaut of Rightness goes.

 

Considering the facts that you:

1) Are arguing over something you actually said "I really don't get the point you're trying to make" about,

2) Are trying to mould my points into some debate you seem to want to have, but which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about,

3) Failed to apologise for calling me an ignorant cretin even after I apologised just on the off chance that I had offended you,

4) Disregarded my helpful apology reminder with your incredddddible moral superiority,

5) Ignored Dudde's splendid and relevant points because you were too busy hitting me with the bashing mallet

 

... one might come to the conclusion that you are just trolling. Maybe you don't even realise it. It really really sounds like you just want to whip it out and see whose is biggest, and frankly I've had quite enough of trying to make the best of a crappy discussion.

 

No doubt your mighty brain will instruct you to say something clever like "then I will interpret that as you forfeiting, thus I WIN", and you'll never bother to examine why this was a complete waste of your time or mine.