Opinions - War on Drugs debate: let's play a little role-playing game

[grandbaby]

OK, since 99%+ of drugs-forummers are anti-prohibition in one way or another (whether it's for simple decriminalization of medical marijuana or complete legalization and deregulation of all drugs or, usually, something in between), the debate around here can get a little one-sided.

So just to keep us all on our toes, since Police Officer has ducked out of most of the heavy arguments (and since he shouldn't be the sole pro-Prohibition voice on here anyhow), I thought it'd be fun and educational to have a little space on this forum where some of us could take the pro-WoD side of things, and we could have a mock debate (or a "mass-debate", lol).

Remember, no negative rep, 'cause this thread is all make-believe, mmmkay?

I'll start. Me be bad guy now.

****

Originally Posted by x cynic x
So then you support drug laws...People must have the freedom to make the decision what to put into their body...

Uh, yes I support drug laws.

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good thread

[flipthecandy]

Ok I'll be a bad guy. People still should have the choice to abuse that freedom. Life is about choice and consequence!

[Nagognog2]

Don't drop this in Porky's lap. He runs when serious questions and real history rears it's head. Now here is my prohibition:

The mis-labeling and impurity of drugs should remain illegal. Example: If you went to WalGreens and bought 1 gm of MDMA HCl and it was Aspirin - you should be able to sue them. Not just for your money back - sue them for all possible damages. Reyes Syndrome. Couldm't treat PTSD. Emotional Damages. Etc.

There are a few other instances where law should be involved - but not prohibition. It plainly doesn't work, and makes people get sick.

[Felonious Skunk]

I don't think it would be marketed as powder. Let me be the "Public Compliance Prick" and demand that drugs like 2C-E and MDMA be sold only in pill form with to-be-determined dosages, in the same way as aspirin and acetaminophen are not sold by the gram.

I would also lobby for keeping drugs like PCP and methamphetamine illegal, the idea being that with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD now decriminalized, the majority of the public will get their kicks from those drugs and won't have much interest in the more dangerous stuff (this is hypothetical on my part).

Of course, penalties for trafficking in the still-illegal stuff will basically be misdemeanors inline with the true gravity of such offenses.

[zera]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

I would also lobby for keeping drugs like PCP and methamphetamine illegal, the idea being that with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD now decriminalized, the majority of the public will get their kicks from those drugs and won't have much interest in the more dangerous stuff (this is hypothetical on my part).

Methamphetamine more dangerous than cocaine? Hmmm, I would have to say the opposite.

[toe]

Originally Posted by zera

Methamphetamine more dangerous than cocaine? Hmmm, I would have to say the opposite.

Yeah. I don't feel heroin belongs in that camp, either. (FWIW, the heroin should all be forwarded to the camp with the olive drab 3-person tent under the grey rain bib.)

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

I would also lobby for keeping drugs like PCP and methamphetamine illegal, the idea being that with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD now decriminalized, the majority of the public will get their kicks from those drugs and won't have much interest in the more dangerous stuff (this is hypothetical on my part).

Heh...now you've got me imagining a law that makes it illegal to go to the 4th Plateau on DXM without a trip-sitter.

grandbaby, you're scaring me.


ECL

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by flipthecandy

Ok I'll be a bad guy. People still should have the choice to abuse that freedom. Life is about choice and consequence!

You do have the choice to abuse your freedom. Where I come from (Porkyville), abuse of freedom is called "breaking the law." And when you make that choice, you reap the consequence. Smoke a joint, go to jail. That's life!

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

There are a few other instances where law should be involved - but not prohibition. It plainly doesn't work, and makes people get sick.

Prohibition works. It keeps drugs out of the hands of many (obviously not all) people who shouldn't have them. You want to see people getting sick? How about a crackhead dying of aids because she whored herself out for the next hit? How about meth-heads who collapse from exhaustion after staying awake for weeks? How about junkies with abcessed veins contracting HIV? Our police officers see these people every day. They are not victims of the War on Drugs — they are victims of drug abuse. To say they should simply be allowed to abuse themselves to death ... that's just wrong.

(ooh, I can tell this is going to be a fun game).

[fnord]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

Prohibition works. It keeps drugs out of the hands of many (obviously not all) people who shouldn't have them. You want to see people getting sick? How about a crackhead dying of aids because she whored herself out for the next hit? How about meth-heads who collapse from exhaustion after staying awake for weeks? How about junkies with abcessed veins contracting HIV? Our police officers see these people every day. They are not victims of the War on Drugs — they are victims of drug abuse. To say they should simply be allowed to abuse themselves to death ... that's just wrong.

(ooh, I can tell this is going to be a fun game).

social darwinism,the stupid people kill themselfs off while the smarter stronger people survive.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Don't drop this in Porky's lap. He runs when serious questions and real history rears it's head. Now here is my prohibition:

The mis-labeling and impurity of drugs should remain illegal. Example: If you went to WalGreens and bought 1 gm of MDMA HCl and it was Aspirin - you should be able to sue them. Not just for your money back - sue them for all possible damages. Reyes Syndrome. Couldm't treat PTSD. Emotional Damages. Etc.

There are a few other instances where law should be involved - but not prohibition. It plainly doesn't work, and makes people get sick.

I like the idea of accountability, weather it be on the storefront business or the connections next door. Nothing I despise more than someone selling something that isn't what they claim it is, and that would go for a product that is cut .

[fnord]

BAD GUYk i dont care if you hippies eat goof balls, snort crack, or shoot up a lil pot now and again,but if drugs were leagle dont you think PO,would have way too much time to spend on this forum?and on top of that if drugs were decriminalized they would be much cheaper,thus taking $ out of the hands of terrorists,or those that need funds to setup puppet governments and rig elections,without iluminati control this world would fall apart into lil pieces and we would all be forced to self govern ourselfs.and that just wouldent work.

[flipthecandy]

If prohibition was erased, drugs would be more pure and LESS dangerous because you know what you are buying.

[darawk]

Here's my best attempt at prohibitionism(I tried to do this also without distorting too many facts...just conveniently leaving things out):

Recreational drugs are no different fundamentally than prescription drugs. Recreational drugs have just been determined to be much more desirable and sought after, and so it has been found to be necessary to control them more tightly to prevent people from harming themselves and others.

Drug abuse and addiction doesn't just impact the user, it impacts everyone around them. It impacts there families, the people they steal from and harm to support their habit, and maybe more importantly from a governance standpoint, it drains our healthcare system which is paid for via tax dollars. The cost-benefit analysis is really very simple. Though it's obvious that not all drug users are abusers, empirical evidence has shown us that a large enough percentage of drug users ultimately become drug abusers and therefore burdensome to society that drugs should be illegal.

If it were only your freedom we were talking about, then sure, go get yourself addicted to heroin and cocaine. But the victims of these substances then become burdens impinging upon the freedom and welfare of the rest of us, and that is why drugs are and should be illegal.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by flipthecandy

If prohibition was erased, drugs would be more pure and LESS dangerous because you know what you are buying.

Yes, but you're missing the point, silly. Drugs are bad (mmmkay?). People shouldn't take them. They ruin lives. Their negatives well outweigh their positives. They are a societal evil. And all that jazz.

&Good job on the pro-prohibition standpoint, darawk.

[Evil GIR]

If drugs where legal than they could be taxed and the money could then be used to set up centres to help the small % of people who cant handle there own drug use.

So id be happy to pay a little bit extra a few acid tabs if a system was set up so that it could pay for those addicts who tend to screw things up for the rest of us.

Legalising drugs, would also increase public safety by ensuring that the products sold are of a high quality and the drugs sold are what it says on the label.

Legalising drugs would also take the money away from undesirable people who often used violence and other measure to keep a hold on there profits just like

prohibition of alcohol in America.

The legalisation of drugs would also reduce the spread of aids by providing clean syringes for addicts and safe places where they can shoot up, this would also reduce death rates as a medical team could be on site.

The legalisation of drugs would also free up much needed police time to go after the criminals who actually do deserve to go into prison. This would also free up the much needed prison space and so allow much tougher laws to lock people up for a longer time who cause acts of muggings, rape, murder, burglary and so on.

[bcubed]

O.K., my bit (note that this mainly applies to U.S. historical wonks):

SWIM, laws to the contrary, has the right to do whatever drugs he so chooses! Allow me to explain:

[From the Declaration of Independence]:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."

Including the right to "pursuit of happiness!" If that doesn't encompass drug use, I don't know what would! The "Cliff's Notes" version of that quote is that all humans have rights given to them by a power exceeding the governments of Man (here defined in a religious sense) and, that while a repressive government may well attempt to keep one from exercising those rights, said rights still exist.

Well, that's pretty much the WOD. SWIY'all HAVE THE RIGHT to all the pot, acid, etc ya want, it's just being repressed. Of course, if caught, SWIY'all will face the consequences that any repressive gov't might impose. If it makes SWIY'all feel better, SWIY'all would then be civil rights victims.

Of course, even the most casual student of U.S. history would realize that we haven't come close to adhering to these words. The Founding Fathers got it right the first time, however: they just set a standard that, over 200 years later, we're still having trouble living up to.

EDIT: I'm gonna disagree with my 1st statement: inalienable rights extist above and without respect to political boundaries. So, SWIY has the right to any drugs at all, wether he lives in the U.S. or in Myanmar.

[bcubed]

And here's the flip side:

Hi, I'm a 40 y.o. mother of a beautiful 8 y.o. boy. I was wild in my youth, and did quite a few substances, mostly booze and pot. I managed to make it into adulthood relatively unscathed, though I had a bit of a run-in with booze and had to leave it alone for a while. During that time, I argued for legalization of marijuana.

I'm a mom now, however, and when you have kids, you'll realize how that changes everything. I'd lay down my life for my boy, and the thought of him as a junkie, trading sex for drugs, is so abhorrent and terrifying to me that I now support the WOD, even as I know that it's constitutionally untenable, that it creates a burden on the underclass, etc, etc.

I'll bet more people fit this profile than you'd think, and winning the argument may well hinge on convincing such people that the WOD is counter-productive in harm-reduction, because it must be reluctantly admitted that it does reduce the aggregate consumption of (illegal) drugs.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by dib

If drugs where legal than they could be taxed and the money could then be used to set up centres to help the small % of people who cant handle there own drug use.

First of all, it would be immoral for the government to collect taxes on something that destroys not only the individual user's body and soul, but the fabric of communities and the nation.

Second, the "small number" of addicts would quickly skyrocket as people would get the message that since it's now legal, it's harmless, and the system would get clogged up.

Originally Posted by dib

Legalising drugs, would also increase public safety by ensuring that the products sold are of a high quality and the drugs sold are what it says on the label.

Increasing safety by ensuring that the poison is as pure as possible. That's a laugh!

Originally Posted by dib

The legalisation of drugs would also reduce the spread of aids by providing clean syringes for addicts and safe places where they can shoot up, this would also reduce death rates as a medical team could be on site.

You really think that there should be medics on every streetcorner waiting to catch junkies as they fall. I'd rather free up the overburdened medical system by reducing the amount of junkies that there are. Just say no!

Originally Posted by dib

The legalisation of drugs would also free up much needed police time to go after the criminals who actually do deserve to go into prison. This would also free up the much needed prison space and so allow much tougher laws to lock people up for a longer time who cause acts of muggings, rape, murder, burglary and so on.

Do you know how often drugs are a cause of muggings, rape, murder, burglary and so on? These serious crimes would increase as drug abuse and addiction increased due to legalization. I bet you'd change your tune when your mother got held up at gunpoint by a junkie desperate for his next hit.

Originally Posted by bcubed

SWIY'all HAVE THE RIGHT to all the pot, acid, etc ya want, it's just being repressed. Of course, if caught, SWIY'all will face the consequences that any repressive gov't might impose. If it makes SWIY'all feel better, SWIY'all would then be civil rights victims.

Call it what you want, bub, you're still breakin' the law. You can insist upon your rights, and many dope-fiends have tried to do so, but no judge has agreed with them. Isn't that strange? I guess you're more of an expert in interpreting the documents our law is based on than the experts are, are you?

Did you ever notice with these druggies it's all about "me me me! I should be able to do what I want!" Well, bucko, I have news for you. There are more important things than getting high — public safety and the security of our citizens, for one.

[springplain]

I don't need to think. I let EURAD www.eurad.net do it for me!

• The term decriminalisation means to bring the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law. Law enforcement will no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, publicity, possession and use of drugs that are up till now controlled within the scope of international conventions.
• The consequence of decriminalisation of drugs is that society has no law or lever to use to direct drug addicts towards help or treatment, neither does society have the means to suppress trafficking.
• Hand in hand with decriminalisation of drugs lies legalisation. In the case of legalisation, a form of more or less free distribution of drugs is to be organised. In the case of decriminalisation (with drugs out of the penal law), the Government will have to regulate the distribution and make rules for such. But regulations by Government will fail as users need more and more.
• The consequence of legalisation would be that society would be subjected to an increased pressure from the drugs market.
• Claims that legalisation will reduce crime are false, i.e.: Holland, a country that has introduced de facto decriminalisation, now has the highest rate of criminality in Europe.
• Also, crimes associated with the use of psychoactive drugs, i.e.: violence, murders, road, train and plane accidents will increase.

[top]ARE DECRIMINALISATION AND LEGALISATION THE SAME THING IN THE END?

• Yes, it is complete capitulation. Users, the root and motive force of the drugs market, will be more or less free to use and possess drugs, and traffickers will feel it worth the risks to extend the traffic to more people.
• Success is guaranteed due to the addictive character of the drugs.

[top]WHO WANTS WHAT ?

• It is not difficult to argue against legalisation since it is accompanied by a large number of negative effects on the individual, the family and society.
• On the other hand, it may be more difficult to argue against the advocates of legalisation as a whole, since they are not a unified group and entertain in their group a number of different proposals.

Drugs are illiegal because they are dangerous - They are not dangerous because they are illegal.

[springplain]

It's interesting to see that the prohibitionists are afraid of the reformers because they are 'not unified' and 'entertain' a number of different proposals. Is this because every way they turn, the evidence appears to mount up against them? BTW, does anybody have any stategies I could use to narrow my worldview down to a simple black and white one?

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by fev22

does anybody have any stategies I could use to narrow my worldview down to a simple black and white one?

Join the Republican party, watch FOX news & listen to talk radio...

[Evil GIR]

First of all, it would be immoral for the government to collect taxes on something that destroys not only the individual user's body and soul, but the fabric of communities and the nation.

Second, the "small number" of addicts would quickly skyrocket as people would get the message that since it's now legal, it's harmless, and the system would get clogged up.

They don't see that problem with tobacco and alcohol, in fact isn't the British government planning to put beer up by 7p so that the additional money 400milion i think can be used to treat alcoholics.

I

increasing safety by ensuring that the poison is as pure as possible. That's a laugh!

Its all about harm reduction, there was recently cannabis that was contaminated with fibreglass material which could actually pose a great threat to those who smoke it. Even though the dangers of smoking cannabis alone are minimal. As for poisons, I think everything can become toxic in high enough doses. It would probably take you a lot more THC from cannabis to kill a person than it would to alcohol.

You really think that there should be medics on every streetcorner waiting to catch junkies as they fall. I'd rather free up the overburdened medical system by reducing the amount of junkies that there are. Just say no!

No I am saying its all about harm reduction and there should be places set up by the government to ensure people safety. There has already been research done into these so called shooting galleries which has seen a sharp fall in deaths and problems associated with the drug.

Do you know how often drugs are a cause of muggings, rape, murder, burglary and so on? These serious crimes would increase as drug abuse and addiction increased due to legalization. I bet you'd change your tune when your mother got held up at gunpoint by a junkie desperate for his next hit.

Using drugs as an excuse for these serious crimes is nothing but a scapegoat excuse. Most people who use drugs are law abiding citizens.
If the police time was freed from arresting people for growing or possession of pot then there time could be used for punishing the people who commit serious crimes and have them arrested to the full extent of the law.
Though at the moment, they just get let out because the prisons are full of harmless drug users.

[grandbaby]

Or we could change PO's name to Jack. Like, "Hi, Jack! You just hijacked this thread!"

Fuhgeddim. Back to our little game:

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

They don't see that problem with tobacco and alcohol, in fact isn't the British government planning to put beer up by 7p so that the additional money 400milion i think can be used to treat alcoholics.

Oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Let's create a generation of addicts so that we can use the money generated by their misery to cure them. Good thinking there, bucko.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Its all about harm reduction, there was recently cannabis that was contaminated with fibreglass material which could actually pose a great threat to those who smoke it.

So don't smoke it. That would be the safest bet of all, wouldn't it? Reduce the harm right out of existence.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

There has already been research done into these so called shooting galleries which has seen a sharp fall in deaths and problems associated with the drug.

At the risk of repeating myself, wouldn't the best poilicy be to stop people from using it altogether? No deaths, no problems. QED.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Using drugs as an excuse for these serious crimes is nothing but a scapegoat excuse. Most people who use drugs are law abiding citizens.

LOL! Using drugs is illegal. Therefore ALL people who use drugs are criminals. That's the winner for the most rediculous [sic] statement I've heard today.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

If the police time was freed from arresting people for growing or possession of pot then there time could be used for punishing the people who commit serious crimes and have them arrested to the full extent of the law.

Growing pot is a serious crime. That's why there are mandatory sentences for it. What part of that don't you get?

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Though at the moment, they just get let out because the prisons are full of harmless drug users.

I'd like you to meet some of the "harmless drug users" clogging up our prisons sometime. I'd give you ten minutes alone with some of them before you were crying like a baby and asking for something to stop the bleeding with.

Nice try, A for effort, but you've got a long way to go before I'm convinced...

Reputation Comments on this post:

ahahaha "hi jack".... lmao.... I never got to give you rep for this wonderful thread (that I need to start co...

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

So just to keep us all on our toes, since Police Officer has ducked out of most of the heavy arguments (and since he shouldn't be the sole pro-Prohibition voice on here anyhow)...

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Don't drop this in Porky's lap. He runs when serious questions and real history rears it's head.

Uh no, jackasses. lol

I just say my piece and be done. If its going to go round and round and just break into a witty cut down fest, well I try to stay away from that these days.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I just say my piece and be done. If its going to go round and round and just break into a witty cut down fest, well I try to stay away from that these days.

You didn't really get back to this thread, and I think some of the posts were of excellent quality and rather polite, so there really isn't an excuse there other than time constraints.

If you could make an attempt to respond to the 'non cutdown' posts that make valid and reasonable points that would be nice for the communal discourse.