Forums | MacLife

We can't do that. That's what Jeebus would do...

resedit wrote:

People sometimes die after their first use of cocaine and cocaine derivatives.
Cocaine often causes extremely irradic behaviour that results in harm to other people.
Cocaine is also highly addictive.

Sounds like my good friend alcohol.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

People sometimes die after their first use of cocaine and cocaine derivatives.
Cocaine often causes extremely irradic behaviour that results in harm to other people.
Cocaine is also highly addictive.

Stop believing everything you read in those D.A.R.E. handouts.

That's not where I got my info, and everything I stated is true.

Well, I'll go out on a limb and say that from personal experience the one time I tried coke... I thought I was dying of a heart attack.  It lasted about a half hour and then things started easing up a bit.  Was it worth the high afterward...  not for me.  I never touched it again.   So there's some creedance to the fact that it can happen.

dreamkast0r wrote:

You can't stop people from using drugs.  You can't stop people from supplying and selling these drugs.  Prohibition does not work.  By legalizing these substances, you will be able to regulate and tax them.  Even with hefty taxes, they will be far cheaper when produced on the free market than their current black market prices, which is a good thing for people we label as addicts.

That is what you need to understand, that the black market that arises as a result of prohibition is extremely harmful, and that legalization would eliminate this problem.

I agree, but therein lies the problem as well.  The Black Market money train finds it's way into every part of society.  It's what makes this "War on Drugs" such a sham.  If the gubment were to legalize it, and tax it.... a great monetary vacuum might occur.  Somebody (in the gubment)  is making good money as it stands, and far be it for someone to bite the hand that feeds it!

So what do we get?

Feel good hype      Just Say No, D.A.R.E, McGruff....  just enough funding for treatment to make people feel good.

All the while profits from the drug trade make their way into politicians campaigns, lobbyists, law enforcement...etc, etc.

Speed limits massively reduce speeding because of the threat of fines and license points. I'm not denying that prohibition does reduce recreational drug use, however from a harm reduction point-of-view it's not comparable. When people speed they're not funding people operating outside the law, when people speed they're not risking they're life anymore than they would be if there weren't speed limits.

Prohibition creates criminals and it makes recreational drug use more dangerous. Aside from the ethical arguments about self-determination, it's balancing that against any reduction in users.

As regards criminals: We don't have much gun crime in the UK, compared to the US. We have much heavier gun legislation. However a 11-year old was shot and killed by a 15-17 year old a few days ago in Liverpool. I will guarantee now that the killer was involved with dealing drugs and bought the gun (or was given it by a boss) with money earned from that. Prohibition continues to create further problems in low income areas.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2007-08-28 7:44 am)

When people speed they're not funding people operating outside the law,

They are if they are buying illegal radar jamming devices and detectors ...

resedit wrote:

Drug prohibition does not prevent anyone from acquiring and using an illicit substance.

No it doesn't.
It does however allow those who use them to be punished by society for doing so.

Speed limits do not stop people from speeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or enforce them.

Well now you've made a comparison that works.  Both are about money, not about morality.  And I will also note that the ability to punish an individual for a choice that violates no one's rights is what is unjust here.

Alien wrote:

resedit wrote:

Drug prohibition does not prevent anyone from acquiring and using an illicit substance.

No it doesn't.
It does however allow those who use them to be punished by society for doing so.

To what end? Just for the heck of it? WTF is your point? Do you just want to punish people?

It's been pretty much established (and acknowledged by you) that prohibition doesn't work.

,xtG
.tsooJ

The "prohibition doesn't work" argument is fairly weak.  People still steal, cheat, and murder....all those are illegal.  Prohibition isn't working there.

Think of prohibiting coke in the same was as prohibiting guns....both can be used responsibly, both can be misused easily and lead to injury and death.

JakeTheTall wrote:

The "prohibition doesn't work" argument is fairly weak.  People still steal, cheat, and murder....all those are illegal.  Prohibition isn't working there.

There's a big smurfing difference between stealing, cheating and murdering and getting high and you know it.

JakeTheTall wrote:

user wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

The "prohibition doesn't work" argument is fairly weak.  People still steal, cheat, and murder....all those are illegal.  Prohibition isn't working there.

There's a big smurfing difference between stealing, cheating and murdering and getting high and you know it.

Yeah, my point is, talk about the difference, don't talk about "gee, we can't enforce this law, I guess we'll scrap it."

I want the pro-drug people to have strong arguments to make the case, is what I'm saying.

[edit] And there are strong arguments to make the case, which should be used.

Actually the "prohibition doesn't work" argument has a strong case: the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution.

JakeTheTall wrote:

user wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

The "prohibition doesn't work" argument is fairly weak.  People still steal, cheat, and murder....all those are illegal.  Prohibition isn't working there.

There's a big smurfing difference between stealing, cheating and murdering and getting high and you know it.

Yeah, my point is, talk about the difference, don't talk about "gee, we can't enforce this law, I guess we'll scrap it."

I want the pro-drug people to have strong arguments to make the case, is what I'm saying.

[edit] And there are strong arguments to make the case, which should be used.

Once again, the fact of the matter is that prohibition causes far more harm to society than a lack of prohibition would.  This is a completely different animal than a claim that prohibiting guns doesn't work, which is a moot point because it's also unconstitutional.

resedit wrote:

Drug prohibition does not prevent anyone from acquiring and using an illicit substance.

No it doesn't.
It does however allow those who use them to be punished by society for doing so.

Speed limits do not stop people from speeding. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or enforce them.

Great, society "punishes" them for using illegal substances.  There are many compelling arguments that suggest that actually harms "society" much more than it might help it.