- Jan 16, 2005
- Reaction score
Are we winning the war on drugs?
No, it would be the people that commit crimes that do that.mect said:It increases crime.
No, that would be only if the user COMMITS A CRIME.mect said:It messes up many more lives than just that of the user.
On the contrary, 2nd hand smoke is the ONLY problem with drug using. You could be contaminating the air of people around you without their permission.mect said:I find it odd that second hand smoke is the biggest problem mentioned on drugs in these forums. That is one of the smaller problems associated with drug use.
Only because of rediculous socialistic programs like welfare that make them become burdens on the rest of us.mect said:People who become involved in drug use become burdens on society as a whole.
Just because something is wrong in your eyes, doesn't mean its wrong in everyone's eyes. If you believe you have more right to tell someone what they can and can't consume than themselves, you are a controlling, anti-freedom person. You don't like drugs, don't do 'em. But stop trying to FORCE others to not do them, sacrificing everyone's freedom to do so.mect said:Drugs have absolutely no benifit for society (other than an easy high) and have large costs.
You need some help. Stop trying to control everyone. People have a higher claim on their own lives than you have on their life. You have no right to tell other people what to do, nor does anyone have that right.mect said:Of course drugs should be illegal.
I agree with you primarily on this point. I think our main differences lie in how others can compromise our freedoms. This point alone opens up a vast area where even by your definition, the government should be involved. As stated previously, the use of drugs does compromise the rights of others.Gabo said:Here is the problem with anarchy:
-With complete freedom, people are eventually going to compromise other peoples' freedoms.
-There is no guiding force to make people give back what they take from someone (whether it be life, liberty, or property)
I can't think of any other problems with anarchy, tell me if you can.
Again, if our government is accomplishing things mentioned previously, then yes. But again, violating someones rights/property extends far beyond just one person directly taking anothers property.Gabo said:With this society type, everyone is treated fairly and justly, and we can all get along.
Gabo said:The coolest part about libertarianism is that everyone else, even democrats and republicans, could still live the same way of life. All you would have to do is set up your own little communities where everyone can give tons of their tax money to regulations and such. You can move to a community where everyone agrees not to do drugs (by contract). In that way, you can protect yourself from these "crazy druggies", but you show that you still respect the decisions of others.
It wouldn't be a problem because people that wanted to do drugs wouldn't move to such a community where they wouldn't be allowed to do drugs.mect said:If the majority of the people decide that drugs should be illegal, then others would cry that their rights were being violated. Or do you propose that all laws should be decided by a unanamous vote.
When you FORCE people not to take drugs, you are taking a higher claim on their life than they are. You are saying they MUST do what you say, even if it hurts no one. The majority of people that use illegal drugs are safe users that keep their habit under control. It's just the same as with alcohol and smoking. Only a small minority actually commit crimes while influenced, and THEY are the ones that deserve to go to jail, not innocent drug users.mect said:However, if you will recall, the debate is, should illegal drugs be legalized, not at what level. So again, for the same arguements as stated previously, whether at the national, state, or community level, no, drugs should not be legallized.
All you need for example is to agree on one issue. If you agree on no drugs, you can have all your community sign a contract not to use drugs. There would be no laws involved. Just a contract between all the people of a community.mect said:I don't think there is much of a chance of having a community of any substantial size where everyone will agree on every issue. I'm not buying. I'm also not buying that the majority of drug users have the habit under control. The majority of them think they do. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just excersizing my right to vote to get the laws that I will be of the greatest benifit to society. If my vote is in the majority, then the people are the ones saying that is wrong. Unless you want communities of five people each with their own individual laws, government, etc you'll never get universal support for all of you laws.
Not true, I have used illegal drugs briefly and am in fact not addicted, I made the choice that they were too much fun and would become a problem, so I stopped. But plenty of addicts have in fact left that lifestyle and become clean, sober, productive members of society.truthseeker said:Drugs are highly addictive for everyone who use them. Once you are addicted, you are done for.Becuase they are expensive, this is the result of black market supply, there is no legal means to obtain drugs, so therefore the price goes up, when addicts need a fix there are only a limited amount of suppliers, since there is no black market regulation as in a free market, the supplier has free reign over price, which will be high.There are many drug users who commit crime, such as robbery or theft, just to get more drugs.no way to qualify that as in homeless statistics are vague at best and not credible in the least.More than half of homeless people abuse illegal drugs as well. There are reasons why good people turn into criminal or homeless, you know. Doesn't that tell you something?
I said this on the pot poll, I believe marijuana should be legal, put a stamp on all legal hemp and without the stamp, you go to prison for tax evasion. Hard drugs should be semi-legal, you go to an "addictive medicine" specialist who is responsible for monitoring you and pay a fee plus tax, the docor gets his money, the government gets their tax money, and the user gets his fix at a fair market price and also has the comfort of knowing he is in a sterile, controlled, environment with a trained professional using a regulated and "safe" product. There is no way to eliminate drug use, it's been around since the beginning of mankind, so the only logical thing to do is to accomodate it within reason.