YOU Balance the Budget (Cali)

[quote name='spmahn']I believe it has worked for them, but probably wouldn't work for us since it would have to be applied on a much larger scale, and we don't have the money, or resources to make it work.[/QUOTE]

What if we did it in Maine or Vermont?

Let's say population or population density is key. Start with low population and population density areas and move towards higher pop/pop density areas until there is no benefit.

We have 50 laboratories of democracy, let's use them.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The "legalize all drugs" argument is absolutely ludicrous. You want your Marijuana? Fine, whatever, but there is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY no reason at all to legalize Cocaine, or Heroin, or any other addictive, mind altering drugs. These drugs aren't just something you fool around with to have fun, they are destructive even beyond simply causing harm to the user. The people who will use these drugs will not be able to afford to feed their addiction, and will turn to crime to do so. Then we'll have to spend even more of our tax dollars to house these people in jail, pay for their rehabilitation, and all the associated health problems that will come as a result. I just don't understand how any sane person could make such an argument.[/QUOTE]

People smart enough not to do drugs will not drugs. You honestly think anybody that wants to do cocaine or heroin stays away from it because it's illegal? Hell no. Prohibition proved it, and countries with legal narcotics prove it, legality isn't a deterrent.

At least by legalizing it we can tax, regulate, and track it. We can prevent the scamming, which is often dangerous (mixing narcotics with cheaper, hard-to-detect substances to increase the weight -- substances which dont belong in your lungs/blood)... and I'm pretty sure letting out half of the people in prisons for drug-related crimes isn't going to increase how much we spend on correctional facilities.



I definitely don't believe we'll have all drugs legalized anytime soon, if ever... it's not something I actually expect... though I think MJ's gonna be legal soon.
 
[quote name='Koggit']People smart enough not to do drugs will not drugs. You honestly think anybody that wants to do cocaine or heroin stays away from it because it's illegal? Hell no. Prohibition proved it, and countries with legal narcotics prove it, legality isn't a deterrent.

At least by legalizing it we can tax, regulate, and track it. We can prevent the scamming, which is often dangerous (mixing narcotics with cheaper, hard-to-detect substances to increase the weight -- substances which dont belong in your lungs/blood)... and I'm pretty sure letting out half of the people in prisons for drug-related crimes isn't going to increase how much we spend on correctional facilities.



I definitely don't believe we'll have all drugs legalized anytime soon, if ever... it's not something I actually expect... though I think MJ's gonna be legal soon.[/QUOTE]

I bring you back to my 45 million smokers in America argument. Clearly there are a whole lot of people out there who aren't particularly bright when it comes to making smart or even rational decisions regarding their health, but criminal prosecution seems to be a deterrent for many of them. Many people do not do drugs because they don't have access to them, but might give it some consideration if they were readily available, what about them? If this country relies on selling drugs to raise tax dollars, then where do you draw the line? Do you allow manufacturers of Heroin and Cocaine to market their products to try and entice people to use them? If the goal is to get people to stop using these products in the first place, then why make it easier for people to get them?

I understand the argument for decriminalization that has been presented here, even if I do not agree with it, but to go even beyond that and have the government legally start dealing drugs is madness, and would have far greater consequences then any potential benefits it might bring along.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I bring you back to my 45 million smokers in America argument. Clearly there are a whole lot of people out there who aren't particularly bright when it comes to making smart or even rational decisions regarding their health, but criminal prosecution seems to be a deterrent for many of them. Many people do not do drugs because they don't have access to them, but might give it some consideration if they were readily available, what about them? If this country relies on selling drugs to raise tax dollars, then where do you draw the line? Do you allow manufacturers of Heroin and Cocaine to market their products to try and entice people to use them? If the goal is to get people to stop using these products in the first place, then why make it easier for people to get them?

I understand the argument for decriminalization that has been presented here, even if I do not agree with it, but to go even beyond that and have the government legally start dealing drugs is madness, and would have far greater consequences then any potential benefits it might bring along.[/QUOTE]

Tobacco clearly causes health problems. Alcohol clearly causes health problems.

Will any illegal drug cause health problems after it is legalized? Yes.

Will more people partake of legalized drugs after legalization? Yes.

Will the government have to shoulder the burden of the increased problems? Yes.

Will the government pass that burden onto the manufacturers of legalized drugs? Yes.

Will the drug manufacturers pass the costs onto their consumers? Yes.

Will I personally have to pay those costs under the new system? No.

Do I personally have to pay those costs under the current system (ie prisons, DEA, more police, etc)? Yes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Tobacco clearly causes health problems. Alcohol clearly causes health problems.

Will any illegal drug cause health problems after it is legalized? Yes.

Will more people partake of legalized drugs after legalization? Yes.

Will the government have to shoulder the burden of the increased problems? Yes.

Will the government pass that burden onto the manufacturers of legalized drugs? Yes.

Will the drug manufacturers pass the costs onto their consumers? Yes.

Will I personally have to pay those costs under the new system? No.

Do I personally have to pay those costs under the current system (ie prisons, DEA, more police, etc)? Yes.[/QUOTE]

If the steep taxes and federal legislation ends up causing the price of legalized drugs to be substantially higher that the illegally produced drugs, then why would people all of a sudden start buying the legal government produced stuff? If anything it would make the problem of the illegal drug trade worse, people will have access to legal government produced drugs, get hooked, not be able to afford them, or not want to pay higher prices, and be forced to turn to street dealers and the black market to get their fix.
 
You better hope my reply posts before Msut77 gets here.

[quote name='spmahn']If the steep taxes and federal legislation ends up causing the price of legalized drugs to be substantially higher that the illegally produced drugs, then why would people all of a sudden start buying the legal government produced stuff? [/QUOTE]

The court costs, loss of income and social stigma associated with incarceration of "illegal" pot will far surpass any initial tax of "legal" pot. Let's file that under not going to happen.

[quote name='spmahn']If anything it would make the problem of the illegal drug trade worse, people will have access to legal government produced drugs, get hooked, not be able to afford them, or not want to pay higher prices, and be forced to turn to street dealers and the black market to get their fix.[/QUOTE]

Has this happened for tobacco?

Has this happened for alcohol?

Don't worry: Anybody can destroy their lives with anything. I can get fired over playing Mafia Wars at work. Should the government make Mafia Wars illegal if I become addicted to it?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

Has this happened for tobacco?

[/QUOTE]

if anyone knows where i can get some underground tobacco please let me know.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You better hope my reply posts before Msut77 gets here.



The court costs, loss of income and social stigma associated with incarceration of "illegal" pot will far surpass any initial tax of "legal" pot. Let's file that under not going to happen.



Has this happened for tobacco?

Has this happened for alcohol?

Don't worry: Anybody can destroy their lives with anything. I can get fired over playing Mafia Wars at work. Should the government make Mafia Wars illegal if I become addicted to it?[/QUOTE]

We aren't talking about Marijuana! I've said from the beginning, I could care less about Marijuana, it's a non issue in this debate.

We don't have a black market for Tobacco because it's always been legal, there has never been a reason for one to exist, the current Tobacco manufacturers have 100% market share on their product, and produce it in such a way that can not be easily replicated by anyone else. People smoke Cigarettes because they are addicted to the nasty chemicals they put in them, not because they enjoy smoking a plant. People wouldn't want black market cigarettes because they would not provide a reasonable alternative to what it is that they want.

We only briefly had a black market for Alcohol because it was illegal. Even when that happened however, production was done by disconnected, independent producers, and it wasn't really organized. People drink alcohol because they enjoy the taste of whatever it is that they drink, not because they they enjoy fermented starch. People wouldn't want black market alcohol because they want good tasting alcohol, not something some guy is producing in his basement. Black market alcohol does exist, however people produce it as a hobby, not as a business venture.

The black market for Illicit Drugs is massive, and has been well established for a long time. It will not disappear overnight just because drugs are made legal. The producers of these drugs are organized and deeply entrenched in the governments of the countries they operate out of. They have their own armies, and operate openly. They will compete with legalized drugs, and will likely win due to substantially lower prices.

You can't compare a guy rolling his own cigarettes, or someone making hooch in his bath tub, to what are essentially national corporations in other countries.
 
everything in post #106 here is silly.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking and that is their choice. The banning of smoking in public places has been on the rise nationwide. People drink because they enjoy the taste AND the effects of intoxication. There are those that can't handle either of these, those are your addicts. The problem has never been one of legalization of either of these products, it has always been an issue of abuse and addiction.

You're saying that marijuana isn't the root of the debate, yet going on about coke and heroin like the answer lies there. This is complete nonesense, akin to having your cake and eating it too. If you're going to discuss illegal drugs, then you have to throw all of them in together. If you really want to get absurd, go ahead and throw in the opiate from which these drugs are refined and get rid of 80% or so of all the pan-killers available at your pharmacy.

The whole thing is absurd anyways as the legalization of drugs for government profit won't ever happen. Not only that, the government wouldn't very likely be engaged in the manufactoring or distribution of the product. For instance; paper. Paper is a legal product and is taxed, but it's created by independent ventures.
 
[quote name='nasum']everything in post #106 here is silly.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking and that is their choice. The banning of smoking in public places has been on the rise nationwide. People drink because they enjoy the taste AND the effects of intoxication. There are those that can't handle either of these, those are your addicts. The problem has never been one of legalization of either of these products, it has always been an issue of abuse and addiction.

You're saying that marijuana isn't the root of the debate, yet going on about coke and heroin like the answer lies there. This is complete nonesense, akin to having your cake and eating it too. If you're going to discuss illegal drugs, then you have to throw all of them in together. If you really want to get absurd, go ahead and throw in the opiate from which these drugs are refined and get rid of 80% or so of all the pan-killers available at your pharmacy.

The whole thing is absurd anyways as the legalization of drugs for government profit won't ever happen. Not only that, the government wouldn't very likely be engaged in the manufactoring or distribution of the product. For instance; paper. Paper is a legal product and is taxed, but it's created by independent ventures.[/QUOTE]

Nearly everyone I know that smokes openly admits that it's too expensive, unappealing, and would absolutely quit tomorrow if it were that easy, but are in many cases hopelessly addicted to the nicotine, and are unable to stop.

Plenty (most?) of people drink alcohol socially, in moderation, becasue they enjoy the taste, and some do it to loosen up their inhibitions slightly. Most people who drink alcohol don't do so to the point of intoxication.

You can most certainly discuss Marijuana separately from other hard drugs because as far as I know, it's not addictive, and might present some health benefits. Other drugs are incredibly addictive, and equally damaging to ones health. It's like comparing Water to Beer.
 
[quote name='spmahn']It's like comparing Water to Beer.[/QUOTE]
Hey, water is much more addictive than beer. If people don't get their water fix, they end up dead.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Plenty (most?) of people drink alcohol socially, in moderation, becasue they enjoy the taste, and some do it to loosen up their inhibitions slightly. Most people who drink alcohol don't do so to the point of intoxication.[/QUOTE]

At least half the people I knew in school that drank , or that I know from work , or even others places that I've been have all told me that they think most beer and alcohol tastes like shit but that they enjoy the buzz they get from drinking.

Now I don't believe that that covers the majority of people in any way , as I myself have never drank to the point of being drunk , and I do drink because I enjoy the taste (for the most part) , I'm just posting a counter for the hell of it.
 
I'm fine as long as you don't do it in public. People getting high off other people getting high...bad stuff will happen there.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You better hope my reply posts before Msut77 gets here.



The court costs, loss of income and social stigma associated with incarceration of "illegal" pot will far surpass any initial tax of "legal" pot. Let's file that under not going to happen.



Has this happened for tobacco?

Has this happened for alcohol?

Don't worry: Anybody can destroy their lives with anything. I can get fired over playing Mafia Wars at work. Should the government make Mafia Wars illegal if I become addicted to it?[/QUOTE]

Criminality and these kind of statistics are more mykes bailiwick so I've been waiting for him to make a response.

I understand the argument for decriminalization that has been presented here, even if I do not agree with it...
Click to expand...

Can't imagine why he isn't going near this with a ten foot pole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We have 50 laboratories of democracy, let's use them.[/QUOTE]

But that would require that we actually respect the 10th Amendment again. It would be the first time in a long time. Not going to happen. You actually think the Feds would give up that kind of power?
 
I've spent three pages now explaining why I don't agree with it, it doesn't actually solve any problems, it just diverting resources in less efficient ways. We already have drug rehab within the prison system, why should establish one outside of it?

We need to stop people from doing drugs in the first place, that's the only way we're going to solve our drug problem in the long run.
 
[quote name='spmahn']We already have drug rehab within the prison system, why should establish one outside of it?[/QUOTE]

Because it's cheaper than in-prison treatment.
Because it's more effective than in-prison treatment.
Because prison is one of the easiest places to get narcotics, making successful completion difficult.
Because politicians like to fund prisons to appear to "get tough on crime," but not fund rehab programs so as to avoid appearing to "coddle criminals."
Because not all drug addicts are criminal.
Because mixing low-risk non-violent offenders with any kind of violent offender is a bad idea.
Because the funds aren't there to provide rehabilitation to those incarcerated who want treatment - so it's even more foolish to place more drug addicts there for treatment. Bottlenecking, commence.

Those are just a few reasons why.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because it's cheaper than in-prison treatment.
Because it's more effective than in-prison treatment.
Because prison is one of the easiest places to get narcotics, making successful completion difficult.
Because politicians like to fund prisons to appear to "get tough on crime," but not fund rehab programs so as to avoid appearing to "coddle criminals."
Because not all drug addicts are criminal.
Because mixing low-risk non-violent offenders with any kind of violent offender is a bad idea.
Because the funds aren't there to provide rehabilitation to those incarcerated who want treatment - so it's even more foolish to place more drug addicts there for treatment. Bottlenecking, commence.

Those are just a few reasons why.[/QUOTE]
Most rehab facilities are essentially like minimum security
prisons anyway, so why not just spend the money to improve the system we already have? It seems to me that it would be cheaper to improve rehab programs in minimum security prisons rather then
establishing seperate facilities that won't be funded anyways. Drug users certainly don't belong in a supermax, but since inpatient rehab facilities would need to be run like a prison to be successful anyways, where's the difference? It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways
 
[quote name='spmahn']I've spent three pages now explaining why I don't agree with it[/quote]

You have spent three pages making posts, some of them could be seen as agreeing with what is called decriminalization.

it doesn't actually solve any problems, it just diverting resources in less efficient ways.
Click to expand...

It solves lots of problems, by being more efficient.

It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways
Click to expand...

Depends on if there are more people like you in this country than even I thought.
God, I hope not.
 
How is it more efficient? To me it sounds like it would be like instead of having a supermarket where you buy bread, fruits, and vegetables, you have a separate store for bread, a separate store for fruits, and a separate store for vegetables, and then spend all the extra cost of running three separate stores. Instead of having one facility where you're not aloud to leave, and offers punishment, counseling, and education for those who need it, you have a separate facility for punishment, a separate facility for counseling, and a separate facility for education. Where is the efficiency in that?

I also don't know what you mean by "people like me", as lack of compassion for people with problems that they created for themselves pretty much crosses all ideological boundaries. If my hard earned tax dollars have to be spent to rid you of the problem you created for yourself, you should either have to pay it back, or be punished for it. Think of it like the health care "option" Obama is proposing in his health care plan. If you get caught doing drugs and get forced into rehab, and can afford to go to the Betty Ford Clinic, then by all means, but if you can't afford privatized drug rehabilitation, then you go on the socialized plan, which comes to you at a cost which involves you serving hard time as punishment for wasting our tax dollars on your drug problem.
 
[quote name='spmahn']How is it more efficient?[/quote]

Because it saves a lot of money and a plethora of other things like the precious time of law enforcement, eases the burden on the criminal system justice etc., this has been pointed out to you.

you have a separate store for bread
Click to expand...

Those are called bakeries.
 
but if we're looking at a system like in Portugal, the police are still actively looking for people who do drugs, they just don't go to jail, they go to rehabilitation, so how does it free up the time of law enforcement?
 
[quote name='spmahn']but if we're looking at a system like in Portugal, the police are still actively looking for people who do drugs, they just don't go to jail, they go to rehabilitation, so how does it free up the time of law enforcement?[/QUOTE]

Because they spend their time going after serious dealers and not people growing a pot plant or two or merely possessing.
 
Ok, now we seem to be arguing entirely different points. I long ago said that I didn't care one way or the other about marijuana, do whatever you want with it at this point. What I've been referring to is people doing hard drugs like Heroin, Crack, Meth, etc., which are on an entirely different plain than Marijuana.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Ok, now we seem to be arguing entirely different points.[/quote]

That would only be true if I conceded that you have a point.

Which I don't.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That would only be true if I conceded that you have a point.

Which I don't.[/QUOTE]

Have you run out of arguments that quickly?
 
[quote name='spmahn']Have you run out of arguments that quickly?[/QUOTE]

No, because unlike you I had an argument in the first place.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No, because unlike you I had an argument in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so now all you have is ad hominem attacks. I'm through here.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Ok, so now all you have is ad hominem attacks. I'm through here.[/QUOTE]

You were done a while ago. About the fifth time you made the same already refuted assertion.
 
Where have any of my assertions been refuted? It seems to me that once I make a point that no one is willing or able to argue, then it ends, and that seems to have happened at numerous point throughout this discussion.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Where have any of my assertions been refuted?[/quote]

In basically every serious reply to one of your posts.

It seems to me that once I make a point that no one is willing or able to argue, then it ends, and that seems to have happened at numerous point throughout this discussion.
Click to expand...

It might seem like that to you but I assure you that hasn't been the case.

For example, in post 124 I wasn't talking about just marijuana and I don't think you were making an honest mistake. Either way you ARE the one defending the status quo...

P.s. You do know what a bakery is correct? You do realize they still exist right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem to have a difficult time grasping this whole debate concept. Just because you refute my argument and come up with a counter argument, doesn't mean that you're correct and that the argument is over. It continues to go back and fourth after that.

So if in post #124 you aren't just talking about marijuana, then what exactly is it that you are saying? That police should just ignore all drug users and not prosecute anyone on drug charges? Again, even under the Portugese system, this doesn't happen, police still go after the users, they just get rehab instead of jail. If we ignore all drug users, then how do we deal with the people who are hopelessly addicted to harmful substances that they resort to crime and / or violence as a result? You try to say that I don't have a point, but I have no idea what yours is. My points and positions seem pretty clear to me

Decriminalizing drugs removes one of the main barriers that stop many people from using them.

Many people who don't currently use drugs right now may do so if they were more easily available, and there was less of a social stigma, because lots of people do lots of stupid things for no reason at all

Getting the government involved in the production and selling of drugs will do nothing to stop the illegal drug trade because the drug cartels are tantamount to large corporation and will produce and sell the product far more cheaply then the government ever will

The solution to stopping our drug problem is to prevent people from doing drugs in the first place. Since this is nothing more than a pipe dream, the next best solution is to rehabilitate users, and if that has to be done on the taxpayers dime, then the users should have to pay for their indiscretions either through public service or through a sentence in a minimum security prison environment.

I think I've been pretty clear throughout this thread, but let me know if you need me to make anything clearer.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Just because you refute my argument and come up with a counter argument, doesn't mean that you're correct and that the argument is over. It continues to go back and forth after that.[/quote]

For the most part refuting what you say does make one correct.

For example you didn't have much to say in that other thread after I pointed out to you that getting the latest Goosebumps the day it was released was not the only way to judge the effectiveness of libraries.

then what exactly is it that you are saying?
Click to expand...

I was referring to drugs besides marijuana. Like I said I do not think that yours was an honest mistake.

That police should just ignore all drug users and not prosecute anyone on drug charges? Again, even under the Portugese system, this doesn't happen, police still go after the users, they just get rehab instead of jail.
Click to expand...

In Portugal if a Police Officer sees someone using or possessing they issue a citation and are not allowed to arrest them. It is an entirely different ball game from the US where we have militarized SWAT units going after people for comically tiny amounts of drugs.

If we ignore all drug users, then how do we deal with the people who are hopelessly addicted to harmful substances that they resort to crime and / or violence as a result?
Click to expand...

It isn't the same exact thing as ignoring "all" drug users, it is true that not everyone is made to go through rehab but those who need help get help.

Decriminalizing drugs removes one of the main barriers that stop many people from using them.
Click to expand...

If anything your approach exacerbates the problem.

The solution to stopping our drug problem is to prevent people from doing drugs in the first place. Since this is nothing more than a pipe dream
Click to expand...

You know you keep saying you don't get my points and you think you are making all these awesome arguments but the above shows clearly that the problem is on your end.

the next best solution is to rehabilitate users, and if that has to be done on the taxpayers dime, then the users should have to pay for their indiscretions either through public service or through a sentence in a minimum security prison environment.
Click to expand...

A place where rehab is done is no more like a prison than a person is like a potato. And again if prison is paid on my dime all the way I see no reason why rehab shouldn't be.

This is what I mean when I say you just repeat the same garbage ad nauseum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've yet to see what this "approach" you speak of is.

You again don't understand how a debate works. Just because you refute my argument doesn't mean it's over. I rebut your argument etc. Etc. Until someone has made a strong enough argument that can no longer be refuted.

You say in Portugal, there is still some sort of police involvement, even if it may not be to the extent we have it here. So where exactly do we have less police involvement in all this? They may not arrest drug users anymore, but they're still actively looking for them.


I don't see how my approach would exacerbate the problem. Lenient or non-existent laws against drug
users = more drug users, which is what we want to avoid in the first place. Portugal is not a fair comparison to the United States either, as our drug problem is much worse, and we have them in
much greater supply since the producers have direct access in getting them here.
Even if drug rehab is not akin to prison as you say it is, if our tax dollars need to be speant to rid a person of a problem that they themselves caused in the first place, then there needs to be some sort
of punishment for that person.

True decriminalizaion would not even involve rehabilitation, as that in and of itself is essentially a punishment, or at least it would be perceived that way by the people going there.

And what exactly do you "mean" by my spouting the same "garbage" over and over. You aren't being very clear in your arguments, although I think you're doing that conciously at this point since you're rapiy running out of them.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I've yet to see what this "approach" you speak of is.[/quote]

That would be decriminalization, an emphasis on rehab with the removal of jail time except for smugglers and fairly big time dealers.

What the fuck man?

Just because you refute my argument doesn't mean it's over.
Click to expand...

That basically is what refute means.

I rebut your argument etc.
Click to expand...

Rebut means a little more than merely making a response, learn the difference.

They may not arrest drug users anymore, but they're still actively looking for them.
Click to expand...

What they don't do which is a relatively common occurrence in this country is calling dozens of Law Enforcement or entire militarized units to go after people with comically tiny amounts of drugs. I am just throwing that out as an example, there are many more differences.

I don't see how my approach would exacerbate the problem.
Click to expand...

Something else you should learn is that you "don't see" is not the same thing as making an argument.

Lenient or non-existent laws against drug users = more drug users, which is what we want to avoid in the first place.
Click to expand...

Decriminalization correlates with less drug use.

Portugal is not a fair comparison to the United States either, as our drug problem is much worse
Click to expand...

Portugal had a severe drug problem, they switched to decriminalization and they improved.

Even if drug rehab is not akin to prison as you say it is
Click to expand...

Drug rehabs are certainly "like prisons" something you said roughly twenty-three times by dint of the fact that they both have ceilings and doors but other than that no they don't have all that much in common.

if our tax dollars need to be speant to rid a person of a problem that they themselves caused in the first place, then there needs to be some sort of punishment for that person.
Click to expand...

No.

True decriminalizaion would not even involve rehabilitation, as that in and of itself is essentially a punishment, or at least it would be perceived that way by the people going there.
Click to expand...

That would be distinction legalization and decriminalization.
 
When I say "I don't see", what I mean is "you haven't made clear".

I'd love to see how decriminalzation correlates with less drug use, please show me these studies. All I see are reports on Portugal decriminalizing, but the Time article I got thY information from also admits that our drug problem is much worse than theirs ever was, and that it's an entirely different culture, so their style of decriminalize probably wouldn't work here.

Why shouldn't drug users be punished for being a drain on society?
 
[quote name='spmahn']When I say "I don't see", what I mean is "you haven't made clear".[/quote]

That is how one normally would use it, that isn't the way you are using it.

Why shouldn't drug users be punished for being a drain on society?
Click to expand...

Because people shouldn't be punished to make people like you feel better about themselves?

Name one good reason why prison should be free but rehab shouldn't.

I'd love to see how decriminalization correlates with less drug use, please show me these studies.
Click to expand...

I can get you a pdf file with lots of nifty charts, it is over 30 pages though.

All I see are reports on Portugal decriminalizing, but the Time article I got thY information from also admits that our drug problem is much worse than theirs ever was, and that it's an entirely different culture, so their style of decriminalize probably wouldn't work here.
Click to expand...

Our problem is bad but that doesn't mean we cannot benefit. Portugal still had a severe problem and it is not "entirely" different from the US any way you wish to define the word.

If we are looking at the same TIME article it mentions the successes I am talking about and your response is to rely on the opinion of two guys quoted in the article, who don't really base what they say on anything empirical.

Even they admit however that at the very least drug use did not go up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prison isn't free, nor is it cheaper than rehab, but people who made bad decisions should have to face some sort of consequence for their actions. Punishing drug users shouldnt be done to make anyone feel better, it should be done to punish them for using drugs.

Sweden spends three times the EU average on drug controls, and is consistantly tightening their laws. As a result the have 1/3rd of the EU average for drug use. In many parts of the Middle East, drug use and even possesion is punishable by death, as a result they have almost none.

Obviously the Middle Eastern policy is extreme, but Sweden does it right, and theirs is the system I think we should copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden
 
I'm a bit late to this thread I guess... only read 2 pages...

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']its a tough cut, but... [/QUOTE]

No it's fucking not... cut public transportation. It goes fucking no where and on top of that they don't enforce people paying before getting on...


[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

Let's review the benefits of the legalization of murder.

1. Lower daycare costs due to dead children.
2. Smaller classroom sizes due to dead children.
3. Better teachers due to incompetent teachers being killed.
4. More courteous commutes due to angry drivers killing each other.
5. Fewer police required due to murders not being illegal. As an aside, cops could kill assault victims to keep their caseloads manageable.
6. Quicker divorces.
7. Recycling centers could finally pay good money for spent brass.
8. Ninjas.
9. Better wait staff due to the ability to tip with knives and bullets.
10. Better patrons due to wait staff having the ability to poison asshole clients.
11. Easier ways to get to the front of the ER.
12. Easier ways to unlock inheritance.
13. Social security and medicare insolvency solved overnight.

and my personal favorite...

14. Intentionally left blank.

What are the negative effects of legalizing murder?[/QUOTE]

Yah know... I'm all for being a cynic too. But soon there after all the obvious idiots are gone you'll get people thinking there similar to the Boondock Saints... Then what...?
 
[quote name='spmahn']Prison isn't free, nor is it cheaper than rehab[/quote]

Rehab is absolutely cheaper than prison.

but people who made bad decisions should have to face some sort of consequence for their actions.
Click to expand...

No.

Punishing drug users shouldnt be done to make anyone feel better, it should be done to punish them for using drugs.
Click to expand...

Circular logic is circular.

Sweden spends three times the EU average on drug controls, and is consistantly tightening their laws. As a result the have 1/3rd of the EU average for drug use.
Click to expand...

For that to mean anything you would have to define "drug controls" (do they include only things like pee tests while ignoring prison costs etc.?) and if we are using average drug use for the EU as a baseline it should be pointed that Greece spend comparatively little on the drug problem and it ranks even lower in drug usage.

In many parts of the Middle East, drug use and even possession is punishable by death, as a result they have almost none.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should start doing more drugs.
 
We (America) spend $4 billion a year enforcing marijuana laws and it's a $112 billion a year industry, estimated to (hypothetically) bring in $31 billion a year if taxed... so the govm't would have an extra $35 billion and the violent drug cartels would have $112 billion less. Every. Year. We'd also have 600,000 marijuana offenders (25% of the prison population) removed from correctional facilities and able to become productive members of society -- not to mention saving about $7 billion a year by not providing their housing/food/guards/etc in prison. $42 billion a year.
 
It's amazing how many times I hear the "marijuana should be legal" argument. (most of the time from people that actually use it) lol

I have no problem with it other than I won't do it because of the same reasons I don't smoke.

I think even Weeds Tv Show would make that argument.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']It's amazing how many times I hear the "marijuana should be legal" argument. (most of the time from people that actually use it) lol

I have no problem with it other than I won't do it because of the same reasons I don't smoke.

I think even Weeds Tv Show would make that argument.[/QUOTE]

using an herb does not necessarily mean smoking it, by the way. i hate the idea of inhaling fumes from combustion, i only vaporize (pulling hot air over the herb to create a perfectly healthy vapor, like aroma therapy) or eat edibles. both of which actually use the herb more efficiently.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Most rehab facilities are essentially like minimum security
prisons anyway, so why not just spend the money to improve the system we already have? It seems to me that it would be cheaper to improve rehab programs in minimum security prisons rather then
establishing seperate facilities that won't be funded anyways.[/quote]

None of this is even remotely true.

Drug users certainly don't belong in a supermax, but since inpatient rehab facilities would need to be run like a prison to be successful anyways, where's the difference?
Click to expand...

Prove this claim and show your work.

It also seems to me like politicians and tax payers would be more willing to fund something that sounds like a punishment rather than treatment anyways
Click to expand...

This is a purely cynical Machiavellian argument; let's just be concerned about how the argument is framed, rather than what works.

Yuck.
 
[quote name='Koggit']using an herb does not necessarily mean smoking it, by the way. i hate the idea of inhaling fumes from combustion, i only vaporize (pulling hot air over the herb to create a perfectly healthy vapor, like aroma therapy) or eat edibles. both of which actually use the herb more efficiently.[/QUOTE]

I say smoke since it's the "easiest and fastest" I suppose. In any other form don't you need a lot more for the same effect?
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']I say smoke since it's the "easiest and fastest" I suppose. In any other form don't you need a lot more for the same effect?[/QUOTE]

I could rave all day long about how awesome vaporizers are, but the short answer is not at all -- vaporizers conserve herb far better than smoking. The temperature for combustion is too high, it destroys some 'active ingredients'. Vaporizers just heat some air up and you pull it over the herb, releasing the goodies without destroying any. Here's a video that compares both the efficiency & nastiness of Vaping vs Smoking... he gets about 5 times more hits from the vaporizer, and the kleenex filter speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ZrSQ0A-KQ


Not only do you get more out of the herb by vaporizing instead of smoking, but you can use the already-vaped leftovers for baking... there's still some goodness left in there. It'd be much more efficient than smoking even if you couldnt do that, though.
 
Sadly, it's still not going to get me to start using the stuff.

I'm sure my friends would thank you for trying though. lol

They'd probably want you to try to get me to like RTS games too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top