TheHonestTruth
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 27
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Real McCoy said:The entire world would have to legalize heroin.
ProudAmerican said:Congradulations!!!!!
I have argued against legalizing drugs for as long as I can remember. You just did more to convince me it might be a good idea in one post than has ever been done before.
While im not completely convinced, you certainly have my attention.
good post.
Billo_Really said:If our politicians are putting us in danger, then we have only to blame ourselves. For we are the ones that voted them in office.
If I had to grade them, they would definately get an 'F'. Man, I can't wait until the mid-terms get here.Originally posted by TheHonestTruth:
I totally agree with you in principle, but we count on our leaders to protect us from danger. That is of course the fundamental role of all governments and they are failing us miserably right now
heroin people with a cheap supply are the least threating people on the planet earth, a caterpillar could be more dangerous
This is what it boils down to....Are you more afraid of well funded terrorists or an increased number of morphine addicts?
FluffyNinja said:Yeah, just ask Leif Garrett, heroin is totally harmless, man.
I suppose the answer depends on your perspective. If you live in a slum-of-a-neighborhood, where your children must trip over "harmless" heroin addicts as they walk to school, you may answer the latter.
Absolutely. Another thing to consider is that many drugs in a decriminalized environment would actually be less dangerous for the user. Drugs purchased from responsible distributors who are bound by law would not have been doused in gasoline or hidden in a box of laundry detergent to sneak it past drug dogs, or made/cut with cheaper but more toxic ingredients.TheHonestTruth said:In addition I would argue this type of occurrence is largely a result of this drug's illegal status. Today heroin addicts will naturally be in the streets under the current laws because they are usually poor as a result of having to pay hugely inflated prices for their drugs and so some of them are homeless and of course homeless people will be naturally inclined to abuse drugs. Of course drug addiction is not glamorous, but I believe that fewer people will find this drug appealing when its legalized and fewer will have the urge to use it, because the forbidden fruit element is taken away. It will become boring, and it wont have the same appeal to people who may be inclined to take drugs for the first time, because for this sect of society, part of the appeal is the illegality of the drug. So going to a pharmacy setting to get their drug will make some of them less inclined to begin using the drug. But even assuming that use increased, I would feel safer knowing that these people can get the drug cheaply and pay taxes to our government for it rather than giving 10x times that amount to terrorists every time they purchase.
Binary_Digit said:Absolutely. Another thing to consider is that many drugs in a decriminalized environment would actually be less dangerous for the user. Drugs purchased from responsible distributors who are bound by law would not have been doused in gasoline or hidden in a box of laundry detergent to sneak it past drug dogs, or made/cut with cheaper but more toxic ingredients.
For the record, I disagree with the origional poster on whether this would cripple the finances of terrorists. That's my fault, I should have been more clear on that.FluffyNinja said:Please don't come back with the excuse that we're enabling terrorists to fund their escapades (so predictable) because your original post only ONE vague and indirect method of funding terrorism. You place too much faith in internet postings and stories from the mainstream, left-leaning media. You make no mention that groups such as Al Qaida, and Hesbollah receive just as much funding from Islamic Heads of State in Syria and Iran as well as from oil. You should also check into the illegal gem(diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.) trade in Africa and its direct ties to terrorist funding.
Well, you do have a point that some links aren't as credible as others. But I really don't think the alternative is acceptable. I'm not an accomplished sociologist who has dedicated the better part of his life toward studying this kind of stuff, and I wager that you aren't either. So I think arguing back and forth, without regard to any expert opinion, is counterproductive. An objective approach, as you suggest, should reveal most credibility problems in any links. Off-topic, but if you'd like me to make swiss cheese out of any "credible" website arguing against evolution, I'd be happy to.FluffyNinja said:And before you start posting links to prove your point, allow me to say, I'm not one of those naive college boys; I know perfectly well that one can find as many "credible" (questionable) sources as he/she wants in the mainstream media or on the web while totally ignoring contradictory evidence. For example, I can find just as many "credible" sources that say Global Warming is not occuring as you can find to prove it is. Let's not get into the "credible links" game. Let's try to be open minded and accept that there's always more than one solution and most the time the best approach is a multi-fasceted one.
I would like to look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc., resulting from the drug policy in the Netherlands, but unfortunatly I've been unable to find such statistics. Can you help me?FluffyNinja said:Perhaps we should take a long, objective look at the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam and the long-term effects of this type of drug policy on the economic, social and moral welfare of the citizens. How well has it really worked there? Let's look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc. Let's not take a narrow approach. Does the Federal Government really want to become "the enabler?"
Why are we seeing, in all Member States of the European Union, that 20 to 40% of all prisoners are convicted for some type of drug related criminal activity or another? The answer is manifold:So, drugs are related to crime for a series of reasons, that are not tackled easily. These reasons are deeply embedded in our cultures and economies, and we can only hope to modify the connection between drugs and crime in a series of (small) steps.
- In all our countries the use and distribution of cannabis and a range of other recreational drugs is criminalized. This criminalization had its origins in the tendency to criminalize the use of alcohol in the 19th century that never really caught on in Europe. (Though it did — for a short time — in the USA). Instead, we criminalized recreational drugs that were alien to our culture and social habits, leaving legal the drugs that were already integrated into our western culture.
- Since the use of culturally alien recreational drugs is often associated with people living more or less deviant lifestyles, (thieves, artists, homosexuals, homeless, ravers), this class of people is exposed to a higher than normal level of scrutiny by the forces of law and order, making their chances of being caught in some sort of illegal act larger than the rest of the population. This expands the image of a nexus between drugs and deviance/crime.
- Since the early dawn of the prison system, the probability that poor people are being caught and imprisoned is much larger than for richer strata of the population. Our jails are not filled for the most part with the successful high level money launderers, smugglers and 'Euro-subsidy' crooks. Except for serious violent crime, prison is the poor man's fate, the fate of the petty criminal roughly speaking the likelihood that poor people are caught for low level drug use and drug distribution activities is greater than for others. Poor people also have more reason to use and trade drugs in ways that help them adjust to adverse conditions, than richer people. Opiates for instance are a good downer, helping one to feel less social and mental pain — much better than alcohol can do that. Trading heroin provides some income for those who find no productive position in the labour market. Summarizing, the drug crime nexus is partly constructed via poverty, and is therefore related to more general issues of wealth distribution.
FluffyNinja said:Perhaps we should take a long, objective look at the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam and the long-term effects of this type of drug policy on the economic, social and moral welfare of the citizens. How well has it really worked there? Let's look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc.
FluffyNinja said:Please don't come back with the excuse that we're enabling terrorists to fund their escapades (so predictable) because your original post only ONE vague and indirect method of funding terrorism. You place too much faith in internet postings and stories from the mainstream, left-leaning media. You make no mention that groups such as Al Qaida, and Hesbollah receive just as much funding from Islamic Heads of State in Syria and Iran as well as from oil. You should also check into the illegal gem(diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.) trade in Africa and its direct ties to terrorist funding.
Don't try to mislead the readers into believing that legalizing heroin will severly cripple terrorism. Your entire premise is based on the "assumption" that the majority of terrorist funding comes from the opium trade, simply not true! Unless you, yourself are a participant in the opium trade and are privy to some information that the rest of the public is not, then perhaps you should occassionallly question news and internet reports before you blindly accept them as complete truth!
Vague and indirect? No. Osama Bin Laden being classified by our own government as a narcoterrorist is clear evidence that he is financing operations with drugs.
FluffyNinja said:I simply believe that it would be quite interesting and informative if we took a close look at such data - if available. because of their marijuana and heroin (soft drugs as you call them) policies, I believe that Holland would be a good case study for your premise. I'm not really trying to debunk your proposed outcomes - on the contrary - I believe that it is a very interesting approach. I was simply trying to fill in some of the information gaps -- questions that I had about terrorist funding. One point that you make does make a great deal of common sense -- it seems that going after funding sources IS the way to stop these fanatics! In my post I was simply suggesting that there may be many other alternative sources of funding that we could consider as well.
Binary_Digit said:Good points THT. I knew that before the Taliban fell Afghanistan's main export was opium. If what you say is true, that around 90% of the world's heroin comes from that area, then it stands to reason some terrorists may be funding themselves that way. After all, it's the fastest and easiest way for our own criminals to make huge amounts of money.
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?