Prohibition: Why didn't the government learn from thier mistake?

66 posts

Flag Post

In the 1920s, alcohol was illegal in the USA. This was called prohibition and it was a horrible failure. People actually drank more during prohibition.

The topic of the thread is this:
Why didn’t the government learn from that massive failure? Prohibition is still going on in the form of drugs, gambling, and prostitution. My opinion is that the government needs to legalize and regulate these, not outright ban them. There are a few places in the country that do legalize and regulate gambling and prostitution, but drugs is the biggest issue. The whole country needs to get on board, especially when it comes to drugs.

Outright banning these things is a massive waste of money and a failed approach, just like the prohibition of alcohol was.

 
Flag Post

Why stop at prostitution and drugs? Legalize murder, and less people will get killed. Right?

 
Flag Post

Well, instead of banning things maybe they can just improve education?
It seems to work somewhat against cigarettes, and drug abuse.
Legalization is not the answer.
Education is.
Alcohol is still pretty unhealthy for you, and there are better alternatives.
There are studies for wine about heart health, etc, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t just get those same benefits from those foods in their pure form in comparison to their fermented form.

We also have to be careful of what drugs we allow to be legalized.
I know that if we legalize certain drugs, and allow them to be sold at a reputable dispensary maybe people can get their recreational kicks in that manner, but when people are under the influence they become a danger to themselves, and those around them.
It’s a tricky issue to justify legalization. How can we legalize these products, but also do it in a safe manner, so no one gets hurt?
All we have is to trust in the circle of friends to take care of individuals when they are under the influence, and then what if everyone in that group is under the influence? What do you do to make sure that these people who are taking “legal” drugs have a means to return home safely, and will not do something reckless while they are prone to do so?
It’s a slippery slope.
Sometime prevention is the best answer. It may look like prohibition on the outside, but accommodating such behavior may be more expensive in the long run.

 
Flag Post

Noone can deny that the prohibition was a failure but also noone can deny that consumption of alcohol overall went down and remained low even after the prohibition. I have several reliable sources saying so, even those who share your opinion that drugs should not be forbidden (since I speak German it’s pointless to link them all but 2 English ones are the wikipedia where the same is written and e.g. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf).

You write that the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution being a failure legitimates a legalisation of drugs but do not include a single logical conclusion, argument or even the slightest evidence why this should be true.
You do not even explain why the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution even was a failure. Afaik, the main reason is that the enforcement was incredibly flawed (e.g. rich people could still consume alcohol, police and politicians were corrupt, there was no solid consensus and so on).

I agree that outright banning drugs is a failed approach but only because not enough thought went into the law and the execution. Still, you offer no better solution, you only complain and do not even encourage discussion. The only question you ask is an utterly stupid one. The question is very unprecise and based on two fundamental assumptions that you do neither prove nor even list. Additionaly, the question has not much to with the prohibtion of drugs in general and does not help to solve the drug problem.

In my opinion drug consumption is always WRONG when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, ethanol and nicotine included, which is most of the time the case. I think that the most important thing to combat it is education (especially by the parents).

Well anyways, prohibiton seems to be successful because the amount of people that consume drugs declines (once again many sources, but instead of bothering you with scientific books I’ll keep it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/27/illegal-drug-use-decline – note that education is mentioned as possible explaination: it seems that I am right).

The main reason why I support legal prohibition in general is because it shows results. Imagine murder, rape and theft would be legal. Do you think that my making them legal there would be less of them?


tl;dr
The OP is complete bullshit.
The fundamental factors to successfully solve the drug issue are 1. the approach and 2. its execution. The approach must include every known factor. The most important point here is that the law in general represents a part of the social opinion / mindset and while the first one ensures obedience, the latter one is stronger. Therefore to change anything, you have to change the latter one, mostly through education (especially by parents).

EDIT: Seems my bad English in combination with the time I took myself to write this allowed that other people “ninjad” my response but I am happy that I share my opinion with the majority.

 
Flag Post

You seem to disagree and you did a good job of making your point. But you can’t deny that the government spends a ton of money on the “drug war”. I say we should do away with this “drug war” and treat those drugs the same way we tread alcohol ant tobacco. (alcohol and tobacco are drugs too, after all)

If alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated, then why not extend it to other recreational drugs. In addition, we should educate people more effectively about the dangers of drugs, but after that, we should let them make thier own choice. If they want to dump that trash into thier body, it’s not the government’s job to stop them.

 
Flag Post

In the 1920s, alcohol was illegal in the USA. This was called prohibition and it was a horrible failure. People actually drank more during prohibition.

Why would we want to keep people from drinking?

Prohibition is still going on in the form of drugs, gambling, and prostitution. My opinion is that the government needs to legalize and regulate these, not outright ban them.

I agree with all of these, but your reason seems to be that you want to reduce the “consumption” of them. That just implies it’s somehow wrong.

NaturalReject,

Why stop at prostitution and drugs? Legalize murder, and less people will get killed. Right?

Is that your honest opinion or do you simply wish to see what the OP’s stance on it is?

Tryko,

In my opinion drug consumption is always WRONG when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages

Personal choices are always personally wrong when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. You fail to see the difference between personal choices and legality. It is wrong for me to go out in the cold with only a shirt and shorts, because I’ll get sick, but it isn’t illegal. Why isn’t it illegal? Because it only harms me directly.

prohibiton seems to be successful because the amount of people that consume drugs declines

This doesn’t make sense. It’s quite logical to assume that consumption drops after prohibition, but you’re not arguing why it should be illegal. For example, here:

The main reason why I support legal prohibition in general is because it shows results.

That’s not even an argument!

Imagine murder, rape and theft would be legal. Do you think that my making them legal there would be less of them?

Do you know the difference between harming yourself and harming others?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Tryko:

In my opinion drug consumption is always WRONG when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, ethanol and nicotine included, which is most of the time the case.

Only because the consumption of nicotine and ethanol are legal does not mean that every drug should be legal and the fact that they are legal proves once again that prohibition of drugs is successful since those 2 legal drugs are consumed much more often than all the illegal ones.

It is the government’s job indeed because the government was formed with the intention to successfully govern which includes to stive for the best for the society. If someone “dumps that trash into their body” it is everyone else’s problem as well because they all suffer from the consequences of that utterly ignorant and egoistic action. Imagine if everyone would consume a vast amount of drugs. Our society would disintegrate.

Luckily we all seem to agree that education is important. But what should be educated? How should it be educated? And who should educate?


@Darkruler2005:
Going out in the cold with not enough clothes does not harm you directly, it only can lead to a sickness (which harms you directly). But indirect damage is still damage and as bad as direct damage. If you cannot work because of your sickness, you harm the whole society. If you have to consume medicine, you waste ressources. People close to you might worry.
If someone pulls the trigger of a gun, he does not hurt a person directly, the gun does. Is the person who triggered the gun innocent in your opinion?

I know the difference indeed between harming myself and harming others but often both occur: If I commit suicide right now, the state loses an 1 million euro investment,I cause economical and psychological harm to my relatives and more.

Why am I against drugs?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169

Do you support the death of more than 150’000 innocent children every single year as consequence of only one of several drugs? Do you support the horrendous economic and social damage drugs cause? And this is only the beginning.

Darkruler, I appreciate your criticism but you do not give new input at all. It seems to me that you only try to prove us wrong in any possible way instead of helping in a constructive way. I hope I am wrong.

 
Flag Post

I hope I am wrong.

You are. If you wish, I’ll summarise my response to you instead (including to your new post) and what I support (though I should hope that much was obvious). If there’s anything else you’d like to see, please do say so.

1. The government cannot prevent people from harming themselves, unless they have a policemen for every citizen.
2. Putting people in prison for harming themselves because you want society to be effective and efficient is horribly causing the opposite of what you think would happen.
3. I agree, smoking should be illegal. You called it a drug, and I generally don’t call it like that. A lot of drugs affect only the person taking them. There’s no reason to support them being banned. Just like alcohol. If the only reason you want to ban smoking is because of the effects on others, I have no complaints.
4. How are you going to ban suicide? How are you going to punish people who commit suicide? Is it even effective?
5. Your one-before-final paragraph is horribly loaded. I could say you support terrorism if you don’t want to kill off the inhabitants of the entire Arabic world, and it would have similar results. Your conclusion about what I support is different from what I state, and what I state in no way guarantees what you conclude.

Also wish to reply to one quote in particular, just because it is too silly to ignore:

If someone pulls the trigger of a gun, he does not hurt a person directly, the gun does. Is the person who triggered the gun innocent in your opinion?

A gun is not sentient. It has no will to do harm, even if it does do harm. It cannot be blamed. Causation can be found in many places. Significant causes are the ones to look for when a certain event happens. If I turn up my volume, I do not cause an earthquake. If I pull the trigger of a gun, I cause a shot. If that shot kills a person, I, logically, caused that person to die. I’m sure you know all of this, but I need to be clear on this, so that we know what causation and harm to others mean.

I think it’s also important for our upcoming discussion on how you can cause the government or, worse, society to lose money by only directly harming yourself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Tryko:
Originally posted by Tryko:

In my opinion drug consumption is always WRONG when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, ethanol and nicotine included, which is most of the time the case.

Only because the consumption of nicotine and ethanol are legal does not mean that every drug should be legal and the fact that they are legal proves once again that prohibition of drugs is successful since those 2 legal drugs are consumed much more often than all the illegal ones.

Sorry but your shitting yourself with inconsistency here. On the one hand you say something is wrong when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but when you look at the successfulness of prohibition you only look to see if it reduces consumption, without any regard whatsoever for the cost of maintaining the prohibition.

It is the government’s job indeed because the government was formed with the intention to successfully govern which includes to stive for the best for the society.

Depends on the government. There are different types. Also most modern democratic governments that actually do have that job also have high standards of protection for the freedoms of the individual. This is to stop shitheads from banning stuff, because they believe something is wrong but can´t back it with facts.

If someone “dumps that trash into their body” it is everyone else’s problem as well because they all suffer from the consequences of that utterly ignorant and egoistic action.

Ignorant seldom so(personally you sound more ignorant but that could just be fanaticism clouding your mind), egoistic i give you. Just like eating cheeseburgers, doing certain sports(with high risk of injury and/or high damage potential), not doing sports, having (unprotected) sex and etc..

Imagine if everyone would consume a vast amount of drugs. Our society would disintegrate.

Since there are basically drugs in everything you eat it, we don´t need to imagine. We just need to determine if society is disintegrating. I say no.
Now lets assume you just meant drugs that are now illegal in most countries. Considering that alcohol is already being consumed in fast amounts and society is not disintegrating, its hard to claim that legalizing other drugs would cause society to disintegrate.
Quite frankly most drugs(if consumed normally) allow quite normal behavior and coordination after a good nights sleep(8-10 hours later). Many successful People use drugs. The problem is that there are some people who have severe problems handling drugs.

Luckily we all seem to agree that education is important. But what should be educated? How should it be educated? And who should educate?

Well certainly not you as it seems. Education should not be too biased on the topic but mostly give knowledge about the dangers and effects.

If someone pulls the trigger of a gun, he does not hurt a person directly, the gun does. Is the person who triggered the gun innocent in your opinion?

If your making dumshit semantic comparisons at least make them right. With your semantic logic the gun generally does not hurt a person directly, the bullet is not a part of the gun.

I know the difference indeed between harming myself and harming others but often both occur: If I commit suicide right now, the state loses an 1 million euro investment,I cause economical and psychological harm to my relatives and more.

Now just need to compare that with the costs/harm your living on does and will do. It might be a benefit for the State to give up on the 1 million Euro, not much use throwing good money after bad. And who knows your family might even be happy and celebrate with a Jazz funeral and big buffet. Your partner(if you have one) might come together with the love of his/her life without needing to go trough a troublesome break up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169


Do you support the death of more than 150’000 innocent children every single year as consequence of only one of several drugs?

No. Personally i am for treating passive smoke (within reasonable bounds, that means within certain distances and/or inside buildings) same as any physical harming behavior of other person. With children having no right to consent.

Do you support the horrendous economic and social damage drugs cause?

I compare it to the benefits. And in many cases the drugs like Alcohol and Marijuana come out quite positive.

 
Flag Post

Comparing individual drug use and prostitution to murder is one of the most despicable and invalidating arguments anyone could make. Quit your moral policing. What are the specific problems with drug use and prostitution that you people find so morally appalling as to compare it to knowingly taking the life of another person against their will. All of the negative effects of drug use and prostitution are due to it’s prohibition and nothing else. Sorry to break it to you, but people getting high and screwing eachother for money effects no one but them. The only people who you need to worry about are crack and meth heads stealing your shit, and both of those people do far better in a system that doesn’t treat them like criminals, but understands they’re victims of a thing that changes their mental structure.

If your argument is seriously that I owe my lifestyle to the government and therefore enjoying recreational sex and drugs is somehow their problem, you’re projecting your socialism a little too hard. Your state might make you feel like you owe your life to it, but I don’t. Not to mention, every single state that has decriminalized drugs has saved money, not spent more. In the case of America, we’re losing lives by the 100s, daily. Talk about costs? The war on drugs has killed way more than heroin could hope to. Since you think killing people is the same as drug use though, I’m not sure how much this argument will appease you.

In before “But really, you’d legalize heroin!?” because it’s only danger comes from lack of education. Period.

 
Flag Post

I think society has deluded itself into thinking things like marijuana, and alcohol are actually good for you.

The two main uses for these things are:
A) Social events
B) Treating depression, anxiety, or other mood disorders.

The majority falls into category A in their early years, and fall into bad habits in older years, falling into category B.
Although, the introverts may fall into category B more so, and the harm may be more dangerous.
Most people take them for enjoyment, and the social aspect will cover any negative effects they may experience during their time under the influence.
A lot of people quit marijuana once they start getting into the work force, so I find marijuana to be a teenager/young adult drug. (Yes, there are a few adults in their 30s and beyond who still smoke, but social stigma usually gets them to quit)
People love this drug because it takes their problems away for some time, but then they have to face it again in the morning, so to speak.
When people use drugs to mask their problems it can only be bad for their health, over all. What should be done is not to use drugs to treat your problems, but using therapists, or other forms of relaxation or calming techniques to replace the unnecessary use of intoxicants, which can be easily abused, and lead to many problems down the road.

The truth is we know these things are bad for us, but we do them anyway because it gives us pleasure.
And some drugs seem less risky, as of this time period, in comparison to others, so we experiment, but sometimes we don’t know where to draw the line.

 
Flag Post

While that may be true (it isn’t, as is an incredibly shallow view of drugs), it has absolutely nothing to do with legality. Add illegality to those problems, and you have homelessness, bankruptcy, criminal records, police distrust, gang violence, and giant incarceration rates.

By the way, scientists have recently begun research into the usefulness of intoxication, but I don’t think it’s necessary to validate drug use to validate the argument that making it illegal is the stupidest most backwards way to handle them. Also, you know, we’re all going to die so people can do whatever they want regardless of anything else.

 
Flag Post

Some of us are a little health conscious, but it’s not my place to tell others not to destroy their bodies.
All that can be done is for proper research to be done to educate the public on the risks, and benefits of usage.
Usually the risks outweigh the benefits, imho.

 
Flag Post

1. You might want to do some proper research, then. There are only a couple of drugs with actual physically damaging side effects. Heroin isn’t one of them, by the way. The biggest danger and reason for abuse with these drugs is lack of education.

2. Research into these drugs could probably eliminate most of their harmful effects, and lower their addictiveness.

You can say you’re health conscious, and you can say you don’t want to harm your body, but you cannot then say that people who use drugs want to hurt themselves. That’s rude, and almost always false, even for the people who are using meth or crack cocaine.

 
Flag Post

Most people who use drugs are amateurs, and do not know how to properly administer doses without harming themselves.
We use many of these “illegal drugs” in different forms such as morphine to help patients with pain.
I don’t trust the individual to be knowledge-able enough to know what they are doing.
If they want to take such “drugs” then let it be done in a safe way administered by a professional.

But then that takes all the fun out of it doesn’t it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Is that your honest opinion or do you simply wish to see what the OP’s stance on it is?

If someone can prove to me that legalizing murder would drop murder rates, I would be more than happy to hold the opinion that murder should be legalized.

I sincerely doubt someone can though.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Comparing individual drug use and prostitution to murder is one of the most despicable and invalidating arguments anyone could make.

Not sure if this is directed at me, but just to make my statement clear, I never compared anything.

All of the negative effects of drug use and prostitution are due to it’s prohibition and nothing else. Sorry to break it to you, but people getting high and screwing eachother for money effects no one but them.

So what you’re saying is that no junkie in history ever wound up in a hospital from drug abuse?

 
Flag Post

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. :rolleyes:

Prisons cost more in tax dollars than treatment, not to mention damage to society. Furthermore, people in prison do not get better, people in treatment overwhelmingly do, in contrast. I don’t believe in forced treatment though, either. A person’s struggle with drugs is their own responsibility, and they’ll never overcome it by being forced by others. That lack of control over their life is likely what drove them to take drugs in the first place.

 
Flag Post

@Darkruler2005:
I think our main problem is that we do not understand each other.

I want to solve our misunderstandings as this is a great way to be constructive and to increase our profit from the discussion.

I agree with your point 1. However, your second point is formulated wrong. You state that the opposite of what I think would happen but you know neither me nor my opinion. Do I want society to be efficient? I want society to be happy since I think that happiness is the goal everyone wants to achieve. If you do not understand this but want to, I can explain you in detail why I think so. (This is the reason why I am against drug consumption when the impact is negative overall since the overall happiness is reduced.)
Putting people in prison for harming themselves is pointless and I never wrote that I want that. Punishment is ALWAYS pointless when it does not change people as intended (e.g. as preventative measure to reduce the amount of crimes). I think that prison sentences are too long in general and too often destroy lifes but that changes the topic.

With point 3 I already disagree which is referable to our misunderstandings. Making smoking illegal does not solve anything. I do not know any smokers who are to blame for the fact that they smoke. They all started smoking because they lacked education. Some underestimated the negative consequences, some started because of peer preassure (e.g. “smoking is cool”), some did not know anything else to alleviate stress, some heard of wrong myths and whatnot and most of them want to stop but its really difficult for them. What does it help ANYONE if you put those people into prison and have to pay everyting? Instead we have to help them to stop smoking, educating them, showing them other ways to alleviate stress.
The people that make profit out of other’s mysery are the guilty ones and for those people a law is needed because humans are simply not intelligent enough and you can tell many of them whatever you want but they won’t stop unless there is potential punishment.

To 4.: Once again I did not write what you suggest I had written. I do not want to ban suicide (mostly because of similar reasons like above). I even think that euthanasia should always be allowed since this allows psychiatrists to advise those people and prevents all the misery caused by unelaborate or failed suicides.

With point 5 however I agree again. The paragraph was loaded because I thought that you support and encourage the consumption of drugs. The facts however are still true.

To the quote you wanted to reply to:
1. What I wrote is slightly flawed and I apologize for that (e.g. the gun itself does not kill the human as well, not even necessarily the bullet).
2. You clearly misunderstand me. The point is not whether a gun is sentient, I used it as an example to show you why causing harm indirectly is AS BAD AS causing it directly because as you said you still caused it. I think that we both share a similar opinion.


It seems to me as if you think badly of me and I do not understand why. I want to solve our little dispute but I can only achieve something WITH you, therefore I hope for your cooperation. I also apologize for misunderstanding you as well. It seemed to me as if your only goal is to prove me wrong because you only appeared to destroy my arguments without suggesting a better solution. Obviously it was silly of me to think that this is true since I do not know and the way I discuss should not be affected by such suspicions. Maybe I am just used to other, more constructive standards of discussion from philosophy class.
I hope that we can work together instead of against each other now.


@JohnnyBeGood:
I appreciate certain interesting inputs where I saved time with my statement because it takes me a lot of patience and time to write a reply in acceptable English. I do not have the time to respond to everything but I will choose two points where I clearly disagree:
I indeed know that every human consumes drugs. The neurotransmitter in our brain are similar to drugs and the only reason they are not called drugs is because they are not brought into our body. I also am not against drugs in a healthy dosis. There is a German saying “Die Dosis macht das Gift” which translates into “The amount makes the poison”. Even water can kill a human when consumed in a certain amount. In our food and water are many chemical substances, from drugs to oestrogenes but luckily their concentration at least here is really small.
But you twist what I wrote. I wrote “VAST amount of drugs”. I am not against a small glass of wine but I think that it is bad when people consume around 100 ml ethanol and then drive with a car or cause trouble in general.

You write that when the advantages and disadvantages of drugs are compared, the result comes out quite positive but you do not even mention a single advantage (obviosuly there are some advantages) besides your vagues usage of “quite”. Saying that consuming drugs is good is complete bullshit and shows a lack of thought and knowledge. The main advantage that comes into my mind right now is that a small dosis of some drugs can be used as medicine for certain things but 1. there are alternatives and 2. only a tiny minority of the people that consume those drugs do it for medical reasons and they often consume them inefficiently and excessively
Once again I am not against controlled consume of alcohol but it can be harmful really fast. The latter case should be prevented and I suggest education as a solution.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

Why stop at prostitution and drugs? Legalize murder, and less people will get killed. Right?

Prostitution and drugs are activities that millions of people partake in, and law enforcement is literally incapable of dealing with every incident. More importantly, it’s an activity that society itself turns a blind eye toward.

Murder is an act committed by an extremely tiny percentage of the population, and one that will get you shunned by the entire community.

You want to pretend this is a slippery slope, but it’s not.

 
Flag Post

Wow-0-wow….have you guys really taken off w/ this thread since it was posted when I went to sleep. It looks like I’m gonna have to respond in “blocks” as time allows. Please forgive if I tend to cover already well-tilled ground.

Originally posted by fma1:

You seem to disagree and you did a good job of making your point. But you can’t deny that the government spends a ton of money on the “drug war”. I say we should do away with this “drug war” and treat those drugs the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco. (alcohol and tobacco are drugs too, after all)


If alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated, then why not extend it to other recreational drugs. In addition, we should educate people more effectively about the dangers of drugs, but after that, we should let them make their own choice. If they want to dump that trash into their body, it’s not the government’s job to stop them.


I really like the above response….now I don’t have to make that one…lol
BUT, I want to add that I strongly “preach” that on many issues (such as those generated in this thread) the govt’s role is to use its mighty resource-gathering capacity and generate some large-data-base information for the public to utilize so they may make better, INFORMED choices in how they live their lives…..including the “riskier//friskier” areas.

I know I’m gonna get a weeebit “afield” of the substance “abuse” theme the thread is currently in…..BUT. First, let me point out that the main impetus behind alcohol prohibition was RELIGIOUS fervor….sin gin, etc. NOW, if “nanny govt.” is so intent on protecting us from ourselves, why doesn’t it (more strongly?) regulate rock climbing, sky diving, car driving….the stats are there that show the obvious risks?

Now that I’ve used the term REGULATE,,,,I want to somewhat limit (or add to?) fma1’s statement of: ""If they want to….body, it’s not the govt’s job to stop them. I feel that in addition to well supported data supplied by the govt., there should be “adequate” protection (laws) afforded to those who might sustain “loss” because of particular action//behavior of those indulging in specific activities…. (drunk driving). One person’s “freedoms” end where another’s begin…..which, I know, is a very gray line.

What I"m saying above is this: The laws exist for the sake of the wise, not that they may not do wrong, but that they may not suffer from it. Epicurus Laws for a society as large & complex as most governed bodies today are next to impossible to decide on and even harder to adequately “enforce”. I think that in some areas of behavior, GUIDELINES would make more sense and be better received than LAWS.

Darkruler, I hope that somewhat answered your statement of: ""…it seems to be that you (fma1) want to reduce the “consumption” of them. That implies its somehow WRONG."" For me, it’s not the consumption that is wrong and therefore needs to be regulated….it’s the results on the “innocent” that is at concern. BUT, this gets very sticky when a divorced dad spends all his paycheck on booze, gambling, women, etc. and becomes a dead-beat dad. His children “suffer” from the lack of essential monetary funds. Yes, there are laws that address his lack of $$$$$ assistance for his responsibilities (kids)….but, these are difficult to enforce and the suffering of the children continues—almost to the point of being moot because they grow up in the meantime.

And, Darkruler…..your shirtless in the cold is well understood,,,at least as far as it not needing to be illegal. BUT, ya’re (only?) somewhat “wrong” in that it “harms ONLY you directly”. Your inclusion of “directly” is what I want to speak to. Harm is subjective…let’s use affect. IF, only if, there are no direct or indirect affect upon society (medical bills, search & rescue, burial expenses, etc.) or upon family (loss of supportive income that the state will then have to supply)…..then I COMPLETELY AGREE w/ ya.

This is well akin to our (U.S.) motorcycle helmet & seat belts laws & drinking at 21 y.o. laws. It is nanny govt. wanting to protect us from ourselves. I have NO PROBLEM w/ govt. protecting me from “bad” behavior//choices of others via restrictive laws addressing associative actions of those choices. BUT, what//how does a helmet or seat belt protect me from “them”?

 
Flag Post

Tryko: You are saying incredibly conflicting things. Everything you’re suggesting in your most recent post is what decriminalization aims to do. The states that have decriminalized drugs always see a decline in usage, and a significant decline in abuse and overdoses related to death. Cigarettes, for example, are markedly less dangerous when lacking some of the chemical agents currently used in their wide-scale production. Removing these preservatives and taste-additives doesn’t decrease the addictiveness, but it absolutely removes a great deal of the harmful effects of the product. More research needs to be done, but that’s the point.

We can treat people like they can’t help themselves, or we can enable people to make informed decisions. I choose the latter, and I don’t think you disagree. How then are you disregarding anti-prohibition statements and saying the OP is full of shit?

Edit for Karma: A complete and utter aside, but I used to argue against seatbelt laws too, until a safety officer visiting my highschool back in the day explained that the dead weight of passengers and drivers of cars cause a significant percentage of deaths in accidents that would have otherwise not been fatal. Even individual drivers without passengers have flown through their windshield and killed people in the other vehicle or even previously uninvolved vehicles in collisions that were otherwise minor. Motorcyclists are one of the biggest contributors to deaths by impact from someone else’s ragdoll body hitting them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. :rolleyes:

You did actually.

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:

You want to pretend this is a slippery slope, but it’s not.

No I don’t.

 
Flag Post

Quote mining ruins this place. Treatment is cheaper than incarceration, and saying that taxes for medical expenses effect everyone is a different debate entirely and includes things other than drug treatment. It doesn’t at all address my point that incarceration for crimes that don’t negatively effect other people is absurd and expensive, in fact it strengthens it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by T

@JohnnyBeGood:
But you twist what I wrote. I wrote “VAST amount of drugs”. I am not against a small glass of wine but I think that it is bad when people consume around 100 ml ethanol and then drive with a car or cause trouble in general.

No i was not twisting your words. You were being vague. “Vast” is just as vague as “quite”. You want us to imagine a world with vast drug consumption. Implying that would be the result of liberalizing drug laws. But when i compare the fastness of already liberal regulated Alcohol trade and consumption, to the image your trying to conjure up it becomes unreal.
Also with the fast drugs we already consume i was also referring to stuff like “Lebensmittlezusätze”(food additives) and “Antibotika in Fleisch”(Antibiotiks in Meat) .

But again looking at Alcohol we don´t see society dissolving, because the fast amounts you figure at 100ml(0,8 promille für individium 80kg mänlich) are not consumed by the whole society at a regular bases. And even most of the individuals that do consume 100ml Alcohol once or twice a week, have no problem functioning in society(as long as they don´t drive cars for some hours afterwards). Those that have problems are people like my mother who have Alcohol abuse and addiction problems, but even with there being a significant amount of these People, soceity has not disintegrated.

You write that when the advantages and disadvantages of drugs are compared, the result comes out quite positive but you do not even mention a single advantage (obviosuly there are some advantages) besides your vagues usage of “quite”.

I said when I compare the advantages and disadvantages of some drugs. Others like you will come to other results. Mostly because some of the advantages are outside of your understanding as it seems. Sure for most people the advantages i see are subjective. For me its quite clear that you deny the benefits of using drugs to have a good time. So why bother mentioning something you can´t appreciate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

Why stop at prostitution and drugs? Legalize murder, and less people will get killed. Right?

If they legalized assassination organizations, and regulated them to one kill per year, I could see it working.