Drugs

[NBVegita]

Just because I make a statement, that doesn't mean it's in a direct relation to you. I was pre-empting the argument that has been brought up in every other drug argument we've had: Once you make it legal it won't be "cool" anymore and people will stop doing it. No where did I indicate that was towards any of your arguments.

 

Who's mis-quoting who? Please use the statement in the full context.

 

Not once where you've claimed that I've mis-quoted you, have I yet. I have made inferences based on your statements, but never did I quote you as saying those statements.

 

The point about drug testing is that companies will still not allow you to use drugs and work for them. That would effective enact a plan that helps people become less employable.

 

As for the money you obviously haven't been reading and I'm quite tired of repeating myself. It's not that I don't grasp that the government can produce drugs cheaper, I've never doubted that. My argument is that in order to support the infrastructure you are purposing they would NEED to tax either the drugs or the american people heavily. Being you want it to be non-profit that only leaves one way to finance it.

 

And sever, what don't you get that most people in this country don't want to register for anything. You expect them to jump in line to register as a drug user?

 

Now Doc,

 

Minus the fact that I don't feel the negative effect of m!@#$%^&* drug usage would out weigh the benefits, you have a decent argument. Plus drug usage has a negative effect on poverty, data from the NHSDA.

[SeVeR]

The point about drug testing is that companies will still not allow you to use drugs and work for them. That would effective enact a plan that helps people become less employable.

How would my plan for legalisation do this? The information gathered by the legal suppliers would be confidential and not open to employers. The employers can still do their own tests if they wish, which is the same as the current situation. So what exactly is your point????....

 

You haven't made a single point about how this is not cost effective. I challenge you to make one. When i countered your point about costs from your last post, you didn't say anything.

 

Minus the fact that I don't feel the negative effect of m!@#$%^&* drug usage would out weigh the benefits, you have a decent argument. Plus drug usage has a negative effect on poverty, data from the NHSDA.

Again, you're exagerating something, using it as something you can argue against, and completely going off on a tangent.

[NBVegita]

Sever, your whole !@#$%^&* argument is an exageration of an ideal with no testing or data behind it. The only data brought in was Doc and that was simply showing the data on how much drugs are inflated.

 

How would my plan for legalisation do this?

 

I think the only thing we've all agreed on is that prohibition being lifted on alcohol has done nothing but increase alcohol use. Lifting prohibition on drugs and drastically cutting the price would have a more severe effect.

 

Also note that drugs are supply and demand. Right now there is only one way to get the supply so the drug dealers set the price and you either pay it or don't get drugs. As soon as the government lowered prices, so would the drug dealers.

 

I've spent way more time than I expected to in this argument. We've had this so many times it's not worth it. This is my last post in this topic as it's just not worth it.

[SeVeR]

Lol, you quoted me but didn't reply to the point...

 

On what you did say, I'd like to see the dealers try and cut out all their Middle-men, their risk-taking import costs and their only profit, in order to try to compete with a m!@#$%^&* supplier operating on zero profit, but i think we know it isn't going to happen. 1. They can't. 2. They won't want to.

[SeVeR]

Holland: In the Netherlands 9.7% of young boys consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%) but much higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands (it's all properly sourced)

 

So no, i'm not agreeing with you on this !@#$%^&*umption

Lifting prohibition on drugs and drastically cutting the price would have a more severe effect.

. And just out of interest, why would it be more severe? lol..

[AstroProdigy]

I find trying to legalize all drugs a problem. Some drugs can't be "limited" by regulation as they're extremely addictive. Just look at cigarettes. It's legal and extremely addictive. The government only taxes it for free money and really doesn't care about what it actually does. If anything I'd say legalize marijuana as it doesn't cause withdrawal and can be used casually like alcohol.

 

As for tobacco, we should at least prevent companies from putting the slew of other chemicals they put in cigarettes to make them less addictive/safer. Other drugs that don't cause withdrawal should be or stay legalized (salvia for example) as long as they aren't particularly dangerous and should just be regulated. The really bad drugs like cocaine should still be banned because, frankly, there's no considerably good way to regulate it that's worth making them easier to get. We should be lenient on the users and provide them help while focusing on sellers and traffickers instead.

 

Following these policies alone would be drastically cheaper, reduce overcrowding in jail sells considerably, and help our overwhelmed judicial and law enforcement systems.

 

Don't forget there's also the problem of where drugs are made. Afghanistan has a lions share of production of poppy plants even though its seemingly "under our control". We also fund paramilitaries in Colombia that are heavily involved in the drug trade.

Edited August 15, 2008 by AstroProdigy