Your post here didn't at all speak to what I wrote.Yes. Non violent.
The vast majority of violence associated with drugs exists because drugs are illegal. It's supply and demand just like everything else. If the legal market cannot provide, then the black market steps in. This unregulated market controlled by gangs is the source of almost all drug related violence. Legalize it.
Your post here didn't at all speak to what I wrote.
You bemoaned locking drug dealers up and you gave as your alluded reason for so bemoaning that if a drug dealer is non-violent and a citizen then they should not be punished for dealing drugs.
I then pointed out that just because someone behaves non-violently and is a citizen does not mean their behavior isn't severely damaging and that when said severely damaging behavior is understandably illegal, the fact that they may have engaged in that behavior non-violently and as a citizen does in no way excuse them of their crime or the time they must serve.
But here you stray from defending your point, instead diverting to something else entirely.
I challenge you to defend your point to which I initially responded.
I also challenge you to read the OP of the link I previously referenced (Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly) and tell me what you think.
Again, you divert from the point.Can you please explain to me how a law against drugs can decrease those negative externalities.
Again, you divert from the point.
Your choice not to defend your position, your position being that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes simply because their behavior was non-violent and they were citizens, means that you've conceded the argument, admitting your error in making such a ludicrous point.
As to your new question here, I'm not interested in discussing your irrelevant diversion.
However, if you wish to comment on the very comprehensively relevant OP here: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly .. I might be intersted in discussing your opinion of it.
It doesn't. But that's irrelevant.Not sure how a link to another forum supports anything you have claimed in this thread.
I don't have an opinion framed in the terms you present. So I have no answer for you.I am asking you a relevant question.
Just because I don't want to succumb to a meaningless tired old same thing kind of digression, doesn't mean I'm not interested in further discussion. It just means what you're asking is meaningless in light of bigger more foundational realities on the topic.If you do not wish to engage in further discussion on this topic,
I'm not sure that's really true.I'm fine with that.
No it's not. Again, I haven't stated either way on the divertive and tired old question you broached, so your jump-to-conclusion about me having to show some "burden of proof" to your question is, of course, obviously, wrong.However, the burden of proof is on you to show that society should dedicate yet more resources to this never ending war.
Whatever.Prohibition was a huge failure.
So it sounds like you're saying that the economic benefits to legalizing drugs outweighs the damage drugs have done and continue to do to scores of millions.The billions wasted on this war far outweighs the negative externalities caused by the drugs themselves.
You're quite the idealist.The entire premise is illogical and counter productive for the cause of liberty.
It doesn't. But that's irrelevant.
The only claim I made is that your previous point that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes was absolutely ludicrous.
That the link I referenced doesn't support (or negate, either) my previous point is meaningless.
After I squashed your point, I then moved on, simply offerring up something new on the topic to stimulate conversation.
You, however, keep wanting to bury a dead horse.
To which I say .. nay.
I don't have an opinion framed in the terms you present. So I have no answer for you.
Just because I don't want to succumb to a meaningless tired old same thing kind of digression, doesn't mean I'm not interested in further discussion. It just means what you're asking is meaningless in light of bigger more foundational realities on the topic.
I'm not sure that's really true.
No it's not. Again, I haven't stated either way on the divertive and tired old question you broached, so your jump-to-conclusion about me having to show some "burden of proof" to your question is, of course, obviously, wrong.
Whatever.
Not sure you understand why, though.
So it sounds like you're saying that the economic benefits to legalizing drugs outweighs the damage drugs have done and continue to do to scores of millions.
Okay, that's your opinion -- I'm not interested in debating that with you.
You're quite the idealist.
Ever consider removing those rose-colored glasses?
***
Again, the OP in this thread is pretty darn convincing about the deadliness of pot and why we can't trust those opposed to the drug war to be telling us any truth in the matter whatsoever: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.
You know, you can run from the truth of this here, if you want ..
.. Or I can post a brand new thread leading off with a full quote of this OP.
It's your choice, for the moment.
I really think this link's OP is something new on the topic, in that it appears to be a comprehesive winning argument about which there is no rational refutation.
Considering that this topic has been to death with the same old, same old, wouldn't it be nice to pivot discussion off of something completely new and accurate on the matter?
I would think so.
Avoidance via projection.My questions about the negative externalities caused by our current drug laws are extremely relative to this topic, and I'm not quite sure why you will not address this. I suppose then, that there is nothing left for us to discuss, and I understand your hesitation to engage in that particular topic. Facts would not support your position. Have a nice evening.
...... When faced with the truth of the matter: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly...........
Freedom and security are yin and yang forces that only work well when paired in dynamic balance.So what ? Who is forcing you to smoke pot when you do not want to ?
Care to take a stab at why anyone should restrict the personal freedom of another who is infringing on no one else ?
Freedom and security are yin and yang forces that only work well when paired in dynamic balance.
Those who are constantly screaming "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" .. are probably lacking in personal security.
As to why any parent would want to keep their pre-teens and young teens from the scourage of a deadly drug like pot, got me by the sneakers. :roll:
Seriously, though, I don't have all the answers; don't profess to.
But this OP -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- has quite a few. Did you read it? What'd you think?
Drug abuse is more than a bad "choice" -- it's a deadly unconscious compulsion .. or so I've read. Not everything we're told is a "choice" is. I mean, some people keep saying that being gay is a choice, but, really, we all know better .. just like we all know that drug addiction isn't a choice.As I said more than once. I think drug use is a bad choice. I think its folly, btw. And I am not advocating that kids can drink either.
That's rather .. libertarian .. of you.But it is most certainly not for me to legislate against your opportunities to make bad choices for yourself.
Clever and trite does hardly make right.Only to support legislation and enforcement to keep you from making bad choices for anyone but yourself.
Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.Legalize it at the state level, without a federal mandate. It's insane to keep marijuana illegal when it is less dangerous and destructive to the family unit than alcohol.
Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.
You really do sound .. oh, yeah, "libertarian" -- I see it, it's uh, right there at the left of your post, under your avatar: "libertarian" .. okay ...
Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.
You really do sound .. oh, yeah, "libertarian" -- I see it, it's uh, right there at the left of your post, under your avatar: "libertarian" .. okay ...
So .. is it also a thing about libertarians to advocate the same to be applied to kids, that kids, too, do have or should have a "right" to do with their own body whatever they want, even if it's against the wishes of their parents?Yeah, that's the thing about libertarians. They support your right to do what you want with your own body as long as it's not causing harm to another.
I don't either.Our prisons are filled with non-violent drug users already. I don't support locking up someone who likes to get high after a day's work, just to take the edge off.
I'm right there with you.Is pot bad for you? Sure. Is it really any worse than booze? Probably not.
Heh heh! Absolutely.Is there any chance of making booze illegal? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... :lamo
That makes sense, based on what you've written so far.I don't smoke weed,
My guess is there is a great majority of Americans, parents, mostly, who would disagree with you.but I'm open to the possibility that full legalization might actually be preferable to society on the whole than the alleged War on Drugs, in which I was once a footsoldier (cop) and can tell you is a pointless clusterfrack....
Now that's strange. I mean, we both seem like reasonable people, yet I didn't find it drama-queenish or over-dramatized. I found it to be quite well presented, complete with valid authoritative references .. and I thought the way it finished was quite insightful, and, okay, also inciteful, yet still pretty much .. right on.That link is WAY overdramatized. I mean, drama-queen level over-dramatized.
My guess is there is a great majority of Americans, parents, mostly, who would disagree with you.
Now that's strange. I mean, we both seem like reasonable people, yet I didn't find it drama-queenish or over-dramatized. I found it to be quite well presented, complete with valid authoritative references .. and I thought the way it finished was quite insightful, and, okay, also inciteful, yet still pretty much .. right on.
So, could you point out with linked reference to quotes from the link where you thought it was over-the-top? I'm curious.
I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.
The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you.
It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
Which speaks to society's position that if we were more effective in fighting the drug war, pot would be less prevalent.I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.
Yes the presentation was accurate, succinct, even scholarly. That alone should be sufficient.The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you. It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
So .. is it also a thing about libertarians to advocate the same to be applied to kids, that kids, too, do have or should have a "right" to do with their own body whatever they want, even if it's against the wishes of their parents?
I don't either.
I do support locking people up who are caught drinking and driving .. or toking and driving .. and, of course, for great lengths of time when they maime or kill people as a result.
There are some who say that drug addicts can't help themselves, though, and that the very nature of drug abuse, you know, "taking the edge off" and other euphemistic descriptions of addictive behavior, is such that those who do are DUI fatality causers waiting for their future accident time to happen.
Most who are saying that are parents of pre-teens and teens, those who have a good sober reason to face the truth about the unconscious compulsive non-choice nature of drug abuse.
I'm not sure where I fall in the summation of all this. I'm just pretty good at differentiating between unconsciously polly-parroted ideolgoical BS and what's really true. And that's where the fun of all this is for me, regardless of taking sides.
But I do know this OP here -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- is a pretty powerful statement .. one that, so far, legalization advocates behave as is they're down right afraid of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?