Drug war.. Is it worth your time. Yes or no and why

70 posts

Flag Post

So as a non drug user, except alchohol and tobacco which is a drug so I guess I am a user. I have contemplated a lot lately about the war on drugs. And I’ve come to figure it really is not worth the 15 billion dollars we spend in America to fight drugs. And the main reason is to be blunt, is because all of the money the U.S spends on the drug war has no real effect in the end. I’ve found that drugs will always be available no matter the law… I know this because I have friends that are drug addicts. And in fact you could say I am the same for drinking every few days. Because I know for a fact alcohol is a hard drug. I have a few family members that have died from liver failure due to alcohol. My question is what do you think.. I wish they would have stuck to weed at least: and same here….. When well you learn………. It’s pretty simple..-?

 
Flag Post

And you may say its to catch criminal orginasations, or small timers and I understand the push to catch them but what really happens after that… Probly close to 01.00% – 10.00% get caught… Great way to spend my tax dollars.. When there’s thiefs, rapist and murderers on the street…. Wtf I guess they’d wrather spend their time taking people’s drugs…no offense to cops… It the policies they follow

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

No takers huh? I’m disappointed that nobody has an argument for that. Because I know many dont agree with me. Hah o well

 
Flag Post

Because legalization of all narcotics is a very slippery slope.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by H2Oreo:

Because legalization of all narcotics is a very slippery slope.

WHo is arguing for that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by H2Oreo:

Because legalization of all narcotics is a very slippery slope.

Wait, if you legalize all narcotics first, what’s left for the slope?

 
Flag Post

I don’t understand why a government has a say in what an individual wants to consume for themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I don’t understand why a government has a say in what an individual wants to consume for themselves.

Why does a government have a say in anything at all?

 
Flag Post

Attacking the supply has proven ineffective time and time again. The money would be better spent on drug education and rehabilitation.

 
Flag Post

It’s a painfully silly waste of time and money, in your country and in mine (and in dozens of others). A middle ground would be better.

At the moment most drug policy lumps the piddly stuff like cannabis in with the nasty stuff like crack in the category of ’THEY’RE ILLEGAL DRUGS, LOCK UP YOUR KIDS’. That grossly inflates the cost of tackling ‘drug problems’ and reduces public support for anti-drug policies.

If they legalise the likes of cannabis and create a more significant separation between it and ‘hard’ drugs, you’d take all the harmless cannabis/etc users out of the ‘drug criminal’ category. ‘Illegal drug user’ would become a less acceptable thing to be and the cost of dealing with drug ‘crime’ would fall because there’d be less of it.

Obviously you get a whole new argument about slippery slopes and which drugs are good and bad and should be legal or not (and I’d rather nail my eyelids shut than take part in that crap), but even that sort of argument is better than the current situation.

 
Flag Post

For anyone interested in seeing while it’s not working go here: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country/ For reference you are roughly 15 times more likely to die of drug usage in the US then in the Netherlands.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I don’t understand why a government has a say in what an individual wants to consume for themselves.

Yet you would have government interfere in other areas. You have an odd idea of what government should interfere with and what it should stay out of and it all is against the prevailing winds,

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I don’t understand why a government has a say in what an individual wants to consume for themselves.

Why does a government have a say in anything at all?

Exactly

 
Flag Post

It is a complete waste of money. It is destroying society by putting innocent lives in jail. It is creating wars, both foreign and domestic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yet you would have government interfere in other areas. You have an odd idea of what government should interfere with and what it should stay out of and it all is against the prevailing winds,

He’s not the only one.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Exactly

Didn’t know you supported anarchy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Didn’t know you supported anarchy.

Anarchy is freedom, isn’t it? He seems big on that.

Except if gays want to marry of course. Freedom is not for the queer.

 
Flag Post

Actually Jhco, last I remember talking to you about this I recall you being very ‘pro criminalization of currently illegal drugs’. Have you changed your views in this regard? Or am I misremembering things?

I find the whole avenue a strange intersection of Freedom vs. Order. As someone, I dare say, increasingly skeptical of the government authority, can I ask you some questions? Do you feel the current list of illegal drugs is based soley on responsible, valid medical dangers? Do you feel the current list of illegal drugs presents a profitable situation to select corporate and government interests? Do you feel drug policy has been used as justification in establishing government presence as a false flag; such as in civilian observation, imprisonment, or international wars and corporate expansions? Do you feel the notion of ‘puritanism’ is responsible for previous or current drug policy decisions, and is fair to violently enforce upon differing ideologies? Do you feel it is the obligation of the government to violently limit voluntary health decisions? Do you feel funds invested into preventing drug use have been successful and remain a priority?

Kind of a list, but I am sincerely curious as to how you feel to those.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I don’t understand why a government has a say in what an individual wants to consume for themselves.

Yet you would have government interfere in other areas. You have an odd idea of what government should interfere with and what it should stay out of and it all is against the prevailing winds,

Well, yes; and so would you. Unless you believe a government should not have to protect its people and that security should be left to the individual?

A government should have no say in what an individual does to themselves, whether it is suicide or drugs or something else, a government should not order an individual how to live if it does not affect anyone else. This is the basic concept of liberty, I thought you believed in it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Well, yes; and so would you. Unless you believe a government should not have to protect its people and that security should be left to the individual?

A government should have no say in what an individual does to themselves, whether it is suicide or drugs or something else, a government should not order an individual how to live if it does not affect anyone else. This is the basic concept of liberty, I thought you believed in it?

So you think drunk driving should be legal?

 
Flag Post

Drunk driving affects others, so no.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Drunk driving affects others, so no.

No, drunk crashing affects others. Drunk driving doesn’t.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Drunk driving affects others, so no.

No, drunk crashing affects others. Drunk driving doesn’t.

Drunk driving often becomes drunk crashing. (Which you just made up to make an unnecessary difference, by the way)

 
Flag Post

The incidence of crashes is much higher when one is intoxicated by alcohol. Swerving and driving like a twat as most drunks do, even if they don’t crash, can affect others. Drunk driving is a threat to public safety. I said government should not intervene in how an individual wishes to treat themselves, but I never said government should not intervene in how an individual treats others.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Drunk driving often becomes drunk crashing. (Which you just made up to make an unnecessary difference, by the way)

Why is it unneccessary? If someone can drive drunk without affecting anyone, doesn’t he deserve to be able to do so? That was the basic concept of liberty as Jaume defined it.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

The incidence of crashes is much higher when one is intoxicated by alcohol. Swerving and driving like a twat as most drunks do, even if they don’t crash, can affect others. Drunk driving is a threat to public safety. I said government should not intervene in how an individual wishes to treat themselves, but I never said government should not intervene in how an individual treats others.

So you would argue that people doing hard drugs are not a threat to public safety?