Another war we're losing....
- Thread starter markjs
- Start date
markjs
Banned
That problem would be greatly reduced by legalization, I'll grant you probably not eliminated, but reduced by a large margin. Take away the exorbitant price, and illegality of merely obtaining drugs, and crime will be reduced, no question about it. As it is drugs are illegal and this a highly valued commodity, the illegality itself, creates the crime, it's just common sense. The increasingly tougher and tougher laws have shown no correlation to reduced crime, none!
Ther is little if any evidence to suggest that the rate of kids "raped and murdered" by junkies is any higher than the rate of sociopaths raping and murdering kids. Add in the fact that drugs being illegal hasn't even slowed the drug trade at all, I see no actaul point made here.
If drugs were a legal trade, produced and sold by reputable businesses, such lowlifes, along with their cartels and turf wars would completely cease to exist, probably literally, overnight.
No, I did not in fact say that. What I did say, is there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the number of addicts would chang at all signifigantly. Remember, drugs are illegal, yet addicts are dime a dozen.
Didn't say that either, but as it is there are millions of them that go to work everyday, and use their drugs daily after work, it's known as a functional addict, and it's quite common. That's not even to begin to talk about all the alcoholics, who go to work, earn a living and pay their way in society, in fact there is some reason to believe that if drugs were legal, a larger percentage of drug addicts would be able to hold jobs, as they could afford their drugs (instead of having to resort to crime, such as selling drugs, or robbing others, and spending all their time and energy obtaining drugs because of the difficulty and extreme expense of doing so). They would also be expected not to use on the job just as alcoholics are, of course. Again, the fact that drug abuse is rampant as it is with drugs being illegal, the worst case scenario, is probably, no change in the area at all.
Sorry, I don't understand that one, and therefore cannot answer it.
I am answering all this from my perspective on the problem here in the US, being as I know nothing about the drug problem in Mexico, however I think the majority of the points I make are applicable anywhere.
So there you have it. You made an attempt at intelligent discussion, and for that I reward you with the counterpoint. I'd like to see a better effort. I'd still like to see someone dismantle the article, or at least prove to me they could even be bothered to read it.....Ah well, might as well be asking pigs to fly I guess.
Well, since the number of addicts in Mexico is quite low, I think harsher laws against consumers is the way to go. Our drugs related problems have more to do with cartels (and sometimes not even mexican) operating within our country to export them to your country.
If drugs were to become legal in here, then the number of addicts would grow exponentially. While the cartels would likely go legal.
How to manage the problem in your country? frankly I don't know, but in a country where I dare say, 7 in 10 people have tried at least once some sort of illegal drug (marihuana for example). Things can get complicated.
Let's see the repercussions on a world wide scale if the US (i.e. biggest drug market in the world) makes drugs legal:
- Rest of the countries could make them legal or not.
- If they make them legal, their low numbers of addicts would likely go up.
- If they don't, then they still have to deal with cartels eager to sell to the US.
I fail to see legalization as a win/win solution.
If drugs were to become legal in here, then the number of addicts would grow exponentially. While the cartels would likely go legal.
How to manage the problem in your country? frankly I don't know, but in a country where I dare say, 7 in 10 people have tried at least once some sort of illegal drug (marihuana for example). Things can get complicated.
Let's see the repercussions on a world wide scale if the US (i.e. biggest drug market in the world) makes drugs legal:
- Rest of the countries could make them legal or not.
- If they make them legal, their low numbers of addicts would likely go up.
- If they don't, then they still have to deal with cartels eager to sell to the US.
I fail to see legalization as a win/win solution.
markjs
Banned
Agreed, but I can't see it being worse than it is now (in this country), and I believe stronly it'd would be a better alternative, but certainly in this case there is no such thing as a win-win situation.
unclehobart
New Member
I'm still waiting for you to even start a legitimate debate. All you have done is make an endless and unbroken string of logical fallacies which instantly dissolve any foundation that you claim to stand upon. You actually have started to state a few decent arguments and then you just trash it all to hell by saying something illogical to a debate.
per example: I think drugs should be legalized. (valid argument) They can be taxed and the country will have a financial windfall. (valid argument) Treatment instead of incarceration. (valid argument) I refuse to accept anything you have to say on the argument because you aren't an ex addict or some kind of drug rehab research fellow. (logical fallacy. Irrelevant conclusion argumentum ad hominem. Irrelevant conclusion. Appeal to ridicule. Argumentum ad misericordiam.)
If I went around saying that I won this debate because I say that I am an upstanding member of society and you are nothing but a washed up junkie paperboy rat breeder... you would take offense... and rightly so... because it doesn't matter what our backgrounds and experiences were... all of our opinions are valid... because they are opinions after all.
markjs
Banned
My point is, I have stated my qualifications, Given evidence, both in the form of a brillaint article, by a scholar who has studied the problem in depth and made a very well reasoned argument, (I still see no evidence that anyone has bothered to even read it), and through other various sources, and made a case. What I have gotten back is a bunch well, it seems to me they are pretty much just kneejerk rections. Few others in this "debate" have told us what makes them qualified to offer an educated opinion. Further, nobody except myself and spike, has presented any outside opinions, or reasearch to support their case. You all have simpy stated your opinion, and not a one of you has made any serious attempt to back it up with any evidence. There has not even been very much explanation as to why your opinions make any sense.
Hell the one and only attempt at backing up an opinion, that anyone made, is chcr's lame attemt when he cited some old, outdated study he read sometime in the past and vaguely remembers, and used that to back up his argument. I promply offered two articles based on more recent and comprehensive research, that pretty much refuted his opinion, to which he promptly told me, he didn't care or believe it anyway. I suppose I must concede, that it is his right to do so, but outside of that, I haven't heard anything more than peoples kneejerk reactions and the opinions they've concocted based on that. So yes, I think I can safely say, that I have made a better argument than anyone else, based mostly on the fact that nobody else has given the matter any serious thought or effort.
Hell the one and only attempt at backing up an opinion, that anyone made, is chcr's lame attemt when he cited some old, outdated study he read sometime in the past and vaguely remembers, and used that to back up his argument. I promply offered two articles based on more recent and comprehensive research, that pretty much refuted his opinion, to which he promptly told me, he didn't care or believe it anyway. I suppose I must concede, that it is his right to do so, but outside of that, I haven't heard anything more than peoples kneejerk reactions and the opinions they've concocted based on that. So yes, I think I can safely say, that I have made a better argument than anyone else, based mostly on the fact that nobody else has given the matter any serious thought or effort.
2minkey
bootlicker
Seriously mark, you gotta stop disqualifying other people's posts. Why you think that any opinion has to be backed up by some sort of 3rd party in order to be considered valid and educated is far beyond me.
You should know by now that you are not likely to make other members say: "ohh geez, what he's saying is sooooooooo right, I never thought of it that way, I'm a fool and I was wrong". We're here to share opinions, not to preach.
I have my opinions and I will not support them with the opinions of someone else because they are MY opinions and I do not need any paper made by a scientist and filled with statistics to make me feel better about them.
For that very same reason, I do not appreciate someone saying I'm uneducated or that what I just say is not worthy. If you seriously want to have a debate, don't claim to be on the upper ground, you're not. Yes, you've been an addict. Yes, you've had therapy. Yes, you claim to have recovered. Yes, you say you have studied in depth. Yes, you are also being pedantic and the little crowd you might have reading your posts might grow tired as well.
You should know by now that you are not likely to make other members say: "ohh geez, what he's saying is sooooooooo right, I never thought of it that way, I'm a fool and I was wrong". We're here to share opinions, not to preach.
I have my opinions and I will not support them with the opinions of someone else because they are MY opinions and I do not need any paper made by a scientist and filled with statistics to make me feel better about them.
For that very same reason, I do not appreciate someone saying I'm uneducated or that what I just say is not worthy. If you seriously want to have a debate, don't claim to be on the upper ground, you're not. Yes, you've been an addict. Yes, you've had therapy. Yes, you claim to have recovered. Yes, you say you have studied in depth. Yes, you are also being pedantic and the little crowd you might have reading your posts might grow tired as well.
markjs
Banned
Let me simplify, one last time, my point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, be it based in real understanding, erroneous beliefs, or somehwere in between.
An opinion and a counter opinion, can make up a discussion.
A full "debate" requires an argument, and a counter-argument, (point-counterpoint), and an argument or counter-argument, requires evidence, to support it.
IMHO
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, be it based in real understanding, erroneous beliefs, or somehwere in between.
An opinion and a counter opinion, can make up a discussion.
A full "debate" requires an argument, and a counter-argument, (point-counterpoint), and an argument or counter-argument, requires evidence, to support it.
IMHO
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Except with them legal as you advocate you can get fubared without having to worry about going to the poke, which MAKES it win/win for YOU. And it is at that point point that your crusade loses credence.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Except you believe that only YOUR real world observations and experiences count, and only yours. Can't have it both ways.
chcr
Too cute for words
markjs
Banned
That's absolute garbage, not that I expect better from you, but if drugs were legal, I would have no more desire to do them then than I do now.
markjs
Banned
More horseshit, When someone spouts some opinion as if it were some universal truth, I for one would like to hear what personal experience that person has that make their opiniom in any way credible. I am not content with just settling for that they must have some reason to think that way, and it's not impotant to know why. A large percentage of Americans have beliefs that are merely because someone told them so, and have no basis in any actual experience or knowlege.
- First time junkies: 5 years in prison.
- Second strike: 10 years in prison.
- Third strike: jail them for life.
I don't care if they screw their life in prison, if they become more addict inside, then the better, just increase their sentence on the fly and let them rot.
No consumption implies no distribution which implies no production which implies no cartels.
Corolary:
No consumption implies no cartels. Easy 1st grade thinking.
Fine if you like it, fine if you don't. Not gonna change my mind and I'm not going to present evidence either.
- Second strike: 10 years in prison.
- Third strike: jail them for life.
I don't care if they screw their life in prison, if they become more addict inside, then the better, just increase their sentence on the fly and let them rot.
No consumption implies no distribution which implies no production which implies no cartels.
Corolary:
No consumption implies no cartels. Easy 1st grade thinking.
Fine if you like it, fine if you don't. Not gonna change my mind and I'm not going to present evidence either.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Does that mean that you don't have any idea how legalization would be structured, or what type of drugs would be involved, you just think that the world would be a happier, brighter place if drugs were legal?
markjs
Banned
OK, your opinion is noted. Fortunately no sane politician in this country would ever consider such a system, so it's pretty much a moot point. I wouldn't be really surprised to see such a policy policy in a third world country like Mexico. I have strong doubts that your "solution" would make any signifigant impact whatsoever on the problem, but regardless you are entitled to it.
In the hypothetical event such a short sighted policy was implimented in this country, above and beyond the fact that a good part of the citizenry would vehemently protest , most of them normal people without drug problems incidently, other very ugly problems would be created. Faced with such stiff penalties the stakes would go up exponentially with every encounter between the police and an addict. A great number of people who even smoked pot, when faced with say getting pulled over for a minor traffic stop would end up leading the police on wild and prolonged high speed car chases endangering innocent lives. When confronted elsewhere, shootouts between addicts and police would become commonplace. Hostage situations would happen with increasing frequency. In short the crime involved in the drug trade would not just escalate but the severity of it would skyrocket.
Not much of a solution in my opinion, but as I have said you are entitled to it.
unclehobart
New Member
Mexico third world?
man... thats cold... almost racist.
They do have paved roads, electricity, and plumbling y'know?
Mexico is a first world nation. You got some 'splainin to do, Lucy.
man... thats cold... almost racist.
They do have paved roads, electricity, and plumbling y'know?
Mexico is a first world nation. You got some 'splainin to do, Lucy.
