laws and crime

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Nope, that will only increase use and problems resulting from use. See prohibition and my previous post about scientific studies showing that legalization reduces use.

I understand all that.

 

My point was that you inferred nicotine and alcohol being legal was reason enough for illicit drugs to be made legal, when it clearly isn't. Probably wasn't your intention, but there it is.

Originally posted by fafalone

- Why do you think people do those things at all? It's not always because of drugs, and if they were legal this is unlikely to happen more, because use would be down.

 

-Bums beg me for alcohol money all the time. In fact, it's exceedingly more likely to be money for alcohol.

 

-Not correlated to drug use, especially use of drugs over alcohol.

 

-Once again, this would no longer happen if drugs were legal and being produced by corporations safely rather than in peoples basement labs.

We can't just assume that legalisation will drive use down. Studies such as the one you mentioned earlier, in which drug use in the US was compared with drug use in Holland, are inherently flawed. It would only be a scientifically valid comparison if the legal status of drugs in each country was the only difference. Cultural and sociological differences render the comparison invalid.

 

I'm well aware of why people do those things, as you asked. It's not always drugs related, but you'd have to be pretty blinkered or naive to deny that the majority of it is drug related. Obviously the bulk of the events I have witnessed relating to this occur around where I live, so before you rule me wrong I suggest you come here and see for yourself.

 

I've had the bums asking for money thing as well, many times. Here's a tip - ask them what they're going to buy with the money, then offer to get it for them. 9 out of 10 times they'll decline and ask for money again. Guess why?

 

"-Not correlated to drug use, especially use of drugs over alcohol."

What isn't correlated? Stop being 'non sequitur boy', you sound like my mum.

 

I don't see why the location and conditions of manufacture of drugs will affect the need of lowlife scum to pay for their drugs by whatever means they see fit. Please do elaborate.

Please refrain from just restating your point without reading how my conclusion was reached. If your primary argument is crime committed to obtain drugs, you therefore cannot conclude that legalization would increase these crimes if it drives use down(proven).

Well (a) that wasn't my conclusion, I don't believe I made one in fact, and (b) I would dispute "proven".

 

I think you have a nerve asking me to read how your conclusion was reached when you're putting words in my mouth and assuming the majority of my opinion. I may have said that "There is a difference between alcohol/tobacco users and illicit drug users, and there must always be the means to protect society from the latter", but if you have half a brain you will see that this does not mean I am against legalisation of drugs. Additionally, and this is very important, that paragraph was not a consequence of or conclusion to the rest of that post. The preceding paragraphs were an affirmation (aimed at RE) as to the difference between legal and illicit drug users.

 

Stop reading your own counter-arguments into everything people write :rant:

[fafalone]

The comparison is not completely invalid, in fact it is confirmation of a basic, well-established principle of human psychology: something being illegal tends to increase the desire to have it. And another point is prohibition. This was in the United States, and alcohol related crimes skyrocketed.

 

And just because people do illegal things to obtain drug money doesn't mean that's a reason for them to be illegal; by that logic we ought to outlaw any expensive thing that creates a strong desire to obtain. The principle behind laws is to protect people, and clearly the world would be safer if drugs were legal like alcohol and tobacco (if those were illegal, it would do anything)

 

The part about safe manufacture was merely an extension against another commonly used defense again legalization (personal danger).

[Sayonara]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that study is useless - I'm sure it garnered plenty of valuable information - but it's certainly not strong enough evidence on which to base a massive change to an entire society.

 

Point two, I agree. But you have to realise these things will still go on even if all drugs were globally legalised tomorrow. The fact that drugs are legal will not mean that people who need to steal in order to buy them will suddenly be solvent.

 

Point three, uh-huh. Pre-emptive arguments probably work better on people who are arguing with you... :-p

[fafalone]

I realize it's not going to happen for a very long time, but in principle it would be better to have everything legal with similar age restictions (although 21 for alcohol in the US is a bit extreme).

[atinymonkey]

This is the part where I get to be the old guy. Your perspective tends to change, as you get a little older on drug use. When you are young, you view it in your own way and don't particularly see the harm in it. However, if you start seeing people you care about getting into trouble with drugs (and you probably will) it alters your viewpoint a bit. It's fine when it's just you, but as soon as people on your level get into problems you tend to realise that there isn't a second-class citizen predisposed to drug abuse, it could happen to you. Or more importantly it could happen to your family and friends.

 

It’s not really possible to argue the semantics of fact and figures surrounding drugs, as it’s an emotional issue. What steps would you take to prevent a perceived threat on the people you love?

 

I did have a point to add, but I'm tired and I forget.

[fafalone]

The perception that drugs being legal would be more of a threat is completely flawed; that's the problem.

[Raider]

The government does not have a duty to protect a citizen from himself.

 

Education on drug use is reasonable, but telling people they can't do it is an infrigement upon liberty.

[KHinfcube22]

Its like saying, "you can't drink soda anymore because it has proven that it shortens your life, and causes one to feel as if thier thirst has been quenched." Which reminds me, I think air is a drug. I mean, it could be possible. The only reason one dies from not breathing is because from withdraws. If you look at a long term drugy, they would also die if you just took them off drugs for a day or two. I hope they gov. doesn't ban air!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Raider

The government does not have a duty to protect a citizen from himself.

 

I disagree strongly. many people, perhaps the majority, are too stupid to make a proper decision for themselves.

 

this is the fundamental problem with discussions on things like drugs and guns here. Were drugs and guns to be legal and freely available, then I suspect that the people here are intelligent enough to make an informed choice. Most people are probably not.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

I disagree strongly. many people, perhaps the majority, are too stupid to make a proper decision for themselves.

Possibly so, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to deny them functional autonomy.

 

this is the fundamental problem with discussions on things like drugs and guns here. Were drugs and guns to be legal and freely available, then I suspect that the people here are intelligent enough to make an informed choice. Most people are probably not.

...nonetheless, even 'informed' choices would differ from one onother. So, based on 'informed' choices, some would own guns, some wouldn't; some would take drugs, some wouldn't.

 

What practical difference does the 'informed' bit make if we're all apparently making choices on the bases of different information and beliefs anyway?

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by fafalone

The perception that drugs being legal would be more of a threat is completely flawed; that's the problem.

 

Well, I tend to agree that it is hard to establish a link between crime and legal drugs. The benefits from tax on the drugs would probably more than compensate the additional police required, not to mention the resources freed up from customs and police with the removal of the illegal classification.

 

 

But it still boils down to drug not being good for you, and young people being susceptible to misuse. What if you had a teenage daughter, or a family member, experimenting with drugs? Would you feel the same about it? Would the classification of drugs as legal help to alleviate concerns? That's why I say this is an emotional issue, and not really one that can be solved by the semantics of statistics. As Spike Milligan said statistics have proven that statistics prove nothing.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

 

But it still boils down to drug not being good for you, and young people being susceptible to misuse. What if you had a teenage daughter, or a family member, experimenting with drugs? Would you feel the same about it? Would the classification of drugs as legal help to alleviate concerns? That's why I say this is an emotional issue, and not really one that can be solved by the semantics of statistics. As Spike Milligan said statistics have proven that statistics prove nothing.

 

 

Do you really think keeping drugs illegal stops your kids from trying them? No, it encourages them. This is not statistics, it's simple human nature to want what we're told we can't have. Take alcohol in other countries; it's introduced at an early age, and as a consequence there's significantly less problems related to it in the future.

[KHinfcube22]

But it still boils down to drug not being good for you, and young people being susceptible to misuse. What if you had a teenage daughter, or a family member, experimenting with drugs? Would you feel the same about it? Would the classification of drugs as legal help to alleviate concerns? That's why I say this is an emotional issue, and not really one that can be solved by the semantics of statistics. As Spike Milligan said statistics have proven that statistics prove nothing.

 

I know one who has had her SISTER die from drug overdose, and still agrees with me that making drugs legal would lower the crime. And by the way, guns ARE legal in the US, as long as you have a permit.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Glider

Possibly so, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to deny them functional autonomy.

 

we do for children, and the mentally incapable.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

I know one who has had her SISTER die from drug overdose, and still agrees with me that making drugs legal would lower the crime. And by the way, guns ARE legal in the US, as long as you have a permit.

 

Eh? WTF lead you to believe I thought guns were illegal?

 

Do you mean that you know someone who's sister died from a drug overdose? If I told you that I knew someone who died from a drug overdose and their family agree with me, would you change your mind?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2071928.stm

 

I think I can find more familys who have suffered drug related deaths that would agree with me, you muppet

[Glider]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

we do for children, and the mentally incapable.

No we don't. Functional autonomy is encouraged and developed in both wherever possible.

[KHinfcube22]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

Eh? WTF lead you to believe I thought guns were illegal?

 

Do you mean that you know someone who's sister died from a drug overdose? If I told you that I knew someone who died from a drug overdose and their family agree with me, would you change your mind?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2071928.stm

 

I think I can find more familys who have suffered drug related deaths that would agree with me, you muppet

 

Ok how about this, you take everyone you know who thinks drugs should be ilegal, and I'll take everyone I know who thinks they should be legal, and see who gets the bigger vote, (by the way, I cheat!!!)

[fafalone]

No one thinks all drugs should be illegal. Caffeine, aspirin, etc... are all drugs people take all the time. Where do you draw the line? For example, a few dozen milligrams of DXM is the most popular cough supressant, but a few hundred milligrams is a powerful dissociative drug that produces intoxication and closed-eye hallucinations. 1500 milligrams (2 bottles) will put you at the level of surgical anaesthesia, and much above that will kill you. Also, anything above a few hundred mg will kill billions of brain cells. Yet this is an over-the-counter drug, should it be illegal? It's all about proper use.

[atinymonkey]

Well, Mormon's and Amish people believe just that. Even tea and coffee is shunned by the Mormon's.

 

But I seem to be siding with religious zealots. So perhaps I should re-examine my arguments.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Glider

No we don't. Functional autonomy is encouraged and developed in both wherever possible.

 

children aren't allowed to drive, smoke, drink, get married, have sex and so on. the mentally incapable can't own guns, vote and a bunch of other things.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

Ok how about this, you take everyone you know who thinks drugs should be ilegal, and I'll take everyone I know who thinks they should be legal, and see who gets the bigger vote, (by the way, I cheat!!!)

 

so you agree with mob rule?

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

so you agree with mob rule?

 

 

Beats Church rule like Reverend Ashcroft is trying to establish...

[Glider]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

children aren't allowed to drive, smoke, drink, get married, have sex and so on. the mentally incapable can't own guns, vote and a bunch of other things.

True, but what's your point? Neither children nor the 'mentally incapable' have been judged 'stupid'. Children are encouraged to develop autonomy, as, wherever possible, are the 'mentally incapable' (whatever that means).

[Aardvark]

Surely 'mentaly incapable' is a pretty good definition of stupid?

 

And what's wrong with letting the stupid people kill themselves off with various unpleasant narcotics? There might even be a profit in it from selling them the poison, now that would be a bonus!

[Glider]

It's one definition, but it's flawed. All stupid people are mentally incapable, therefore all mentally incapable people are stupid?

 

What about any number of psychpathologies which render people mentally incabable, though they may never have been stupid?

 

And what's wrong with letting the stupid people kill themselves off with various unpleasant narcotics? Well, they don't all die. Some remain comparatively healthy but need to steal to fund their addiction. Others become chronically ill; parts begin to fail e.g. liver, kidneys etc.. Their treatment is expensive. Either way, you and I pay.

 

Why treat them at all? you ask...because the principle of witholding treatment from those you consider are from suffering self-inflicted conditions is the first step on a very dangerous and very slippery slope. You begin by withholding treatment from narcotics adicts. What about smokers? Shall we withhold treatment from them too?....How about drinkers? All those knackered livers, not to mention accidents whilst under the influence. What about those nutters who engage in dangerous sports like paragliding? They don't need to do that, and trauma treatment is extremely expensive. And boxers...it's just foolish to engage in a sport of which the objective is to blugeon somebody around the head until they lose consciousness. That leads to Parkinsonian syndromes and severe cognitive impairment (long-term and very expensive). Football players...all those expensive orthopaedic injuries....joggers with all those expensive knee and hip replacements. All very expensive. All down to personal choice and all unnecessary.

 

There might even be a profit in it from selling them the poison, now that would be a bonus!

Possibly, but would you vote for anybody who proposed selling addictive and potentially lethal substances to your kids? Even if you found that acceptable, the profit gained from selling the stuff would not begin to cover the long-term costs. In light of reality, I'm not sure that's the answer.

 

Who is it that said it was only stupid people who took drugs anyway....where is the evidence for that suggestion? Are you working to the logic that "all people who take drugs are stupid"? Does that work the other way round? All stupid people take drugs? I don't get the logic.