sunspot Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The war on drugs is there to create jobs. Consider how many jobs it creates. There are high paying tax free jobs for the inner city. There are many jobs for lawyers, law enforcement, criminal justice system, the prison system, the rehab system, etc., plus the multiplier effect that results as this seed money goes back into the economy. If we decided the drug war was another Viet Nam, that was a non righteous money pit that could never be won (WWI, WWII, Korean, Viet Nam, Persian Gulf all combined took less time to complete), many jobs would be lost. To me it does not seem fair that we enslave (inprison) a good fraction of the American people to justify all these jobs. Maybe we can spread out the jobs and imprisonment more fairly. For example, we will create silly laws that guarentee that 20% of all the lawyers be in jail at all times. The former imprisoned personal consumption drug users can parlee that into a good paying job. It would not cost any more; redistributing the benefit/liabilty distribution of jobs. If we are having a war against drugs, does that make all those imprisoned by the war on drugs, POW's. As POW's are they not entitled to the laws of the Geneva Convention. What the war on drugs also means is that our government is waging war against its own citizens. I am no expert, but isn't this illegal under the Constitution? The government can never win this war because American's will never allow tyranny to rule. This war is creating causualties on both sides. The addicted are the wounded of this war. Addiction is an artifact of prohibtion creating temptation. But in this case, the enhanced tempation is a direct protest against increased tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 What do you mean when you say we imprison a good fraction of Americans? And I hope the next part is a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The war on drugs is there to create jobs. I wonder how many jobs could be created by a war on tube socks... I think it's there to prevent crime caused directly or indirectly by drug use/sale. The alternative is to let people do what they want (legalize all drugs)... which would open up some new problems... How will support those addicted to drugs legally? What if they have no family members to take care of them? Everyone says how bad the tobacco company is (getting people addicted and selling them death sticks for the rest of their lives ultimately killing them )... what kind of power would Amphetamines have on this market? A drug that can get anyone hooked within one or two usages, and many people are physically unable to stop using the drug letting the industry charge whatever they want. What strength would an industry have when you stop using their product the withdrawals could kill you? What do we do with those who cannot take care of their families who are addicted to drugs. What do we do about those who need money for drugs, and are so addicted that they steal and kill for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunspot Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 The war on drugs puts Americans in jail. They may be dealers or users but many are still Americans. When one has prisoners of War they are POW's. If the AMerican government wages was against its citizens, that is not Costitutional.The war on Terror at least goes after foreigners and the prisoner are considered POW's and are given all which that entails. Lets look at the example of outlawing tube socks so it becomes a crime to wear them. Some would blindly follow the law. Others would be outraged and in protest would wear tube socks. Others would hate those whos dare to oppose the law and would not hesitate to beat and harrass anyone caught wearing them (a legal excuse to be A-holes). An underground would also form against the stupid law, where those who protest the stupid law could trade in tube socks. It would be a symbol of freedom fighting. These tube sock peddlers would now become public enemy number one, such that if a swat team went in a shot one of them is would be considered righteous. The lawyers would love this and many new jobs would be created. Look at prohibition in the 1920's. Did American drinking slowdown and did American empathy improve during the prohibition. Things esculated, the mafia monster was given the best stream of life blood it ever had. Crime on both sides of the law increased. When it was repealed, did all the Americans became alcoholics. Prohibition creates temptation. Remove the prohibition the temptation steadily declines because the dark side of human nature loses its power over culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hello, my name is Pangloss, and I have a tube socks problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hello, my name is Pangloss, and I have a tube socks problem. Do they wear out after only taking 12 steps? aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well if drugs were legal and people weren't sent to jail, could you imagine the reprecussions? Most drugs render people with impaired judgement and not fit to interact. This would create dangerous enviroments and a lot of people too high to do anything. While in some cases drugs are needed, anything that negatively affects the brain and conciousness and is addicting should not be legal. People are ignorant, though, and we know that drugs and achohol will continue. Prohibition didn't work because, for one of many reasons, achohol was legal before and people weren't about to stop. But to make drugs legal would lead to chaos in some regions. Breaking the law should have consequences so I assume you want to make drugs legal, but think. Do you really want everyong around you high? While people use drugs now, we don't want to increase that percentage. Also, drugs can ruin lives. Between addiction and things done under the influence do you really want to subject people to less pressure against taking them? People don't always think ahead and someone has to look out for them. And if this creates jobs, then it's all the better. We need more jobs to support people, unless you want jobless high people walking around. I think you're taking the war on drugs thing the wrong way. The government is not trying to "hurt" or demean people. Are they really better off getting high? The government has to back up it's laws otherwise they will not be followed. Oh and btw, while prohibition may not have worked - it failed - it did slow down drinking. Drinking wasn't back to original levels before prohibition for 10 or 15 years, impressive concidering it probably would have increased if not for it. Legalizing drugs would not be a good thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I sav, legalize and tax the soft drugs, (Pot, LSD, Magic Mushrooms ect.) but increase the penalty for the hard drugs. (Cocain, heroin, crack, meth ect.) It seems to work for Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 It's very hard to justify a law whose only purpose is to keep people from hurting themselves. If that's the only point behind the laws (and in many cases it seems to be), they should obviously be abolished. Even from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, there's no good reason something like marijuana should be illegal. It's already readily available, and it's not like the health risks aren't well known. I can't imagine too many people would use it who don't already. Plus, it would become automatically less dangerous (being legal, and thus regulated by the FDA), would stop endlessly draining law enforcement resources, and would benefit the legimate economy instead of funding organized crime. Don't make the "soft" drugs illegal, just make them VERY illegal in circumstance when they're harmful to OTHER people, like DUI's. As for other, "harder" controlled substances, they should each be evaluated individually. I'm sure in some cases the overall harm to society outweighs the harm of the endless "war on drugs," but if we refuse to move beyond the knee-jerk "drugs=bad" mentality and have an honest debate, we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I say, legalize and tax the soft drugs, (Pot, LSD, Magic Mushrooms ect.) [...']. It seems to work for Germany. None of those mentioned above are legal in germany and as a direct consequence, they´re also not taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 That is NOT the only reason. Protecting other people is the major reason. People do things they would not when high or under influence and other people can be affected. To prevent injuries and murders seems pretty important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The 'problem' is our b'rats have figured out that if you create an artifical 'problem', that can never be solved, it means job security and promotions to said b'rats. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think drugs are a real problem and ignoring them is not a bright idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think drugs are a real problem and ignoring them is not a bright idea. 'Drugs' or 'drug abuse'? There is a big, big difference. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The large majority of drug users seem to abuse it. Using it more than enough and subjecting other people to dangerous circumstances would be what I'm talking about - so yes, drug abuse. But once people get addicting, many can't help but abusing it. Coming from a high school, I know this first-hand. If people were able to control it and not hurt anybody else I would have no problem with it. They are wasting their lives, but I guess that's their choice.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 it's really irrelevant whether drugs are good or bad or dangerous or not. what matters is the fact that if there is ever a shortage of any particular drug due to people getting caught, the supply will immediately be replenished by someone else out to make a quick and easy dollar. it's exceedingly easy to make a whole host of drugs with over the counter materials, so even if the government picks off a few bees here and there, they will never limit the supply of drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 it's really irrelevant whether drugs are good or bad ..the supply will immediately be replenished... they will never limit the supply of drugs. This is the point I was trying to make in other words. All they can do is artifically drive up the price, thus seducing more people to take the risk. The war is unwinable, and was never meant to be willable. The war was meant to last much longer than those that started it, in order to assure them long and prosperous careers. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 This is the point I was trying to make in other words. All they can do is artifically drive up the price' date=' thus seducing more people to take the risk. The war is unwinable, and was never meant to be willable. The war was meant to last much longer than those that started it, in order to assure them long and prosperous careers. aguy2[/quote'] I wish the federal government would loosen up its drug policy and permit states to experiment with different rules. I'd particularly like to know whether liberalizing drug policies would increase or decrease usage. I do think the policies have some deterent effect. I say this primarily because I did use some when I was in college and then quit I became an adult with something to lose. While I doubt my situation is unique, some experimentation through good ol' federalism wouldn't be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 It's very hard to justify a law whose only purpose is to keep people from hurting themselves. If that's the only point behind the laws (and in many cases it seems to be), they should obviously be abolished I disagree -- if enough people would make a desision only to later regret it, and the repercussions would be severe enough, then there is, in my mind, justification for not allowing people to make that descision for themselves. The (english) law, for example, that seatbelts must be worn -- yeah, it seems a bit 'motherish', but the simple fact is that many people, left to their own devises, would not wear a seat belt, and would risk death as a result; fatal road traffic accidents have undoubtedly gone down as a result of the law. Of all the drugs I think nicotene is the best argument for why some drugs should be illegalised... its highly addictive, if memory serves correctly then more than 50% of smokers want to quit, and it's fatal; i think the govournment would be well within their rights to illegalise it and take away people 'right' to make that desision (freedom isnt always nessesaraly good... freedom of choice is also freedom to make mistakes). Having said that, the drugs that are actually illegal could do with a review in my oppinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of government should be. It just seems like if it's forcing behavior that affects no one but the individual doing it, something has gone terribly awry, if liberty is something that is to be valued. There are, of course, alternative philosophies of government, such as "making the people the best they can be." Typically there is a pragmatic balance between those two, which is why drug policy is not black and white. Pragmatically, though, it seems evident that we'd be better off if some of the drugs which are currently illegal should be made legal. I don't know for sure, obviously, but it's worth the experiment. JustStuit: I don't think any policy could make sense if you just talk about "drugs" in general, without distinguishing between substances, or between using them and abusing them, or between using them in a way that endangers others (like drunk driving) or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 None of those mentioned above are legal in germany and as a direct consequence, they´re also not taxed. What the hell do you mean? You can get hashish at cafes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 No, you´re possibly mistaking Germany for the Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of government should be. It just seems like if it's forcing behavior that affects no one but the individual doing it' date=' something has gone terribly awry, if liberty is something that is to be valued. There are, of course, alternative philosophies of government, such as "making the people the best they can be." Typically there is a pragmatic balance between those two, which is why drug policy is not black and white. Pragmatically, though, it seems evident that we'd be better off if some of the drugs which are currently illegal should be made legal. I don't know for sure, obviously, but it's worth the experiment. JustStuit: I don't think any policy could make sense if you just talk about "drugs" in general, without distinguishing between substances, or between using them and abusing them, or between using them in a way that endangers others (like drunk driving) or not.[/quote'] I have the same conclusion you do, but I would add that in society, no man stands alone. Liberty doesn't mean "freedom to do whatever I want as long as I'm not harming anyone", unless you receive absolutely no benefits from the society. The addictiveness and mind-altering components of drugs are the problem. Tobacco is very addicitve, but not very mind-altering. Alcohol is mind altering, but not very addictive for most people, and can be heathy in moderation. We can look to other countries also to see some of the effects and keep in mind that Americans tend to go with excess in everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunspot Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 I do not know the numbers, but legal drugs (past, present and future), have caused more deaths than the illegal ones. Ironical hah? The difference comes down to lobbyists and campagn contributions. Making certain things illegal takes that group out of the lobbyist game. What I would do is set the bar at something that is useful, maybe sometimes harmful, but legal, i..e, alcohol, chemotherapy, etc., and we will call this the zero point. Anything that has data that shows it is worse should be illegal and anything where the data says it is less harmful will be legal. This would go for both currently legal and illegal drugs. This would provide an objective scientific basis instead of a subjective political basis to determine which go where. From stories I have been told, marijuana was very cheap back in the 60's. About $100-150/ pound. Very few people did cocaine regularly because it was relatively expensive. By the late 70's or early 80's, the price of MJ had reached $100/oz, making cocaine competitive in price; $100/gram. Those who smoked MJ, who had got use to paying $100+, figured they could just as well blow this money on coke and have a good time. From then on, MJ prices continued to rise and coke stayed flat. The rest is history with the extreme abuse during the 80's and 90's. We have Uncle Sam to thank for this. They disrupted the cheap MJ distributution, shifting the market toward the more severe and violent cocaine abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Drug laws and wars probably will not succeed, but making drugs legal will greatly increase the drug traffic. Even if it can't be stopped, we don't want to augment it... There is a point to making it illegal - there is less of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now