Oh snap!

[SeVeR]

It's an important step towards making all drugs legal and dispelling the notion that drug-users are criminals. The people who seek to profit by getting people addicted to drugs are the only criminals.

[NBVegita]

lol well if you make using drugs legal, then a drug user can't be a criminal

 

The people who seek to profit by getting people addicted to drugs are the only criminals.

 

Well being most drugs are inherently addictive, most of them severely, simply having the government sell them to people is the government seeking profit (tax revenue) by getting people addicted to drugs, thus making the government criminals. Under your definition that is.

[SeVeR]

What the law considers criminal and what the public considers criminal are different things entirely. If the judges were to make murder legal then the public would still see it as criminal. I'm talking about dispelling the notion that drug-users are criminals, and making drugs legal would help to convince people.

 

The people who seek to profit by getting people addicted to drugs are the only criminals.

Well being most drugs are inherently addictive' date=' most of them severely' date=' simply having the government sell them to people is the government seeking profit (tax revenue) by getting people addicted to drugs, thus making the government criminals. Under your definition that is.[/quote'']Key word: profit. Any government dedicated to eradicating drug-use should operate a non-profit business enabling users to pay the lowest price possible. Not only do the criminal drug-dealers disapear from the streets but also the drug-users won't have to commit crime to afford the drugs. Taking drugs is a choice, not a crime. If i want to bash myself over the head with a brick then you can fucking let me! lol

Edited February 28, 2009 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

What you don't understand is that if you bash yourself in the head with a brick then someone rushes you to the emergency room, I have to pay for you doing that.

 

If you hit yourself with a brick, think you're ok to drive yet crash into me because you have a concussion, again you're effecting me.

 

Also your non-profit organization has to be funded. Well you either need to tax it severely to pay for everything, or tax everyone else, again effecting me.

 

If you are a moderate drug user who simply does them behind closed doors and does not leave until you are 100% off the effects of your drug, then your theory works. For that person I say let them do it all they want. The problem is that the MAJORITY, for which laws are made, do not have that discipline/concern for other/keep listing items down the line that certain individuals have.

 

Parallel it to the fact that they don't outlaw high powered sniper rifles for the people who are very experienced and want to target shoot 1000 meters out, they have the laws in place for the everyday bloke.

 

I mean I could keep going and you can keep countering and we'll go back and forth for 8 pages until one of us gets tired and stops posting, so I'll just end my end of it here as I don't feel like arguing a point that you and I have beat to death in multiple past topics.

[SeVeR]

What you don't understand is that if you bash yourself in the head with a brick then someone rushes you to the emergency room, I have to pay for you doing that.

 

If you hit yourself with a brick, think you're ok to drive yet crash into me because you have a concussion, again you're effecting me.

Replace brick with alcohol intoxication. I guess you don't have a problem now? Or at least most people don't. There would still be laws against driving intoxicated (drugs/alcohol).

 

Also your non-profit organization has to be funded. Well you either need to tax it severely to pay for everything, or tax everyone else, again effecting me.

Non-profit means you still cover your operating costs with sales.....

 

If you are a moderate drug user who simply does them behind closed doors and does not leave until you are 100% off the effects of your drug, then your theory works. For that person I say let them do it all they want. The problem is that the MAJORITY, for which laws are made, do not have that discipline/concern for other/keep listing items down the line that certain individuals have.

Don't see how making drugs legal makes this worse TBH...

 

Well i didn't need 8 pages for that did I.

Edited March 1, 2009 by SeVeR

[Bak]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...ive_leaders.php

[AstroProdigy]

And if he smashes himself on the head with a brick will it take more money to send him to the hospital or put him in prison for 10 years?

[SeVeR]

Yup, that would be NBV's first point answered. Missed that one, mb.

 

I quoted this article before, but: "A former senior civil servant who was responsible for coordinating the government's anti-drugs policy now believes that legalisation would be less harmful than the current strategy. Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's anti-drugs unit, also said that his views were shared by the "overwhelming majority" of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/au...ed=networkfront

Edited March 23, 2009 by SeVeR

[Stibbymicto]

What you don't understand is that if you bash yourself in the head with a brick then someone rushes you to the emergency room, I have to pay for you doing that.

 

If you hit yourself with a brick, think you're ok to drive yet crash into me because you have a concussion, again you're effecting me.

Replace brick with alcohol intoxication. I guess you don't have a problem now? Or at least most people don't. There would still be laws against driving intoxicated (drugs/alcohol).

 

It would still be a same point if you were intoxicated.

If you crashed into NBV he would still be effected.

If your drunk brain told you that you should drink until your near dead due to alcohol poisoning and NBV's taxes paid for you to live. Your still effecting him.

 

The brick was symbolism, meaning drugs, or something that was intense against your head.

 

___

 

Also, I think the Government putting taxes on drugs is foolish. That would mean that by selling the drugs themselves, owning and using the drugs would no longer make someone a criminal. The only laughable thing I see out of this is that the first person to die from drugs will just sue the government for selling them in the first place just because they can now point the blame at someone.

[SeVeR]

There would still be laws against driving intoxicated (drugs/alcohol).

You wouldn't be able to take drugs and drive' date=' which would be the same as alcohol... which i'm guessing is something NBV is happy with.

 

I think NBV would pay more taxes currently for the "war on drugs" and keeping all these drug-users in prison.

 

That would mean that by selling the drugs themselves' date=' owning and using the drugs would no longer make someone a criminal.[/quote'] That's the point of legalisation.

 

And being sued... well if it becomes law then it should be impossible to sue.

[»Lynx]

'If you crashed into NBV he would still be effected.

If your drunk brain told you that you should drink until your near dead due to alcohol poisoning and NBV's taxes paid for you to live. Your still effecting him.'

 

If I go to a skate park, and I break my leg and need a paramedic, I am, by your logic, effecting you.

 

If I run for a bus, and fall in front of a car, and then that car manages to stop, but NBV's car has crappy breaks, hit's the car in front and NBV gets whiplash, then by your logic I effected NBV by running across a road like an idiot.

 

'I think NBV would pay more taxes currently for the "war on drugs" and keeping all these drug-users in prison.'

 

I completely agree.

 

However, I believe that if we were to go cold turkey on drug classifications, we'd have a *huge upraise of people taking them, just to experiment. I think there would need to be a lot of teachings as to what each drug does, and I'm also not sure if shops would be prepared to sell them (from a moral stand point).

 

Also, while we're on the whole non-profit agenda, look at cigarettes. Tobacco is harder to produce than cannabis, yet it's sold cheaper. We're actually over taxed to try and prevent people buying it. Either way, it'd still be cheaper than your dealer, as he'd still not have a license to sell it, and wouldn't make as much profit from selling it.

 

-L

[SeVeR]

I'll throw a possibility out there: You'd need to be an existing drug-user in order to buy from the government, and a test would be used to determine drug use.

 

This in theory should cut the number of new users to almost zero. Obviously some people will still find a way to get drugs (possibly from existing users who WILL be able to buy from the government), but the beauty of this theory is there would be no drug-dealing business left to get new users addicted; so you can place massive constraints on anyone who isn''t already a user. Any drug-dealer trying to get new users addicted would just lose their customer to the government instantly as they'd become an existing user.

 

As for shops not wanting to sell, i was always going to suggest government clinics sell the drugs, as they could do the necessary checks and offer the appropriate help. Remember i'm talking about non-profit here. The aim of the whole process is to reduce the cost of drugs so much that drug-dealers would find it impossible to compete, thereby removing the drug-trade. Thus, the government would need to be the dealer.

Edited March 24, 2009 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

Well as we've seen from tobacco when the government can tax a drug to raise money it will do it and then some. Now that smokers are demonized the government taxes the hell out of them to help fill tax holes and won't do things like ban smoking or at least ban some of the chemicals put into cigarettes to make them more addictive. That would be unprofitable. As for other heavy drugs there would always be the temptation to actually use addicts as a source or revenue rather than try to help them quit. Selling the drugs rather than just taxing them would only make it more problematic. You need to be very careful when you talk about making a profit off of this although the general concept of legalizing and taxing drugs would be sound if done correctly. As a starting point you'd need to legalize just marijuana as it's much more socially accepted than any other illegal drug and doesn't have the addictive qualities brought by withdrawal. I'd also decriminalize the use of heavy drugs, but not the distribution and selling of said drugs.

 

Also' date=' I think the Government putting taxes on drugs is foolish. That would mean that by selling the drugs themselves, owning and using the drugs would no longer make someone a criminal. The only laughable thing I see out of this is that the first person to die from drugs will just sue the government for selling them in the first place just because they can now point the blame at someone.[/quote']

Millions die from tobacco and the government isn't sued.

[Bak]

it's not the government's role to tell me what I can and can't put in my body, unless it somehow affects other people.

[Unlimited]

i agree with vegita on this one, ppl r seeing "bill being passed to legalize weed" then going crazy without really looking into it and seeing all the flaws in it.

i dont live in cali anyway.. so i rlly dont care that much

[Drake7707]

It's legal up to 50 grams for personal use in the Netherlands, there's a big drugs traffic going on here between Belgium and Netherlands with all those drug tourists going just over the border to the infamous coffee shops in the Netherlands to fill their stash

[No_Remorse]

Look, the fact is that the drug was perfectly legal until it was banned on a local level because it was making "coloreds in New Orleans act unruely". The law was then picked up in other states etc. Learn history.

 

It blossomed out of racism and moralist bullshit and then turned into a money generating law enforcement giant. It has no grounds on being banned due to science. Never did. They tried to back it up with science (gateway drug) when they started DARE but anybody can see through that.

 

So all the evidence and hippie bullshit will never change that. It keeps too many bullshit federal agencies going by being banned and thats the way it will remain. Always banned.

 

Its not due to Christian idealism.

 

Its not due to Science.

 

Its not due to facism.

 

Its money and lack of giving a shit. Its due to the fact that the drug war is a money war and not enough people who matter smoke it to make a loud enough fuss to get the law to bend.

 

And with immature bullshit things like 4/20 BABY WOOO! and the rapper/party image the whole movement will never get enough respect to gain serious movement among average North Americans.

 

You can debate and piss and moan but you know I am right.

[SeVeR]

what amuses me is that the people who are most against drugs are the conservative types who talk about freedom and less government and libertarianism and so on, and all the while they are against letting people do what they want with their own bodies, and it's all because they've been indoctrinated that way by fat-cat conservatives who make a fortune from the utterly corrupt "war on drugs". Be a good upstanding American... yada yada ya. Enslavement.