PDA

View Full Version : Banning Shit Does Not Work and We Should Legalize All Drugs


mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 11:07 AM
Banning a product or service never stop people from using said product or service. With Texas being Texas and recently passing anti-abortion laws this is a good time to explain something to people. Banning shit does not prevent people from using that thing you banned; it only puts the population at risk and money in the pockets of criminals. Itís true about drugs and itís true about abortions as well. People are going to have abortion whether you like it or not and whether itís legal or not. The only difference being by who and where it is done, by a professional in a clinic where there is no risk at all or by a Ďídoctoríí in a back alley where youíll probably get an infection you wonít be able to treat and die from since you live in the US and you donít have health care. Same thing with drugs, we should legalize or at lease decriminalize all of them. We can sell the inoffensive ones like pot to the public and make money of it, and we can actually help people with addictions instead of demonizing them and throwing them in prison.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 11:12 AM
Banning a product or service never stop people from using said product or service. With Texas being Texas and recently passing anti-abortion laws this is a good time to explain something to people. Banning shit does not prevent people from using that thing you banned; it only puts the population at risk and money in the pockets of criminals. Itís true about drugs and itís true about abortions as well. People are going to have abortion whether you like it or not and whether itís legal or not. The only difference being by who and where it is done, by a professional in a clinic where there is no risk at all or by a Ďídoctoríí in a back alley where youíll probably get an infection you wonít be able to treat and die from since you live in the US and you donít have health care. Same thing with drugs, we should legalize or at lease decriminalize all of them. We can sell the inoffensive ones like pot to the public and make money of it, and we can actually help people with addictions instead of demonizing them and throwing them in prison.

Just a question, have you ever been to Seattle? Also, if you want to help a drug addict the worst thing you can do is give them an easier way to the drugs, but I'll talk about that more after you answer my question.

PlasmaHam
July 26th, 2017, 11:15 AM
Banning a product or service never stop people from using said product or service. With Texas being Texas and recently passing anti-abortion laws this is a good time to explain something to people. Banning shit does not prevent people from using that thing you banned; it only puts the population at risk and money in the pockets of criminals.
Great argument against banning guns, I may borrow this at some time, thanks!

Desynchronized
July 26th, 2017, 12:06 PM
Its pretty ridiculous to expect that people will completely stop doing something cos its banned. But banning sure as hell it reduces it. And the abortion thing i think it should be legal and also don't give fucks if someone dies from abortion at a dark alley whereas the person involved doesn't give fucks and could've easily skipped this shit by being a lil cautious.
Also wtf you saying we can help people with addiction by making drugs easier to get. Woah.

Flapjack
July 26th, 2017, 12:38 PM
Oh we should deffo legalise drugs!! Remove power from the gangs and cartels, revenue stream for the government and it is safer for those using the drug.

As for abortion, I agree 100%, I don't get why people want to go back to when women died trying to abort pregnancies.

Porpoise101
July 26th, 2017, 12:46 PM
Banning a product or service never stop people from using said product or service.Buddy the whole point of banning any good or service is to severely reduce its usage. And banning things does do that if the consequences are severe enough or if the good/service is deemed "unessential" by the people that would have purchased it.

Mars
July 26th, 2017, 12:52 PM
Didn't Portugal do this? Instead of using the money for the war on drugs, they used it to help treat addicts and help them?... i mean, if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But a lot of money is going to waste and not much is happening. We have kids in prison for having a couple grams of weed on them... for years. It's ridiculous tbh.

Also, I agree on the abortion thing. Banning abortions and closing down clinics isn't going to help AT ALL. It will just lead to unsafe practices, illegal and unsanitary abortions, and irreversible injuries and death of a lot of women and girls. You guys want to stop the deaths of fetuses? You're going to cause the deaths of women.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 12:55 PM
Oh we should deffo legalise drugs!! Remove power from the gangs and cartels, revenue stream for the government and it is safer for those using the drug.

As for abortion, I agree 100%, I don't get why people want to go back to when women died trying to abort pregnancies.

You clearly have never been to Seattle. Let me explain, a city where no matter where you look there's junks. If you make the drugs legal, you are in no way helping these people and are actually giving them a much easier way to get them, making the problem even worse. You are basically saying you want people to snort cocaine without a care in the world, use XTC which is usually very dangerous, since a lot of it is poisonous junk.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 02:00 PM
Buddy the whole point of banning any good or service is to severely reduce its usage. And banning things does do that if the consequences are severe enough or if the good/service is deemed "unessential" by the people that would have purchased it.

Yeah, but it doesn't work, it's like saying the death penalty deter crimes. People are going to do drugs no matter if its legal or not. Just look at the prohibition in the US, it didn't work at all people were still drinking alcohol and all the money was going to the organized crime.


The Special One Desynchronized by legalizing all drugs you help drug users because it shift the focus on treatment of addiction and not punishment of drug usage. You can also have safe injection sites where medical professionals can administer the drug, by doing this you can prevent HIV and other STD's related to drug usage, and also prevent overdose.

Didn't Portugal do this? Instead of using the money for the war on drugs, they used it to help treat addicts and help them?... i mean, if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But a lot of money is going to waste and not much is happening. We have kids in prison for having a couple grams of weed on them... for years. It's ridiculous tbh.

Yes, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, but they are not legal. Since they did this back in 2001 drug usage as decreased as well as death by drug overdose and new case HIV infection related to drug injection as also decrease.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 02:12 PM
mattsmith48 Do you honestly believe that by making it legal the homeless junks will care about treatment? They will only care about getting more drugs more easily. Do you really think that making something legal suddenly reduces the amount of users?

It's like saying saying murder is legal, it won't reduce the amount of murders, that's not how that works.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 02:30 PM
mattsmith48 Do you honestly believe that by making it legal the homeless junks will care about treatment? They will only care about getting more drugs more easily. Do you really think that making something legal suddenly reduces the amount of users?

Because the current way of doing things with war on drugs and drug prohibition is working so well.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 03:06 PM
Because the current way of doing things with war on drugs and drug prohibition is working so well.

I never said it was, but it legal will result in a lot of drug abuse since you can get it yourself and just get high without worrying about police. Is your ideal city a city where half the people that walk around are high? That's why I asked you if you have ever been to Seattle.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 03:10 PM
I never said it was, but it legal will result in a lot of drug abuse since you can get it yourself and just get high without worrying about police. Is your ideal city a city where half the people that walk around are high? That's why I asked you if you have ever been to Seattle.

As long they are not driving I don't give a shit, if people are walking around high there is nothing wrong with it.

The point of this is not to prevent people from doing drugs, its to make sure they do it safely and treat addiction effectively

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 03:18 PM
As long they are not driving I don't give a shit, if people are walking around high there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm sure the tourists will love a city full of high people and I'm sure the reputation will be great. I'm sure none of the high people will harrass others I'm 100% sure of it. You know it will make the already poor junks even more poor since they can now get it everywhere right? I'm sure the cops will love their night shifts in cities even more.

My point being, you are clearly not thinking about the negative results this may have.

Dalcourt
July 26th, 2017, 03:20 PM
Because the current way of doing things with war on drugs and drug prohibition is working so well.

Sure it works great, you see it in Seattle ;)

No, honestly where I live there's a steady increasing number of gun violence and most is linked to drugs in one way or other. Prisons are full with people doing time for many years after the third minor drug offence. This costs huge amounts of tax money.

So I really have no idea how this situation could get any worse by legalising drugs or whatever. We have a civil war on the streets anyway.

Now tax money is used here to feed drug offenders in prison and scrape the dead from the streets...government could control the selling of drugs and money out of taxes on the sales. They could use this money to rebuild our neighborhoods... but what do I know.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 03:23 PM
I'm sure the tourists will love a city full of high people and I'm sure the reputation will be great. I'm sure none of the high people will harrass others I'm 100% sure of it. You know it will make the already poor junks even more poor since they can now get it everywhere right? I'm sure the cops will love their night shifts in cities even more.

My point being, you are clearly not thinking about the negative results this may have.

I don't know about Seattle, but since they legalized weed, tourists seem to really enjoy going to Colorado.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 03:42 PM
I don't know about Seattle, but since they legalized weed, tourists seem to really enjoy going to Colorado.

Seattle is actually a junk infested city, and as a tourist I can confirm the last thing we need is junks walking around on the streets. But sure make meth, LSD, XTC, coke, ket, etc. legal, it'll be a fun sight to behold.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 03:46 PM
Seattle is actually a junk infested city, and as a tourist I can confirm the last thing we need is junks walking around on the streets. But sure make meth, LSD, XTC, coke, ket, etc. legal, it'll be a fun sight to behold.

Like I've previously said people are going to do drugs no matter if they are legal or not, legalizing all drugs is not about prevention, it's about making sure people who do drugs do it safely and we can treat addictions effectively.

Periphery
July 26th, 2017, 03:48 PM
Like I've previously said people are going to do drugs no matter if they are legal or not, legalizing all drugs is not about prevention, it's about making sure people who do drugs do it safely and we can treat addictions effectively.

You can treat addictions while it's illegal too though. It would actually be better since if you make it legal you are going to treat someone with a drug addiction while surrounding them with drugs and giving them very easy acces to drugs.

Flapjack
July 26th, 2017, 04:15 PM
You can treat addictions while it's illegal too though. It would actually be better since if you make it legal you are going to treat someone with a drug addiction while surrounding them with drugs and giving them very easy acces to drugs.
There is a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. What drugs are you talking about or are you just talking about addictive drugs in general? Because alcohol is certainly an addictive drug.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 05:05 PM
There is a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. What drugs are you talking about or are you just talking about addictive drugs in general? Because alcohol is certainly an addictive drug.

Good point but I would add tobacco, caffeine or sugar which are all legal and can be very addictive. And that's not counting the thousands of prescription drugs that are legal, but some more dangerous and addictive than any other illegal drugs.

Porpoise101
July 26th, 2017, 07:45 PM
Yeah, but it doesn't work, it's like saying the death penalty deter crimes.Harsh penalties deter crime. A prime example is the Japanese occupation of Singapore during WWII. The only question is whether our Western, soft societies are willing to shoot and kill people committing the crime in question.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 07:58 PM
Harsh penalties deter crime. A prime example is the Japanese occupation of Singapore during WWII. The only question is whether our Western, soft societies are willing to shoot and kill people committing the crime in question.

No it doesn't and that is not the debate here, we are talking about how banning drugs and abortion does not prevent people from taking drugs and having abortions

Fleek
July 26th, 2017, 08:13 PM
The future if drugs are legalized:

"Comon' Its just heroin, its legal. So what can go wrong?" Bam overdose. Bam Manslaughter.

Soon everyone will be doped up because it wont be percieved as wrong anymore. No thanks.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 08:40 PM
The future if drugs are legalized:

"Comon' Its just heroin, its legal. So what can go wrong?" Bam overdose. Bam Manslaughter.

Soon everyone will be doped up because it wont be percieved as wrong anymore. No thanks.

Portugal as decriminalize all drugs and nothing of that as happened, there is no evidence that after legalizing all drugs what you said would happen.

Fleek
July 26th, 2017, 09:05 PM
Drugs were criminalized for a reason. They hurt people.

You don't say, "Oh, it's not working so we should just give in." I don't know about you, mattsmith48, but I was taught to never give up. Drugs that harm people can never be allowed, especially when users can harm completely sober individuals. Again; I say no thanks.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 10:49 PM
Drugs were criminalized for a reason. They hurt people.

You don't say, "Oh, it's not working so we should just give in." I don't know about you, mattsmith48, but I was taught to never give up. Drugs that harm people can never be allowed, especially when users can harm completely sober individuals. Again; I say no thanks.

There is a difference between perseverance and not giving up, and trying out the same thing over and over and expecting different results, they say its the definition of insanity. And expecting people to stop or not take drugs just because you criminalize them even thought its has never worked. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds a lot like the second one.

DriveAlive
July 26th, 2017, 11:02 PM
I do not know why we want society to promote something as destructive as drugs. We can help addicts, fight poverty, and treat mental illness.

Fleek
July 26th, 2017, 11:07 PM
Allowing them to take them won't solve anything either. The only reason "crime" rates will drop is because dealing drugs would be legal.
In portugal drugs are illegal. There is just lea way for possession of up to a ten day supply. Much like that of getting no points for driving 5 mph over the speed limit. Also just as texting and driving in some states is a secondary offense, not enough to be pulled over. (For those over 18)

Periphery
July 27th, 2017, 03:00 AM
There is a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. What drugs are you talking about or are you just talking about addictive drugs in general? Because alcohol is certainly an addictive drug.

Yes there is a difference but how will you combine the two? There is also a difference between soft and hard drugs, I am talking about the hard drugs.

Dalcourt
July 27th, 2017, 05:00 AM
So maybe you should all agree on some basic definitions when you have a "discussion"
just an idea.

That's at least what I have learnt...know your facts and what you talk about.

Flapjack
July 27th, 2017, 06:04 AM
Yes there is a difference but how will you combine the two? There is also a difference between soft and hard drugs, I am talking about the hard drugs.
Okay so drugs like heroin? I think it shouldn't be legal to but heroin from stores but I don't think it should be illegal to possess. Addicts should be given help and dealers should be imprisoned. Whereas weed should be completely legalised and users should be able to buy from stores, that is why I think it is important you specify what drug in a debate and as peanut said, there are many addictive drugs like sugar and caffeine.

PlasmaHam
July 27th, 2017, 09:30 AM
Okay so drugs like heroin? I think it shouldn't be legal to but heroin from stores but I don't think it should be illegal to possess. Addicts should be given help and dealers should be imprisoned. Whereas weed should be completely legalised and users should be able to buy from stores, that is why I think it is important you specify what drug in a debate and as peanut said, there are many addictive drugs like sugar and caffeine.

The topic of this debate is whether or not we should legalize all drugs and the effectiveness of bans. That would include both hard and soft drugs. mattsmith48 is advocating for an all-or-nothing approach to drug legalization, do you agree with that or not?

Periphery
July 27th, 2017, 09:33 AM
Okay so drugs like heroin? I think it shouldn't be legal to but heroin from stores but I don't think it should be illegal to possess. Addicts should be given help and dealers should be imprisoned. Whereas weed should be completely legalised and users should be able to buy from stores, that is why I think it is important you specify what drug in a debate and as peanut said, there are many addictive drugs like sugar and caffeine.

As PlasmaHam said, it depends on wether or not you are pro or against making all drugs legal. Because if you are then why would dealers be imprisoned?

Flapjack
July 27th, 2017, 09:40 AM
The topic of this debate is whether or not we should legalize all drugs and the effectiveness of bans. That would include both hard and soft drugs. @mattsmith48 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=101901) is advocating for an all-or-nothing approach to drug legalization, do you agree with that or not?
Is he advocating that you should be able to buy all drugs from licensed dealers? Because I disagree with that but I don't thing anyone should be imprisoned for personal consumption of the drugs, instead they should receive help.
As @PlasmaHam (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122733) said, it depends on wether or not you are pro or against making all drugs legal. Because if you are then why would dealers be imprisoned?
What I was saying is that for hard drugs like heroin, those who sell it should be imprisoned but those that are addicted should not be and instead receive help. So I would decriminalise the possession of the drug.

Periphery
July 27th, 2017, 09:48 AM
Is he advocating that you should be able to buy all drugs from licensed dealers? Because I disagree with that but I don't thing anyone should be imprisoned for personal consumption of the drugs, instead they should receive help.

What I was saying is that for hard drugs like heroin, those who sell it should be imprisoned but those that are addicted should not be and instead receive help. So I would decriminalise the possession of the drug.

So you are pro making it legal but against selling it to the public if I get what you're saying?

Flapjack
July 27th, 2017, 09:52 AM
So you are pro making it legal but against selling it to the public if I get what you're saying?
For hard drugs like heroin yep and I think addicts should get the help they need.

PlasmaHam
July 27th, 2017, 11:13 AM
...and I think addicts should get the help they need.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Flapjack
July 27th, 2017, 11:14 AM
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ermmm okay what do you think it means then? xD

Babs
July 27th, 2017, 03:21 PM
i say decriminalize drugs but keep it in the home. does someone deserve to go to jail just because he's sitting on his couch eating spaghetti-os? no? then why does he deserve to go to jail if it happens to involve heroin? at worst, it should be a misdemeanor, and punished by completing a program of sorts, like traffic school or anger management or aa.

make it legal to possess small amounts for use in the privacy of ones own home. it's a waste of time and resources to imprison somebody unless they were actually causing a ruckus.

Allowing them to take them won't solve anything either. The only reason "crime" rates will drop is because dealing drugs would be legal.
In portugal drugs are illegal. There is just lea way for possession of up to a ten day supply. Much like that of getting no points for driving 5 mph over the speed limit. Also just as texting and driving in some states is a secondary offense, not enough to be pulled over. (For those over 18)

people wouldn't be dealing drugs. drugs would be sold by licensed distributors, with reputable suppliers. when your dad wants to get boozed up does he go to his buddy named 8-ball or does he go to a liquor store? arguably doing drugs would become safer.

Dalcourt
July 27th, 2017, 06:05 PM
Great argument against banning guns, I may borrow this at some time, thanks!

So guns are legal, right?
And this says you agree with mattsmith48 that it is okay to legalize drugs the same as guns are legal since banning won't stop people from using them anyway or what?

Periphery
July 28th, 2017, 03:00 AM
For hard drugs like heroin yep and I think addicts should get the help they need.

Then my question is, how would you help them if all the hard drugs are legal?

Flapjack
July 28th, 2017, 04:20 AM
Then my question is, how would you help them if all the hard drugs are legal?
As I said before selling them shouldn't be legal so they would be just as difficult to obtain before you say that.

Firstly they wouldn't get thrown into jail for an addiction, jail will significantly reduce the likelihood of them finding work once leaving prison because of their criminal record, increases the chance they could get involved in more serious crime by joining a gang inside the prison etc etc and the imprisonment will also strain their personal lives, partners might leave them and it is more difficult to maintain friendships! Sooo prison is bad, they do very little to help the addict anywyas.

Instead if drugs are legalised they can seek out help, get given clean needles to prevent the spread of drugs like HIV and the government should provide programs to help the addicts get clean.
Great argument against banning guns, I may borrow this at some time, thanks!
Guns are very different to drugs, just look at the UK, tones of drugs, very few guns... both illegal. Or at least gun ownership has very tight regulations making it difficult for them to get on the black market.

Drugs can be smuggled across borders but guns cannot because of metal detectors. Drugs can be grown/ produced in someone's basement, whilst home-made guns are very rare and nowhere near as deadly as the semi-auto and even fully automatic guns you seem to be cool with everyone owning.

PlasmaHam
July 28th, 2017, 09:29 AM
Drugs can be smuggled across borders but guns cannot because of metal detectors. Drugs can be grown/ produced in someone's basement, whilst home-made guns are very rare and nowhere near as deadly as the semi-auto and even fully automatic guns you seem to be cool with everyone owning.
So you can't smuggle guns due to metal detectors? Dude, there are hundreds of ways to get around that. That is like saying because we have constant border patrol, there is no way people can cross the border illegally. Or like saying since we have drug sniffing dogs, that no drugs can be smuggled in.

Also, tough gun regulations aren't going to prevent gun smugglers, because guess what, gun smugglers don't care about following the law! I just did a quick search, and there are estimated to be atleast 10 thousand guns smuggled in the UK each year. And those illegal guns aren't going to the noble citizenry, they are going to criminals and other unsavory parts of society. You honestly seem to contradicting your drug argument here, I suggest you re-evaluate your logic before responding.


Firstly they wouldn't get thrown into jail for an addiction, jail will significantly reduce the likelihood of them finding work once leaving prison because of their criminal record, increases the chance they could get involved in more serious crime by joining a gang inside the prison etc etc and the imprisonment will also strain their personal lives, partners might leave them and it is more difficult to maintain friendships! Sooo prison is bad, they do very little to help the addict anywyas.
Aw, I feel so sorry for the person who willingly broke the law because their friendships might get hurt. :(

Not


So guns are legal, right?
And this says you agree with mattsmith48 that it is okay to legalize drugs the same as guns are legal since banning won't stop people from using them anyway or what?

No, I'm saying if MattSmith uses such logic to say that drugs shouldn't be banned, then unless he wants to be a hypocrite, then he'll also need to say that guns shouldn't be banned as well, for similar reasoning. Given that MattSmith is extremely anti-gun, then he won't do that. Which makes his argument here seem flawed, since he won't follow very similar logic on another issue. Whether or not I agree with his logic when it comes to drugs is irrelevant, since I am not the one currently arguing for it.

But let us get back on the topic at hand, shall we?

Dalcourt
July 28th, 2017, 10:00 AM
No, I'm saying if MattSmith uses such logic to say that drugs shouldn't be banned, then unless he wants to be a hypocrite, then he'll also need to say that guns shouldn't be banned as well, for similar reasoning. Given that MattSmith is extremely anti-gun, then he won't do that. Which makes his argument here seem flawed, since he won't follow very similar logic on another issue. Whether or not I agree with his logic when it comes to drugs is irrelevant, since I am not the one currently arguing for it.

But let us get back on the topic at hand, shall we?

How was the question I asked not on topic?
You your argument there would be it's no use banning guns since people could get them and kill each other anyway when they buy them illegally.

So according to this logic you could also agree with mattsmith48 that you could legalize drugs. They are illegal now but whoever wants them obviously gets them anyway. So why would there be any difference?

Since this logic actually works both ways it was a legit question on the topic.
He is for banning guns, you for banning drugs...he is against banning drugs you are against banning guns...so kinda does not work out with this argument.

So I would really like to hear some better arguments on that topic from both of you.
Hence my question.

PlasmaHam
July 28th, 2017, 10:21 AM
You your argument there would be it's no use banning guns since people could get them and kill each other anyway when they buy them illegally.

So according to this logic you could also agree with mattsmith48 that you could legalize drugs. They are illegal now but whoever wants them obviously gets them anyway. So why would there be any difference?

Since this logic actually works both ways it was a legit question on the topic.
He is for banning guns, you for banning drugs...he is against banning drugs you are against banning guns...so kinda does not work out with this argument.

So I would really like to hear some better arguments on that topic from both of you.
Hence my question.

Simply put, I say there is a net societal benefit to having a legally armed populace, and a legally armed populace can decrease the large dangers of legally armed criminal elements. Meanwhile there is minimal to none societal benefit to having a drugged populace, and it would do little to decrease the dangers of those under the mind altering affects of illegal drugs. Essentially, my argument is that guns can protect people from guns, but drugs cannot protect people from drugs. Therefore we should allow the populace to protect themselves, which they can do via guns, not drugs. Albiet, I can see this logic being used in some capacity to justify legalization of drugs, I will admit that. But I cannot see this logic saying that drugs should be legal while guns are illegal, which is what MattSmith is presenting, and what I want to focus upon.
How was the question I asked not on topic?
I was simply saying that we don't need to be going down a rabbit-hole of a gun debate in a drug thread. My initial comment was simply to point out a flaw in MattSmith's logic, not to provoke a whole debate on whether or not we should ban guns.

We can discuss this more, but I'm not going to respond again until MattSmith presents his defense. There is no need for me to be going on the defensive even though he brought up the logic we are now questioning.

Flapjack
July 28th, 2017, 10:24 AM
Aw, I feel so sorry for the person who willingly broke the law because their friendships might get hurt. :(

Not

I noticed how you skipped over and ignored how it would make them more likely to get involved in more serious crime and how you have no empathy for people who are addicted to harmful substances, with drugs like heroin that addiction could have been caused by drugs like morphine.


Also, tough gun regulations aren't going to prevent gun smugglers, because guess what, gun smugglers don't care about following the law!
Nah but they do prevent people accidental shooting people or fights escalating into fatal school shootings or children pinching their parents gun and shooting up a high school or heck even gun rights advocates gunning down their own family. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMnjsZEfFLk&)

Also there would be less guns on the black market if you don't flood a country with guns.

and there are estimated to be atleast 10 thousand guns smuggled in the UK each year.
Could you provide a source for that... XD

mattsmith48
July 28th, 2017, 11:40 AM
Flapjack and I both live in countries with strict gun control laws, they are illegal guns in circulation and we occasionally have mass shootings. It is rare, but it happens. For some reason and we can try to guess why, guns are different than other controlled or banned products like drugs. It could be that it is harder to cross borders with them, or harder for an individual to get a gun than heroin, or that it is easier to make meth than a gun, or easier to hide drugs than a gun when in public.
PlasmaHam and other anti-gun control people often use the ''if guns are ban, crazy people will just buy them illegally'' argument to which I always answer ''drugs are illegal and it is easier to get than a gun and a gun is much more deadly than any drugs you could fine so why not legalize drugs'' and I never get an answer to that question.

Dalcourt
July 28th, 2017, 02:54 PM
PlasmaHam I never intended to go into an anti-gun discussion. I just don't understand why you would want to use an argument you admit yourself is useless and false to prove a point.
(And if you would live where I live you would see that the only benefit of a legally a remedy population is that your lil sis gets shot while she is talking to some friends in front of your house. So it's all kinda relative)

So even you have to admit that current drug policies and the so called war on drugs does not work.



I don't say I'm for legalizing all drugs but I'm also not against it since I see it as some experiment to try and see where it gets us thing.
I'm kinda neutral here and so far I hardly seen any real problem or con argument.
So neither side could persuade me here.

PlasmaHam
July 28th, 2017, 03:00 PM
PlasmaHam I never intended to go into an anti-gun discussion. I just don't understand why you would want to use an argument you admit yourself is useless and false to prove a point.
I am not sure what you are saying. I thought I answered such questions in my prior answer.

But as I stated earlier, I am not proceeding with this vein of argument unless MattSmith gives a valid and logical reason why bans on drugs are useless and hurt the populace, while gun bans do hurt the populace. And reversing the question is not a reasonable argument for your position.

Dalcourt
July 28th, 2017, 03:09 PM
I am not sure what you are saying. I thought I answered such questions in my prior answer.

But as I stated earlier, I am not proceeding with this vein of argument unless MattSmith gives a valid and logical reason why bans on drugs are useless and hurt the populace, while gun bans do hurt the populace. And reversing the question is not a reasonable argument for your position.

We are not talking about guns here but about you also having no valid arguments why not to approach the drug problem otherwise.

What I'm saying is that just stating something your opponent said is stupid without having real points yourself is no point at all.

DriveAlive
July 28th, 2017, 07:49 PM
Good guys use guns. Guns have multiple safe and productive purposes. Good guys do not use heroin and meth and crack. Heroin and crack and meth do not have multiple safe and productive purposes.

I am all for reevaluating strategies and treatment options for drug addicts. Personally, a person caught using a drug or with a small amount for personal use only needs to be evaluated and sent to some form of rehab. However, those who sell drugs need much harsher prison sentences. In fact, we need to get serious about cracking down hard on drug dealers and producers. This goes for prescription opioid abuse as well.

CrypticBread2
July 28th, 2017, 07:53 PM
As some people have said before: Although your idea seems logical, I myself might try drugs if they get legalized, but the fact that they are illegal turns me away from them even more.

Dalcourt
July 28th, 2017, 09:59 PM
Good guys use guns. Guns have multiple safe and productive purposes. Good guys do not use heroin and meth and crack. Heroin and crack and meth do not have multiple safe and productive purposes.

I am all for reevaluating strategies and treatment options for drug addicts. Personally, a person caught using a drug or with a small amount for personal use only needs to be evaluated and sent to some form of rehab. However, those who sell drugs need much harsher prison sentences. In fact, we need to get serious about cracking down hard on drug dealers and producers. This goes for prescription opioid abuse as well.

So there are lots of decent middle class housewives and college students that are heavy drug users. They started out getting prescribed some pills by there doctors who sometimes give them away even more freely than candy.
After a while those pills weren't enough and they go out in the streets for their daily dose...sure those are all bad guys....

Selling drugs and the organised crime is battled by the police.
Dealers are punished, sent to prison, there are tons of drug raids everywhere everyday. Obviously all those strategies fail to curb the drug problem or have you seen get it any better over the last decades?

So it's okay to tell us we have to fight dealers etc. but my question is how?

People just keep repeating that taking drugs is bad and we must punish the dealers.

I know that there are no health benefits in taking heroin and that addicts would need rehab. So would you kindly explain who should pay for that rehab?

The USA bravely fights this "war on drugs" you know since when? You know where the term comes from....so it's a damn long time we fighting this war with no visible result.

So how do you think we could change the strategy in this fight? How should we go about getting the real criminals and not just send the small Street dealers to jail?


Would be a government controlled selling of heroin at let's say a drug store help to reduce the profit of the big dealers?
Black market like every other market works with supply and demand. If you would get your heroine/ cocaine legally at the drug store...would you go to a backstreet dealer?

Well legalising a drug really make everyone an addict?
Certain "drugs" are legal...meds, alcohol, nicotine you could also add sugar here if you want are you and the people around you addicted to all of them?

So as I asked PlasmaHam before you please enlighten us on your arguments.

DriveAlive
July 28th, 2017, 11:43 PM
So there are lots of decent middle class housewives and college students that are heavy drug users. They started out getting prescribed some pills by there doctors who sometimes give them away even more freely than candy.
After a while those pills weren't enough and they go out in the streets for their daily dose...sure those are all bad guys....

Selling drugs and the organised crime is battled by the police.
Dealers are punished, sent to prison, there are tons of drug raids everywhere everyday. Obviously all those strategies fail to curb the drug problem or have you seen get it any better over the last decades?

So it's okay to tell us we have to fight dealers etc. but my question is how?

People just keep repeating that taking drugs is bad and we must punish the dealers.

I know that there are no health benefits in taking heroin and that addicts would need rehab. So would you kindly explain who should pay for that rehab?

The USA bravely fights this "war on drugs" you know since when? You know where the term comes from....so it's a damn long time we fighting this war with no visible result.

So how do you think we could change the strategy in this fight? How should we go about getting the real criminals and not just send the small Street dealers to jail?


Would be a government controlled selling of heroin at let's say a drug store help to reduce the profit of the big dealers?
Black market like every other market works with supply and demand. If you would get your heroine/ cocaine legally at the drug store...would you go to a backstreet dealer?

Well legalising a drug really make everyone an addict?
Certain "drugs" are legal...meds, alcohol, nicotine you could also add sugar here if you want are you and the people around you addicted to all of them?

So as I asked PlasmaHam before you please enlighten us on your arguments.

First, I will start off by saying that the government should NEVER sell drugs in any way. This is condoning drug use. It is wrong and an immoral use of tax dollars. Not even going to consider this.

With the amount of money that we spend keeping drug users in jail, we could easily pay for rehab. I see no problem with this. In addition, it would hopefully cut down on repeat offenses and free up a lot of money spend on law enforcement and prosecution of these people.

We do not fight the drug trade seriously enough as a nation. We have drugs pouring over the border and through gangs into every city and town in America. The biggest national security threat we face today is drugs. They threaten lives, productivity, families, and every community in our country. Therefore, it requires a serious escalation of policing and police tactics to eliminate these dealers and producers. I very much like some of the more aggressive tactics we have seen deployed in some border states against the Mexican cartel. Call me militant, but we need to target these people with extreme prejudice. This also means no more ignoring of the inner city by law enforcement. We cannot let those who live in the poorest areas be victimized by gangs. It is time that we put boots on the ground and clean up the streets.

And for all of the poor decent people who become addicted to painkillers because of abusive prescription practices by predatory doctors, I see no reason why they should be treated any differently than any other addict. They need rehab, not to be ignored and not to be jailed. Those so-called doctors who take advantage of these people are drug dealers. This means they need to face the same aggressive enforcement that I want used against any other dealer. Sorry, but an addict is an addict and a dealer is a dealer.

PlasmaHam
July 28th, 2017, 11:52 PM
Peanut_ as I stated before, I am not responding until MattSmith can give a valid argument as to why drugs should be legal under his logic, but not guns. As someone who claims to be neutral on the matter, you should agree that he should now present his argument, since I already have.

To be frank, nothing you have brought up has anything to do with what I am arguing here. That is why I haven't responded to your posts, they are irrelevant. I am assuming ignorance of the topic is your reason for this; I am assuming you aren't intentionally trying to deflect the argument. However, keep this up, and I am not going to respond to any of your posts. If there is one thing I can't stand is debating with a troll.

Dalcourt
July 29th, 2017, 12:47 AM
Peanut_ as I stated before, I am not responding until MattSmith can give a valid argument as to why drugs should be legal under his logic, but not guns. As someone who claims to be neutral on the matter, you should agree that he should now present his argument, since I already have.

To be frank, nothing you have brought up has anything to do with what I am arguing here. That is why I haven't responded to your posts, they are irrelevant. I am assuming ignorance of the topic is your reason for this; I am assuming you aren't intentionally trying to deflect the argument. However, keep this up, and I am not going to respond to any of your posts. If there is one thing I can't stand is debating with a troll.

So you are only responding after the person you sorta feel like is you opponent made his response? Well very professional way of debating.

I just asked you simply what your approach to the problem is. The bickering you have with mattsmith48 is irrelevant to this. and especially to me as I do not side with either of you. I just used your responses to him to show that till now you haven't had anything valuable to say on the topic of legalising or not legalising drugs.

A discussion is not about telling someone else he is wrong but give valid statements why the other person is wrong.

So as I previously said I'm sorta neutral on this topic and just want people show me their points.
I asked a couple of questions. DriveAlive managed to give reasonable answers to them. You up to now have failed to give any reasonable points and telling me now you will stop answering just shows that you have no real answer to give except opposing everything MattSmiths48 says on any thread.

There are users like me here who are interested in serious discussion with serious argumentation and with this unproductive way of discussion you are all basically ruining every thread here.

Dalcourt
July 29th, 2017, 12:49 AM
Peanut_ as I stated before, I am not responding until MattSmith can give a valid argument as to why drugs should be legal under his logic, but not guns. As someone who claims to be neutral on the matter, you should agree that he should now present his argument, since I already have.

To be frank, nothing you have brought up has anything to do with what I am arguing here. That is why I haven't responded to your posts, they are irrelevant. I am assuming ignorance of the topic is your reason for this; I am assuming you aren't intentionally trying to deflect the argument. However, keep this up, and I am not going to respond to any of your posts. If there is one thing I can't stand is debating with a troll.

So you are only responding after the person you sorta feel like is you opponent made his response? Well very professional way of debating.

I just asked you simply what your approach to the problem is. The bickering you have with mattsmith48 is irrelevant to this. and especially to me as I do not side with either of you. I just used your responses to him to show that till now you haven't had anything valuable to say on the topic of legalising or not legalising drugs.

A discussion is not about telling someone else he is wrong but give valid statements why the other person is wrong.

So as I previously said I'm sorta neutral on this topic and just want people show me their points.
I asked a couple of questions. DriveAlive managed to give reasonable answers to them. You up to now have failed to give any reasonable points and telling me now you will stop answering just shows that you have no real answer to give except opposing everything mattsmith48 says on any thread.

There are users like me here who are interested in serious discussion with serious argumentation and with this unproductive way of discussion you are all basically ruining every thread here.

mattsmith48
July 29th, 2017, 11:45 AM
Flapjack and I both live in countries with strict gun control laws, they are illegal guns in circulation and we occasionally have mass shootings. It is rare, but it happens. For some reason and we can try to guess why, guns are different than other controlled or banned products like drugs. It could be that it is harder to cross borders with them, or harder for an individual to get a gun than heroin, or that it is easier to make meth than a gun, or easier to hide drugs than a gun when in public.

PlasmaHam I think this is a good explanation, if you have a problem or you don't agree with what I said talk to me directly instead of whining to other people.

Porpoise101
July 29th, 2017, 06:49 PM
Difference between banning drugs and banning guns: one is usually addictive and one is not. That means a simple prohibition is far easier for guns because a customer is less likely to consider it a necessity when compared to an addictive substance.

However, considering that we will be able to treat addiction with standard medication in the near future, I see no reason to legalize drugs especially when the bans can/should be re-instituted in the future. In other words, the main thing that makes drugs hard to ban will go away soon, so in the mean time we might as well keep them in place and focus on other issues instead.

Flapjack
July 29th, 2017, 07:39 PM
However, considering that we will be able to treat addiction with standard medication in the near future, I see no reason to legalize drugs especially when the bans can/should be re-instituted in the future. In other words, the main thing that makes drugs hard to ban will go away soon, so in the mean time we might as well keep them in place and focus on other issues instead.
That doesn't do much for the lives destroyed by drugs today....

What about milder drugs like weed? A lot safer than alcohol but yet it is still illegal?

mattsmith48
July 29th, 2017, 08:11 PM
I am all for reevaluating strategies and treatment options for drug addicts. Personally, a person caught using a drug or with a small amount for personal use only needs to be evaluated and sent to some form of rehab. However, those who sell drugs need much harsher prison sentences. In fact, we need to get serious about cracking down hard on drug dealers and producers. This goes for prescription opioid abuse as well.

Apparently if someone can decide for them self we cannot force them to take a treatment they don't want to take.

That doesn't do much for the lives destroyed by drugs today....

What about milder drugs like weed? A lot safer than alcohol but yet it is still illegal?

In 11 months it won't be illegal here. :D Weed is safer than most of what we eat.

DriveAlive
July 29th, 2017, 11:02 PM
Apparently if someone can decide for them self we cannot force them to take a treatment they don't want to take.



In 11 months it won't be illegal here. :D Weed is safer than most of what we eat.
Just because they do not want treatment does not mean that they do not need it. I am not willing to give up on these addicts.

mattsmith48
July 30th, 2017, 10:22 AM
Just because they do not want treatment does not mean that they do not need it. I am not willing to give up on these addicts.

No they still need it, but it's up to them if they want the treatment or not.

DriveAlive
July 30th, 2017, 11:31 AM
No they still need it, but it's up to them if they want the treatment or not.

No it really is not. If you use drugs and put the rest of society at risk because of your decisions, then you have two choices: go to rehab or go to jail. Either way, we are going to get you clean and productive.

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 11:36 AM
No it really is not. If you use drugs and put the rest of society at risk because of your decisions, then you have two choices: go to rehab or go to jail. Either way, we are going to get you clean and productive.
How is the rest of society at risk from these drugs? It shouldn't be a crime to be addicted, they should be offered help but just like with any medical treatment, as long as the person is of sound mind they have the right to refuse it.

Btw what drugs are we taking about? Stuff like weed or stuff like heroin?

DriveAlive
July 30th, 2017, 11:40 AM
How is the rest of society at risk from these drugs? It shouldn't be a crime to be addicted, they should be offered help but just like with any medical treatment, as long as the person is of sound mind they have the right to refuse it.

Btw what drugs are we taking about? Stuff like weed or stuff like heroin?

Weed should be legal. I am talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

THESE drugs make a person a nonproductive liability for society. They are most likely going to end up dead as a result unless they get treatment. Society is going to have to pay the bill as they lose jobs, make poor health decisions, and compromise their faculties to the point that they endanger themselves and others.

Even if you are a super libertarian that does not believe in collective responsibility, there has to be a part of you that does not want to see anyone reduced to the state of an addict and see families torn apart because of addiction. This is something that society just cannot allow.

mattsmith48
July 30th, 2017, 12:05 PM
Weed should be legal. I am talking about heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

What about prescription drugs that have the same effect than heroin should those be illegal too? What about sugar? Sugar as the same effect on the brain than cocaine, is very addictive and cost hundreds of millions in health care nd millions of lives every year. Should we ban Sugar?

THESE drugs make a person a nonproductive liability for society. They are most likely going to end up dead as a result unless they get treatment. Society is going to have to pay the bill as they lose jobs, make poor health decisions, and compromise their faculties to the point that they endanger themselves and others.

As oppose to throwing them in jail for no reason, that is completely free.

Porpoise101
July 30th, 2017, 05:55 PM
That doesn't do much for the lives destroyed by drugs today....That is why prohibition is in place. Better to limit the damage than make it available to the mainstream of society. I personally think they need to continue with the status quo. If reform is needed, it is with the criminal justice system as a whole that overwhelmingly harms drug offenders with things like excessive bail, mandatory minimum sentencing, and a lack of public defenders.
What about milder drugs like weed? A lot safer than alcohol but yet it is still illegal?I don't know. It would have been better to legalize it 10 years ago. Now they have developed more potent and dangerous strains (though still not super harmful). If marijuana were to be legalized, I suspect that the more dangerous strains would be like the moonshine in today's alcohol market.

IMO I think alcohol and tobacco should be banned in an ideal world. This is something I actually admire in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. But these things are sort of ingrained in our culture, so it is difficult to stop.

Just JT
July 30th, 2017, 11:56 PM
This is what our society allowed to happen to Seattle

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oxycontin-lawsuit-20170118-story,amp.html

We all have our own stories about tragedies in our lives, well I hope not all.
Anyways, shit so bad for us, so addictive, why....?
Why allow this legally?
I just don't get it.....

Has anyone in this thread bad struggles like this?
You know what it's like?

DriveAlive
July 31st, 2017, 12:39 AM
What about prescription drugs that have the same effect than heroin should those be illegal too? What about sugar? Sugar as the same effect on the brain than cocaine, is very addictive and cost hundreds of millions in health care nd millions of lives every year. Should we ban Sugar?



As oppose to throwing them in jail for no reason, that is completely free.

Prescription drugs are only legal if they are legally prescribed. Abusing them is illegal. And as I said earlier, we need to treat these predatory doctors as harshly as any other drug dealers.

Last time I checked, sugar does not block dopamine absorption centers in the brain to cause a build up of dopamine that gives a euphoric high like cocaine. It might release dopamine but so does everything. I am also all for a sugar tax.

mattsmith48
July 31st, 2017, 11:00 AM
This is what our society allowed to happen to Seattle

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oxycontin-lawsuit-20170118-story,amp.html

We all have our own stories about tragedies in our lives, well I hope not all.
Anyways, shit so bad for us, so addictive, why....?
Why allow this legally?
I just don't get it.....

Has anyone in this thread bad struggles like this?
You know what it's like?

Well to resume what as already been said prohibition doesn't fucking work.

Prescription drugs are only legal if they are legally prescribed. Abusing them is illegal. And as I said earlier, we need to treat these predatory doctors as harshly as any other drug dealers.

Last time I checked, sugar does not block dopamine absorption centers in the brain to cause a build up of dopamine that gives a euphoric high like cocaine. It might release dopamine but so does everything. I am also all for a sugar tax.

Taxing the drugs is a better way to go than simply banning the shit. Cigarettes and other tobacco products will never be banned, but it is taxed and when you know how much it cost, you think it twice before starting. People will still start and continue to smoke so instead of a ban where all the money goes to criminals, with a tax the money goes to the government and can help to pay for future health care cost of smokers. The same concept should be implemented for sugar.

Just JT
July 31st, 2017, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3554441]Well to resume what as already been said prohibition doesn't fucking work.[QUOTE]

And opiates heroine, meth and fentenol does?

mattsmith48
July 31st, 2017, 11:24 AM
And opiates heroine, meth and fentenol does?

Does what?

PlasmaHam
July 31st, 2017, 11:28 AM
People will still start and continue to smoke so instead of a ban where all the money goes to criminals, with a tax the money goes to the government and can help to pay for future health care cost of smokers.
You have a very naive view on the government's ability to effectively manage and redistribute wealth.

mattsmith48
July 31st, 2017, 11:31 AM
You have a very naive view on the government's ability to effectively manage and redistribute wealth.

It's not because government in your country is a total train wreck from top to bottom, that it is like that everywhere.

Porpoise101
July 31st, 2017, 06:55 PM
It's not because government in your country is a total train wreck from top to bottom, that it is like that everywhere.Wow so much for civilized discourse. A guy lightly criticizes over-enthusiasm for the state and you just attack his society. Disgusting.

Deterrence via punishment is a legitimate way to stop usage. It is a basic concept. The only issue is that in the US the law is not wielded fairly, which hinders the efficacy of the law.

mattsmith48
July 31st, 2017, 08:26 PM
Wow so much for civilized discourse. A guy lightly criticizes over-enthusiasm for the state and you just attack his society. Disgusting.

Deterrence via punishment is a legitimate way to stop usage. It is a basic concept. The only issue is that in the US the law is not wielded fairly, which hinders the efficacy of the law.

I keep telling you that does not work. Tell me one example that actually worked.

DriveAlive
August 1st, 2017, 10:21 AM
Well to resume what as already been said prohibition doesn't fucking work.



Taxing the drugs is a better way to go than simply banning the shit. Cigarettes and other tobacco products will never be banned, but it is taxed and when you know how much it cost, you think it twice before starting. People will still start and continue to smoke so instead of a ban where all the money goes to criminals, with a tax the money goes to the government and can help to pay for future health care cost of smokers. The same concept should be implemented for sugar.

That is implying that we want our government to be funded on blood money. If you offered me money from a heroin addict, I would turn it down. This is not how things should be done. We need to be reducing usage, not justifying it.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2017, 10:33 AM
That is implying that we want our government to be funded on blood money. If you offered me money from a heroin addict, I would turn it down. This is not how things should be done. We need to be reducing usage, not justifying it.
Yep. You also got to consider the morality of the government basically exploiting people's addiction for its own cash gain.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2017, 11:38 AM
That is implying that we want our government to be funded on blood money. If you offered me money from a heroin addict, I would turn it down. This is not how things should be done. We need to be reducing usage, not justifying it.

Well in the case of heroin we would give it for free in safe injection sites. The only money the government would make on that is the money they would save on health care by lowering the number of new HIV and hepatitis cases related to drug use.

Yep. You also got to consider the morality of the government basically exploiting people's addiction for its own cash gain.

They already do it with cigarettes and Alcohol, and DriveAlive said he's for a sugar tax. Also You and DriveAlive support a party who openly spent the last 6 months trying to past a law that would kill 33 millions of their own citizens, morality is not really something you should bring up.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2017, 12:32 PM
Well in the case of heroin we would give it for free in safe injection sites. The only money the government would make on that is the money they would save on health care by lowering the number of new HIV and hepatitis cases related to drug use.
Once again, a very naive view of governments' ability to effectively manage and redistribute money.


They already do it with cigarettes and Alcohol, and DriveAlive said he's for a sugar tax.
Did I ever say that cigarette and alcohol taxes that basically exploit addictions for government gain is morally right? And whether or not DriveAlive is for a sugar tax or not is completely irrelevant to me.
Also You and DriveAlive support a party who openly spent the last 6 months trying to past a law that would kill 33 millions of their own citizens, morality is not really something you should bring up.
Really? A Straw-man argument? Given your recent actions on other threads, I am really beginning to doubt that you want, or are capable of, civilized discussion.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2017, 04:24 PM
mattsmith48 You do know that taxation on addictive goods still hurts the poor right? It is still regressive taxation. Things like alcohol and cigarettes are taxed regressively. In other words, you are hurting the poor while propping unhealthy drugs up as a luxury commodity.

Banning is more fair because 5 years off of someone's life hurts the same no matter your wealth. Time is a commodity all want and fear to lose.

DriveAlive
August 2nd, 2017, 01:25 AM
Well in the case of heroin we would give it for free in safe injection sites. The only money the government would make on that is the money they would save on health care by lowering the number of new HIV and hepatitis cases related to drug use.



They already do it with cigarettes and Alcohol, and DriveAlive said he's for a sugar tax. Also You and DriveAlive support a party who openly spent the last 6 months trying to past a law that would kill 33 millions of their own citizens, morality is not really something you should bring up.

The government should not be giving heroin to anyone. We already have needle exchange programs and methadone centers to attempt to reduce transmitted diseases and help the health of addicts. We can work on these programs but adding free heroin and other drugs only serves to normalize drug use. That is where I have a problem.

Just because I identify most politically as a Republican, this does not mean that I in any way support the current actions of the GOP on healthcare reform. There are parts of Obamacare that I like and parts that I hate. Bipartisan reform is necessary. No one should die.

I love debating as much as anyone else in ROTW but I want you to discuss with me based on what I say and what I believe and not simply repeating how bad I am for being a Republican because all Republicans must be bad, racist, homophobic, etc. This is not productive and not open-minded. If you took the time to really talk to me and discuss the issues civilly, you would see that we share a lot of the same goals, we just have a different view as to how best accomplish them.

Stronk Serb
August 2nd, 2017, 04:50 AM
Well, by that logic we should legalize all firearms. Then just look how effective it will be.

NewLeafsFan
August 6th, 2017, 11:47 PM
That's true. Hopefully this won't offend any of the regular posters with thin skin and a back that can't wait to be raised like an angry cat but I'm going to continue with your first example of abortion.

If abortion becomes illegal than what do all pregnant women that wish not to carry their baby to term do? Do they try to induce labour with a potentially dangerous object like a coat hanger? What if she injures herself because she doesn't know what she's doing? What if she dies?

mattsmith48
August 7th, 2017, 11:53 AM
That's true. Hopefully this won't offend any of the regular posters with thin skin and a back that can't wait to be raised like an angry cat but I'm going to continue with your first example of abortion.

If abortion becomes illegal than what do all pregnant women that wish not to carry their baby to term do? Do they try to induce labour with a potentially dangerous object like a coat hanger? What if she injures herself because she doesn't know what she's doing? What if she dies?

Most women will continue to have abortions, it will just be done in a dark alley or in an old warehouse or even at home instead of a clinic and done by a professional. Legal abortion are almost with out risk, in fact there is more risk to die during childbirth is 14 times higher than having a legal abortion, risk of death from a illegal abortion is infinitely higher than a legal one.

PlasmaHam
August 7th, 2017, 01:25 PM
That's true. Hopefully this won't offend any of the regular posters with thin skin and a back that can't wait to be raised like an angry cat but I'm going to continue with your first example of abortion.

You implying something here?

If abortion becomes illegal than what do all pregnant women that wish not to carry their baby to term do? Do they try to induce labour with a potentially dangerous object like a coat hanger? What if she injures herself because she doesn't know what she's doing? What if she dies?
I don't want to get off topic here, but let us just assume something. Pretend, just for a minute, that instead of talking about abortion, we are talking about murder*. You could make the case that murders are riskier to the murderers when homicide is illegal, and that regardless of whether murder is illegal or not, people are still going to kill others. Would you then say that we ought to make murder legal?

Of course not, but why? Practically, making homicide illegal just results in a more violent and risky murder, and homicide laws are ineffective deterrents for homicide, so why make it illegal? We make it illegal because we as a society see murder as something we should not condone. It is a statement that we value the innocent lives lost, and that we see murder as an immoral thing that people need to be punished for. Does it do much to deter future murders? Not so much, but it does show that as a civilized society we do not permit senseless violence towards others. Now pretend that I replaced murder and homicide with abortion, and thus you should understand why people want abortion illegal.


(*My analogy isn't perfect here, but anyone with commonsense should understand my point. I am not trying to provoke an abortion debate, just answering a question. If your response involves some pro-abortion rant or claims that murder doesn't equal abortion, I won't reply, as that is off-topic. Thank you.)

mattsmith48
August 7th, 2017, 02:43 PM
PlasmaHam pro-abortion is not a thing, no one is going out there encouraging women to have abortions, if you do you are an horrible human being.

PlasmaHam
August 7th, 2017, 03:08 PM
PlasmaHam pro-abortion is not a thing, no one is going out there encouraging women to have abortions, if you do you are an horrible human being.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedu re_and_the_choice/
There are people who advocate abortion as casual birth control, and those who push having an abortion as something to be praised for. That is pro-abortion.

Also, saying that someone is wrong to encourage abortion seems to hint that you don't believe abortions are entirely morally right. Are you of the philosophy that abortions need to be "safe, legal, and rare"? Am I wrong about that?

mattsmith48
August 7th, 2017, 03:38 PM
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedu re_and_the_choice/
There are people who advocate abortion as casual birth control, and those who push having an abortion as something to be praised for. That is pro-abortion.

Also, saying that someone is wrong to encourage abortion seems to hint that you don't believe abortions are entirely morally right. Are you of the philosophy that abortions need to be "safe, legal, and rare"? Am I wrong about that?

Pro-abortion sounds like someone going out to women and say you need to have an abortion. Its like anti-abortion, that's someone saying to women fuck you need to keep that baby and raise it on your own.

I'm fine with abortion happening, women have the right to do whatever they want with their body and it is good that if an accident happen they have this option to them. I think we can reduce the number of abortion with education and easy and free access to contraception and birth control.

NewLeafsFan
August 8th, 2017, 12:58 AM
Of course not, but why? Practically, making homicide illegal just results in a more violent and risky murder, and homicide laws are ineffective deterrents for homicide, so why make it illegal? We make it illegal because we as a society see murder as something we should not condone. It is a statement that we value the innocent lives lost, and that we see murder as an immoral thing that people need to be punished for. Does it do much to deter future murders? Not so much, but it does show that as a civilized society we do not permit senseless violence towards others. Now pretend that I replaced murder and homicide with abortion, and thus you should understand why people want abortion illegal.


The problem with what you are saying is that murder is intended to kill the victim. If you were to kill somebody they are dead regardless of the law. The law doesn't bring that person back to life. Don't get me wrong, I obviously believe that murder should be illegal.

Angelus_Mortem
August 8th, 2017, 01:03 AM
Crime rates would drop drastically if all drugs were legalized. I agree with your argument. People are gonna do drugs regardless of whether or not they're legal. Whether a person does drugs or not, that is their choice and I'd take less crime over money being funneled into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and drug cartels.

DriveAlive
August 8th, 2017, 09:12 AM
Crime rates would drop drastically if all drugs were legalized. I agree with your argument. People are gonna do drugs regardless of whether or not they're legal. Whether a person does drugs or not, that is their choice and I'd take less crime over money being funneled into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and drug cartels.

Yes, crime rates would also drop if murder, rape, assault were also legalized. When something goes from illegal to legal we no longer count activities associated with it as a crime so obviously the rate is going to drop regardless of whether their is actually reduced activity.

Flapjack
August 8th, 2017, 09:44 AM
Yes, crime rates would also drop if murder, rape, assault were also legalized. When something goes from illegal to legal we no longer count activities associated with it as a crime so obviously the rate is going to drop regardless of whether their is actually reduced activity.
'Itís all kinds of crime that has decreased, and not even all dispensaries were able to be up and running in Denver since January 1st due to regulatory hurdles and licensing issues still being sorted out. Property crime is down 14.6%. Violent crime is down 2.4%. It certainly doesnít look like what opponents of Amendment 64 would have liked everyone to believe Ė that the streets would be full of violent hooligan, and legalizing weed would make the devil creep the streets of Denver.'
Source (http://naturalsociety.com/colorado-crime-rates-14-6-since-legalizing-marijuana/)
It also reduces the power of gangs and cartels that profit from the war on drugs, similar to what happened when the prohibition on alcohol ended.

DriveAlive
August 8th, 2017, 10:45 AM
'Itís all kinds of crime that has decreased, and not even all dispensaries were able to be up and running in Denver since January 1st due to regulatory hurdles and licensing issues still being sorted out. Property crime is down 14.6%. Violent crime is down 2.4%. It certainly doesnít look like what opponents of Amendment 64 would have liked everyone to believe Ė that the streets would be full of violent hooligan, and legalizing weed would make the devil creep the streets of Denver.'
Source (http://naturalsociety.com/colorado-crime-rates-14-6-since-legalizing-marijuana/)
It also reduces the power of gangs and cartels that profit from the war on drugs, similar to what happened when the prohibition on alcohol ended.

Massively increases marijuana related accidents and ER visits.

Flapjack
August 8th, 2017, 11:10 AM
Massively increases marijuana related accidents and ER visits.
Source? I take it you don't dispute the fact that legalising weed does lower crime then?

DriveAlive
August 9th, 2017, 01:42 AM
Source? I take it you don't dispute the fact that legalising weed does lower crime then?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/18/marijuana-related-hospitalizations-spike-in-colora/

As I said earlier, just by making something legal you will automatically reduce the crime rate by no longer counting it. I would be far more interested in reduced usage and overall drug crime.

Flapjack
August 9th, 2017, 09:55 AM
As I said earlier, just by making something legal you will automatically reduce the crime rate by no longer counting it. I would be far more interested in reduced usage and overall drug crime.
As I said earlier,

'Itís all kinds of crime that has decreased, and not even all dispensaries were able to be up and running in Denver since January 1st due to regulatory hurdles and licensing issues still being sorted out. Property crime is down 14.6%. Violent crime is down 2.4%. It certainly doesnít look like what opponents of Amendment 64 would have liked everyone to believe Ė that the streets would be full of violent hooligan, and legalizing weed would make the devil creep the streets of Denver.'
Source (http://naturalsociety.com/colorado-crime-rates-14-6-since-legalizing-marijuana/)
It also reduces the power of gangs and cartels that profit from the war on drugs, similar to what happened when the prohibition on alcohol ended.

admide
August 9th, 2017, 12:36 PM
Let's talk about illicit abortions. Here in Texas, where getting abortions is a bit more complicated, you hear about mothers throwing their babies in ditches much too often.

PlasmaHam
August 9th, 2017, 03:26 PM
Let's talk about illicit abortions. Here in Texas, where getting abortions is a bit more complicated, you hear about mothers throwing their babies in ditches much too often.
Shame on those mothers.

mattsmith48
August 9th, 2017, 03:45 PM
Shame on those mothers.

Sure, but it's a direct result of the restriction to the access to abortion in Texas.

Dalcourt
August 9th, 2017, 11:52 PM
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedu re_and_the_choice/


Did you even bother to read this article thoroughly?

It's not encouraging people it's just explaining why there is no wrong in being pro-choice or anything.

It's the best arguments to give people the tools to make their own choices and form a life they can live with.
Not only concerning abortions, but the drug legalising and so many other things, too.

It may sound design egotistic to some extend but isn't making a law forbidding people to do things egotistic as well?

Some people might find a benefit in things you or I or anyone else for that matter will never understand. But who are we to say that our view is the right one and they are wrong?

There are many things in life that we can only settle for ourselves and nobody can settle for us.
Just because you are allowed to take drugs you don't have to.
Just because it's legal to abort your baby you don't have to.
Just because you are allowed to carry a firearm you don't have to.


It's decisions the individual has to make and society has no real right to decide here.
People will make mistakes and do bad things no matter whether it is forbidden by law or not, so the laws can be guidelines but there must be room for individual freedom here, too.

When I take my drugs at home it is my own personal decision. And if my drug taking harms anyone and I hurt someone else with it I will be punished according to my wrong doing. Why isn't this enough?

Thanks for sharing this article, it shows the importance of being able to form your own destiny and be given the freedom to decide for yourself.
A valuable thing to learn.

Stronk Serb
September 12th, 2017, 09:47 AM
Legalise weed and (if they exist) those drugs which are really hard to get addicted to or are not deadly. Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, LSD... That crap is dangerous and was banned for a reason. Almost all drugs were legal at one time or another, the reason they were banned is that their consumption reached dangerous levels and that people were dying, started misbehaving or becoming unproductive because of it.

mattsmith48
September 12th, 2017, 11:16 AM
Legalise weed and (if they exist) those drugs which are really hard to get addicted to or are not deadly. Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, LSD... That crap is dangerous and was banned for a reason. Almost all drugs were legal at one time or another, the reason they were banned is that their consumption reached dangerous levels and that people were dying, started misbehaving or becoming unproductive because of it.

As oppose to after they criminalized those drugs, when everyone addicted to them magically forgot and stop using those drugs. The only thing criminalization does is put money in the hands of criminals and drugs in the hands of children. There is also a lot of drugs that are still legal and really harmful to people, drugs like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pain killers, etc.

Nnoki
September 12th, 2017, 11:36 AM
at least here on mexico would be dangerous because many drug dealers "rule" the country, so if they seem to have less money, civil war will happen (like it happened between 2006-2010)

Stronk Serb
September 20th, 2017, 04:08 AM
As oppose to after they criminalized those drugs, when everyone addicted to them magically forgot and stop using those drugs. The only thing criminalization does is put money in the hands of criminals and drugs in the hands of children. There is also a lot of drugs that are still legal and really harmful to people, drugs like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pain killers, etc.

I find it funny that you say heroin is just as bad as tobacco. Heroin junkies die before their thirties. Also criminalizing something tends to lower said activity. If you think I am wrong, look at the gun bans in Europe. Do you share the same opinion with guns? I mean both drugs and guns kill.

mattsmith48
September 20th, 2017, 07:29 AM
I find it funny that you say heroin is just as bad as tobacco. Heroin junkies die before their thirties. Also criminalizing something tends to lower said activity. If you think I am wrong, look at the gun bans in Europe. Do you share the same opinion with guns? I mean both drugs and guns kill.

No heroin is more comparable to other opioids obtainable through prescription, and by that I mean they are almost the exact same thing. From guns it is different mostly because its easier to make drugs than guns and/or smuggle them across international borders.

Stronk Serb
September 20th, 2017, 11:12 AM
No heroin is more comparable to other opioids obtainable through prescription, and by that I mean they are almost the exact same thing. From guns it is different mostly because its easier to make drugs than guns and/or smuggle them across international borders.

Pure yes, but the one you get on the street is about 10% heroin and 90% crap. That crap is yellow chalk, rodent poison and yellow sugar among others. Prescription drugs are harder to get. Doctors go through checks too. When a doctor hands a prescription it has his name on it.

Also have you ever been at a rave party? The shit I saw there... I never saw alcohol, tobacco and sugar do so much damage to people. I saw one guy who burned up because of ecstasy. Another time a guy mixed LSD and ecstasy and almost choked some poor girl to death. The consequences of being a druggie start reaching you far quicker than alcohol, caffeine, sugar and tobacco ever can.

DoodleSnap
September 20th, 2017, 07:19 PM
The userbase of people abusing drugs like cocaine actually grew after they were prohibited, way back in time.
It's clear, from the prohibition era with alcohol, to Reagan's "War on Drugs" that prohibition actually serves to create a potential market to be exploited by criminals, and a societal taboo which only encourages users.

People will use drugs. That is a fact. Why not regulate the drug, make it safe to use with purity testing/ingredient monitoring, etc... and provide more education on the drugs and how to safely use or avoid them where appropriate? Right now the sale of these illegal drugs, as pushed underground, only serves to fund international criminal organisations, violent cartels, and terrorist groups.

The War on Drugs was always a cynical idea invented to rally voters and disempower the black population (vocal opponents of Reagan) - he did the same thing by implementing gun control in inner city areas, causing an influx of illegal weaponry and a spike in gang violence.

And I certainly don't trust the DEA - without the illegal drug trade, they'd be out of a job. People have the right to make their own decisions, even if you personally perceive those decisions to be wrong. It is the government's responsibility to make whatever actions follow as safe as possible, not to make the decision for us.