The Topic is to legalize Hard Drugs. NOT THC.

[ScottL]

One wonders if you see the contradiction of your own statements. You proclaim that it doesn't violate other individuals rights and then demand the mechanism by which drug use would necessarily violate other individual's rights. Wild.

There's no contradiction in my sentence. I stated drug use is an individual's right and I stated quite clearly that rehabilitation should be an option. I fail to see a contradiction there. A contradiction would be me saying its an individuals right while stating that the individual has no right.

As for rehabilitation and social osterization (spelling?) I think it's been way more effective, just ask the Tobacco companies.

Ummm... what? Drug use is wrong because it is a mechanism for control over poor people and minorities? Seriously? That is why it is wrong? Anyway...

The idea goes that petty drug use and trafficking tends to be prevelant in lower-socio-economic neighborhoods, IE: poor, people of color. This acts directly and indirectly as a control mechanism within those neighborhoods while willfully ignoring the growing drug "problem" within suburban white America. I'm pretty sure it was linked in the previous thread but to summarize, drug related law enforcement were strongly pushed away from investigating suburban white american areas. This shows a likely control mechanism on people of color and low income families.

You should note that I said 'selling' drugs is wrong. You (intentionally?) changed what I said. Were you afraid to address the rightness or wrongness of selling in your response?

The selling of drugs while fraught with deplorable mechanisms for addiction is no different than what tobacco companies did when targetting youth. Legalize it and osteracize it and you'll have a far more effective rate.

seedload, you aren't doing yourself justice by failing to read up on the subject. Read up on the arguments for and against, whether it be drugs, sex, alcohol, pre vs post prohibition, etc. I'll even start you off with a quick link on just a few of the arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_ ... rohibition

Ask yourself questions, write down your answers, then read up on the subject and write a post answer to the same questions. Just a few off the top of my head

Why is there a disproportionate amount of people of color vs whites in prison for crimes such as drug possession and selling when the usage rates are the same?

What is the likely population decrease due to amnesty given to drug related criminals?

Why was osterasizing the tobacco industry so effective?

Just a start there.

[KitemanSA]

A classic libertarian argument runs into trouble with many "hard" drugs, and even some "soft" drugs. Drugs impair your judgement, and some of them tend to make you violent.

In what way is this a "trouble" to run into? If you are not free to make the dumb, bad choice, you are not free. And no libertarian ever says that voluntary drug use in ANY way reduces your responsibility or culpability.

Although alcohol became legal again, in recent decades we've seen a big push against drinking and driving - because the drunk driver doesn't necessarily just kill himself.

Those who drink and drive and kill should face the EXACT same charges as those who shot a gun in a crowd and kill.

Similarly, people high on acid, meth etc. may be much more likely to knife/shoot/shove someone into traffic, and so on. Opiates not so much - weed and opiates tend to make people passive and lethargic, at least from what I've seen.

Drug use is NOT an excuse. The person CHOSE to take the drug. The person must be held responsible for the results.

Therefore, I don't mind a prohibition on a number of the drugs which make you significantly more likely to injure others. So long as it's something that just potentially damages you, but doesn't make you much more likely to hurt someone else, I don't really care what you do...

Do you oppose the private ownersip of guns because they MIGHT be used agaist others?

[Teahive]

Money. They didn't have any. China did, for awhile. Don't you remember how the opium wars started? China wanted nothing the Europeans had to sell. They would only accept Gold in exchange for their silks, jade, fine porcelain, etc. Europeans got tired of paying the Chinese in Gold, so they started selling them drugs.

Silver, actually. But if China's trade surplus was a necessary condition then I guess the US should have little to fear...

So you think China was better off after they stopped their prohibition than they were before?

China was in a bad spot because foreign forces effectively dictated the conditions for opium trade and strongly pushed it. Any substantial action to regulate and reduce opium consumption after the war would hardly have been received well by the British.

However, I do believe they could have avoided that situation altogether had they used more effective means of curbing drug use than prohibition in the first place.

[Diogenes]

I think it's unlikely to map 1 to 1 correct. I think initially you'll see an initial rise in drug use (mostly mairjuana) followed by a drop back to the usual level. The biggest difference being that our jails and prisons will be less packed as possession is no longer a crime. The U.S. Prohibition on alcohol is more telling than China's prohibition with foreign influence.

But what if it doesn't? What if you achieve an "18th amendment" level of miscalculation?

Shouldn't we find a lab rat somewhere? I hear Greece is already boned.

[Diogenes]

A classic libertarian argument runs into trouble with many "hard" drugs, and even some "soft" drugs. Drugs impair your judgement, and some of them tend to make you violent.

In what way is this a "trouble" to run into? If you are not free to make the dumb, bad choice, you are not free. And no-one ever libertarian ever says that voluntary drug use in ANY way reduces your responsibility or culpability.

Although alcohol became legal again, in recent decades we've seen a big push against drinking and driving - because the drunk driver doesn't necessarily just kill himself.

Those who drink and drive and kill should face the EXACT same charges as those who shot a gun in a crowd and kill.

What punishment should someone face for getting young girls hooked on crack and turning them into hookers?

[Diogenes]

Money. They didn't have any. China did, for awhile. Don't you remember how the opium wars started? China wanted nothing the Europeans had to sell. They would only accept Gold in exchange for their silks, jade, fine porcelain, etc. Europeans got tired of paying the Chinese in Gold, so they started selling them drugs.

Silver, actually. But if China's trade surplus was a necessary condition then I guess the US should have little to fear...

So you think China was better off after they stopped their prohibition than they were before?

China was in a bad spot because foreign forces effectively dictated the conditions for opium trade and strongly pushed it. Any substantial action to regulate and reduce opium consumption after the war would hardly have been received well by the British.

However, I do believe they could have avoided that situation altogether had they used more effective means of curbing drug use than prohibition in the first place.

Like what means? Eventually China started growing their own opium to try and siphon off the money the British were making. It was inferior to the Indian grown opium, but it was cheaper so it slowly worked up to a larger market share.

[ScottL]

I think it's unlikely to map 1 to 1 correct. I think initially you'll see an initial rise in drug use (mostly mairjuana) followed by a drop back to the usual level. The biggest difference being that our jails and prisons will be less packed as possession is no longer a crime. The U.S. Prohibition on alcohol is more telling than China's prohibition with foreign influence.

But what if it doesn't? What if you achieve an "18th amendment" level of miscalculation?

Shouldn't we find a lab rat somewhere? I hear Greece is already boned.

I'm confident in the idea that individual rights providing they don't violate the rights of another individual are fine.

[Diogenes]

I think it's unlikely to map 1 to 1 correct. I think initially you'll see an initial rise in drug use (mostly mairjuana) followed by a drop back to the usual level. The biggest difference being that our jails and prisons will be less packed as possession is no longer a crime. The U.S. Prohibition on alcohol is more telling than China's prohibition with foreign influence.

But what if it doesn't? What if you achieve an "18th amendment" level of miscalculation?

Shouldn't we find a lab rat somewhere? I hear Greece is already boned.

I'm confident in the idea that individual rights providing they don't violate the rights of another individual are fine.

You did see where I asked the question about hooking young girls on crack and turning them into crack whores?

[seedload]

One wonders if you see the contradiction of your own statements. You proclaim that it doesn't violate other individuals rights and then demand the mechanism by which drug use would necessarily violate other individual's rights. Wild.

There's no contradiction in my sentence. I stated drug use is an individual's right and I stated quite clearly that rehabilitation should be an option. I fail to see a contradiction there. A contradiction would be me saying its an individuals right while stating that the individual has no right.

Yes, I was correct. You did not see the contradiction.

From an individual's rights view, all drug use should be allowed providing it does not violate any other individual's rights. On the reverse-side, the ability to break addiction through rehabilitation should always be available, whether it be hard drugs or not.

The contradiction is that you say that drug use is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights and then demand that other people pay for the rehabilitation in the event of addiction.

Has making someone pay for someone else problem become so acceptable that it isn't even considered any more?

[ScottL]

You did see where I asked the question about hooking young girls on crack and turning them into crack whores?

Pretty sure that's already happening regardless.

[ScottL]

The contradiction is that you say that drug use is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights and then demand that other people pay for the rehabilitation in the event of addiction.

Addicts work jobs too (translation: would pay for it), just look at Wall Street.

[seedload]

The contradiction is that you say that drug use is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights and then demand that other people pay for the rehabilitation in the event of addiction.

Addicts work jobs too (translation: would pay for it), just look at Wall Street.

You said it was a right available to all to get rehabilitation. Don't back off now. You were saying that if an addict can't pay for the rehabilitation, everyone else should and you know it!

Or are you now saying that it should not be available for all?!?

Better be the latter or your contradiction still stands.

[ScottL]

The contradiction is that you say that drug use is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone else's rights and then demand that other people pay for the rehabilitation in the event of addiction.

Addicts work jobs too (translation: would pay for it), just look at Wall Street.

You said it was a right available to all to get rehabilitation. Don't back off now. You were saying that if an addict can't pay for the rehabilitation, everyone else should and you know it!

Or are you now saying that it should not be available for all?!?

Better be the latter or your contradiction still stands.

seedload, please don't put words in my mouth so to speak. I'm pretty sure I know what I said, and what you have above is not what I said. I said an addict has the right to rehabilitation, not of paying for said rehabilitation. Reading skills would go a long way here.

[seedload]

The idea goes that petty drug use and trafficking tends to be prevelant in lower-socio-economic neighborhoods, IE: poor, people of color. This acts directly and indirectly as a control mechanism within those neighborhoods while willfully ignoring the growing drug "problem" within suburban white America. I'm pretty sure it was linked in the previous thread but to summarize, drug related law enforcement were strongly pushed away from investigating suburban white american areas. This shows a likely control mechanism on people of color and low income families.

I would agree that prosecution of drug use and sales may be disproportionately applied. But you don't even remember what you said. You said:

Drug use is considered wrong to act as a mechanism for control over those from poor socio-economical positions and non-model minorities.

Drug use is considered wrong regardless of disproportionate enforcement. It was certainly not originally prohibited as part of a master plot to control the blacks.

We can discuss disproportionate enforcement if you want, but saying that drugs being illegal/wrong is a scheme to enable disproportionate enforcement as if it were a simple fact is flat out ridiculous!

[seedload]

Reading skills would go a long way here.

What you said was "should always be available". Now, if you meant that an addict should be able to pay for his/her own treatment, I apologize. I am not sure why you would say this since, well, that's the way things already are, but if you were just stating the obvious, then I guess I can't read very well in addition to being completely and utterly uneducated on the subject (per you previous post). Heck, I thought people already could get treatment. I didn't realize that they couldn't. Maybe I should read up on that subject.

Or maybe you are just using the retroactive "that's not what I meant - learn to read" forum defense.

The world will never know - nor care.

I leave this conversation a simple man who believes that selling crack, heroin, acid, cocaine, and meth to be wrong. Silly me.

I really just wanted to let MSIMON know that his arguments, statistical in nature, may not be as effective as he thinks, because there are lots of people like me who think it is end of discussion wrong to sell hard drugs. This was just informative. Maybe it would help given that the five years till legalization that he predicted is winding away. (4 1/2 now?).

You then countering with statistical arguments and a call for my education is kinda funny when you consider my original intent.

But hey, insult away. Call me a bad reader. Say I need education. Ignore what I say. It is your wasted time now, not mine.

Good luck to you.

Best regards.