War on Drugs (1 Viewer)

[out of the blue]

Are we winning the war on drugs?

 

[heyjoeo]

War on Drugs is stupid, retarded, and a waste of time.

If anything, we should drop this "anti-pot"ness from the government. Pot isn't that bad of a drug. Hell the government could profit off of it. It's a safer drug than alcohol. Whatever.

We should be focusing on more important issues. I see problems with cocaine and heroine, but marijuana should not even be considered.

 

[Gabo]

Drugs have no effect on anyone except the user.

Therefore, there's no valid reason for the government to make them illegal, as it violates our right to liberty.

Second hand smoke is different, but other drug using is simply a decision made by a person to put harmful substances in their body. The government has no right to tell us what we can and can't do. We are supposed to be free.

 

[heyjoeo]

Well that's not entirely true. Drugs can have an effect on more people than just the user. But thats why you have laws so when that happens, they get punished. Same thing for guns. You can have guns, but when you use it improperly, you get punished.

 

[Gabo]

Drugs and guns are inanimate objects. They do not effect anyone or anything.

Taking drugs is an action, which also does not effect anyone but yourself.

Drugging someone or shooting someone DO have an effect on someone else. THESE are the crimes, not the harmless act of possession or use.

 

[mect]

Using drugs doesn't affect anyone but the user? Whoever beleives that is very ignorant. Drug use affects society. It increases crime. It messes up families. It messes up many more lives than just that of the user. 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. People who become involved in drug use become burdens on society as a whole. Drugs have absolutely no benifit for society (other than an easy high) and have large costs. Of course drugs should be illegal. The only hard issue is how to effectively enforce it, because I will agree that the current method is not very effective.

 

[Gabo]

It increases crime.

No, it would be the people that commit crimes that do that.

It messes up many more lives than just that of the user.

No, that would be only if the user COMMITS A CRIME.

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.

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.

People who become involved in drug use become burdens on society as a whole.

Only because of rediculous socialistic programs like welfare that make them become burdens on the rest of us.

Drugs have absolutely no benifit for society (other than an easy high) and have large costs.

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.

Of course drugs should be illegal.

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]

The way you describe Libertarianism really does make it seem like anarchy. You don't give any arguments that convince me of anything. Just look at what actually happens.

Your quote
"No, it would be the people that commit crimes that do that."

Yes, you're right, the drug user who commits a crime in that sense isn't harming anyone until he commits a crime. However, someone who is involved in drugs is far more likely to commit a crime. Drug control stops the problem before it starts. I have worked in group homes before. Every single boy we had through the program was a drug user. You tell the person who gets robbed by a drug user wanting money for a high that that person doing drugs doesn't affect them. Drug control goes for at least one root of the problem.

Your quote
"Only because of rediculous socialistic programs like welfare that make them become burdens on the rest of us."

What about the innocent family of a drug user who has lost his job because he never shows up to work because of drugs. I don't believe that social welfare is the role of government either, but I do believe that individuals should feel the responsibilty to take care of those without. However you look at it, someone who is always high cannot contribute to society. If your not rowing the boat you're just causing drag. Also, there are many other ways of being a burden on society other than just monetary.

Also, if you note, I said there was no benifit to drugs other than an easy high. You respond with a statement about right and wrong. Right and wrong are never mentioned in my entire arguement (although I personally feel that that is another reason drugs should be illegal, but as that is just my opinion, I left it out). Can you name one benifit it has to society. That was my arguement, not that it is morally wrong. If you, can name one. Otherwise, I don't believe that the recreational side of drug use is enough to balance off all the harm it causes. The role of government is to protect the rights of people. The use of drugs causes more rights to be violated than legalizing it protects.

 

[Gabo]

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.


Libertarians want to institute the freedom of anarchy, but also incorporate the punishment for violating someone else's rights. In this way, the society is no longer in anarchy. Everyone is allowed complete freedom as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another person.

With this society type, everyone is treated fairly and justly, and we can all get along.

Our current government has most of that stuff up there incorporated, but it goes too far. It steals money from its citizens to provide services by FORCE, which the people may or may not want. It compromises EVERYONE's freedom for a little safety, a bargain some may deem unfair.



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.

 

[mect]

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.

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.

With this society type, everyone is treated fairly and justly, and we can all get along.

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.

I completely agree that our government is too big and should get out of areas the the private sector can handle better. But defining and enforcing laws is not that sector.

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.

Yes, this is a possibility, although I do believe that there would be a lot of unforseen consequences to such a system. It is hard to predict exactly what those would be though. Again, this might work. But once again, we would be back to this same debate. 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.

In general however, I generally agree with this last arguement you make in that more laws should be decided at a community level rather than a national.

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.

 

[Gabo]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Gabo]

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.

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.

And if most users don't have their habits under control, then how come 6 out of every 10 people in jail is in for a NONVIOLENT drug crime? This means our jails are packed to the brim with innocent drug users, which makes it that much more difficult to put the real criminals behind bars.

And you can't say you aren't FORCING people to not do drugs. By telling the government to FORCE people not to do drugs, you are just as responsible. You are trying to control other people's lives, which is completely wrong.

 

[skabanger13]

I thank thay should be legal to a cirten extent, for the most part the only one a drug user hurts is their self. All the war on drug's is doing is wasting money, it cost money to pay the cops to go under cover, do stings, do busts, it cost money to house the people caught with drugs. For every drug house shut down two spring up in its place. If your in your flower bed picking weeds and for every one you pick two grow in its place is it smart to keep picking. If you where to legalize it you would shut down all the drug houses, save the money you spend on fighting the war, have coffee houses like Amsterdam and tax the drugs that way the government makes their money. Whers the down side?

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

We aren't winning the war on drugs. Legalize the crap. All of it. Set age limits, but legalize it.

 

[Gabo]

We aren't winning the war on drugs. Legalize the crap. All of it.

If only the government officials would stop making it seem so complicated...

 

[apathetic fools]

Buddy, you are so wrong! Thousands of people are murdered everyday by the hard core drug user . I would not want to live in this country with "Meth heads, Crack heads, Coke heads" that are free to walk around and use. These crispy critters would sell their kids, for a hit. Since I've spoke of children, lets address that issue! They brutalize and subject their offspring to all manner of criminal activity. Tell me, what happens then? They raise them immoral with little or no guidance, and then who pays? Who gets bullied, stabbed, raped, robbed, murdered? Those who have raised their children with values, and respect. The citizens that do all the working and struggling in this country! They increase our taxes with SSI and other assistance programs, not to mention the cost of what it takes to house them in prison. The cycle never stops because these hard core drugs rob the soul. Look outside the box :soap

 

[Hoot]

As I've said before, the only problem with legalization is we'd have to get the government involved, and we all know how they can screw things up!

On the other hand, with legalization, the government would have so much money, they could probably find a cure for my addiction! LOL! J/K

 

[Shye]

the war on drugs is a waste of time money and innocent lifes, but we shouldn't leagalize all the drugs, just the natual grown drugs.

 

[truthseeker]

Drugs are highly addictive for everyone who use them. Once you are addicted, you are done for. There are many drug users who commit crime, such as robbery or theft, just to get more drugs. 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?

 

[Fu_chick]

I didn't vote. I don't think that we are winning the "war on drugs" (I hate that phrase), but I do think that pot should be legalized only for medical purposes, and other drugs not at all.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Drugs are highly addictive for everyone who use them. Once you are addicted, you are done for.

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.

There are many drug users who commit crime, such as robbery or theft, just to get more drugs.

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.

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?

no way to qualify that as in homeless statistics are vague at best and not credible in the least.
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.

 

[Hornburger]

I think low-impact drugs should be legalized...it would take away the drug black market and thus help reduce gangs and the resulting violence.

I think it should be taxed alot too, but not too too much or else things like gangs would pop up to sell them...

And I'm not sure which drugs would be too effective on you that would make you go out and do crazy stuff...I know weed won't make you do that, so that should be legalized...I just think the relatively ineffective ones should be legalized like weed...

 

[LeftyHenry]

Only Marijuana should be legalized and maybe Acid but I think mainly Pot 'cuz it's needed for cancer patients who have no appetite and Glaucoma because now it's very hard for them to get permission to take it. I think it should legalized for people over 21 and allowed only in small amounts and like Hornburger said, not taxed too much

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

As idiotic as I feel about posting on a dead topic, I haven't had the opportunity to quantify my views on this site yet. I've written papers on this before, but never had an audience willing to debunk my arguments.

Possessing a gun and the act of shooting it are not crimes in and of themselves, nor should they be. Shooting a gun at someone, regardless of whether or not you hit them or the intent behind your action is a crime, as it should be. Drinking alcohol is not a crime, and experience has shown us that making it one is a very, very bad idea that causes much more harm to society than the actual act of imbibing alcohol itself. Drinking alcohol and engaging in reckless (and possibly wreckless) behavior that endangers others is a crime, and for very good reason.
Despite the massive amounts of money we have thrown at curbing the social ills spawned by drugs, their popularity has waxed and waned almost in mockery of our efforts to suppress them (reminiscent of our dalliance from 1920-1933) The fallout from our pursuit of mandatory sobriety has eclipsed the very societal woes that incited us to adopt this course of action in the first place.
Legalizing all drugs would do a great deal towards stymieing crime, terrorism, and the physical and mental health complications inflamed by an unregulated black market. We do not punish drunks until they beat their wife or get behind the wheel because it would be an inefficacious allotment of public resources to mitigate the problems caused by their actions. Punishing them after they commit their offenses is enough to deter the corrigible, casual drinkers while still taking action against the crimes of the incorrigible, chronic imbibers.
Now, anyone care to tell me why that wouldn’t work with every drug that is currently illegal?