This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Should Cocaine Be Legal?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Deadraider
Alcohol is hardly regulated. You can alcohol anywhere easily. If you're saying that if cocaine were legal, it should be as easy to acquire as alcohol, you've learned nothing and are dumb.
It is actually easier for kids to get drugs that are illegal than the ones that are legal. You can disagree, but that would just be denying the truth which really isn't arguable.
QFT Hardly any kids in my school drink that are underaged, way more do illegal drugs.
Post by
montezuma7
Legalizing anything won't solve any problems
Did you read what I said on page 9 MyTie?
Obvoiusly, the repeal of prohibition solved many problems, and pertains at least loosely to the organized crime factor, which is also a factor here. I could also cite the legalization of speech in the USSR improving human rights.
You are going to have to work more on explaining what you mean by this, and how it pertains to cocaine. As it stands, you're not saying much.
Edit: @Montezuma7 - cite a reference to the racial thing. I find it hard to believe that was the reason cocaine was made illegal. Anyway, if it was back then, it is not a racially motivated arguement right now. Let's keep on topic please.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
"In 1914, Dr. Christopher Koch of Pennsylvania’s State Pharmacy Board made the racial innuendo explicit, testifying that, “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.” Mass media manufactured an epidemic of cocaine use among African Americans in the Southern United States to play upon racial prejudices of the era, though there is little evidence that such an epidemic actually took place."
There was certainly some racisim involved in the original outlawing of cocaine.
Of course this is ridiculous, I was just making the point that perhaps some of the intent of the original laws wasn't even to prevent harm to oneself or to battle addiction, but was the result of prejudiced fear. Which is not a good thing and does not make for good law. That basically means to me that we should evaluate what this drug does and shape the law to fit today's society rather than just saying, hey it's always been that way.
Post by
MyTie
you've learned nothing and are dumb.
Careful here. No point in being a jerk.
He really doesn't bother me. I'd prefer he continued this way. It makes me look more professional when the other side of the debate turns to flaming.
Post by
Laihendi
QFT Hardly any kids in my school drink that are underaged, way more do illegal drugs.
Alcohol is a drug, and it is illegal for those who are under 21.
Post by
montezuma7
An eye for an eye? I would say that the person who was in exile with a "R" on thier forehead got off easy compared to the person that they raped.
The point isn't revenge. The point is deterance.
But is the best way to stop crime by instituting these kind of deterents? Isn't most crime economically induced? I'm sure we can find better ways to solve our crime issues than by severe borderline unhuman treatments.
Plus what about those wrongly convicted?
Post by
montezuma7
One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I did just skim some of the 20 middle pages) is drug testing.
Alcohol we can test pretty easily with a breathalyzer. Then we have pretty strict limits for deciding when someone is operating a vehicle under the influence. What about other drugs? How do you measure how high someone is a marajuana? Or does it just become a zero tolerance policy where you can't drive if you have any in your system? Doesn't it stay in your system a long time (show up on a drug test weeks later)?
These are all big issues and I think it's probably the main deterent to legalizing pot. It just seems very hard to police improper usage.
Post by
MyTie
An eye for an eye? I would say that the person who was in exile with a "R" on thier forehead got off easy compared to the person that they raped.
The point isn't revenge. The point is deterance.
1)But is the best way to stop crime by instituting these kind of deterents? 2)Isn't most crime economically induced? 3)I'm sure we can find better ways to solve our crime issues than by severe borderline unhuman treatments.
4)Plus what about those wrongly convicted?
1) Yes, deterents have been proven to work
2) Yes, that is why I have proposed economic solutions.
3) Suggest some then.
4) Always a problem. The problem with the wrongly convicted isn't the sentences, it is the conviction.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
No, he proposed a big government run facility where people can go to get their fix. They have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it.... then what? Sleep it off in a room somewhere? Go back out into society while high? Get herded into a place to play game with other high addicts?Privately run, government regulated. And I don't propose a way to improve crack addict's behavior. I never did.So if a big cocaine facility were available to the addicts, that would make all the drug dealers go away..... wrong. They would switch to a different drug and sell that instead.I don't know how cocain dealers would get thier money if they had to compete with a legitimate cocaine industry. That doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't be able to compete. Other drugs you say? Another issue. I'm focusing on removing cocaine from the illegal drug market. To do so would be a major feat in our society, regardless of our other flaws.I still don't really see how legalizing cocaine will make things better except be able to tax some of the distribution and regulate some of the users. The root of the problem still remains, the dealers, and that is what should be taken care of before any other type of reform is thought about.Drug dealers get the largest % of thier income NOT from first time users, but from addicts. Addicts don't do drugs for social standing. They do it because they are addicted. If we give them a way to get even more drugs, for cheap, without going to drug dealers, it WOULD debase the dealer's economy. The best I've heard to counter that is "No it wouldn't." Care to explain
why
I'm wrong?
Why would a drug dealer keep dealing drugs to a small section of parties, when his major clientel, the street addicts, all go elsewhere? Why would he risk so much for so little profits?
Post by
TheMediator
Like has been said, they'll just turn to another drug for their profit... and the government can't just keep offering worse and worse drugs. I thought you were for weaker government anyways?
Post by
MyTie
Like has been said, they'll just turn to another drug for their profit... and the government can't just keep offering worse and worse drugs. I thought you were for weaker government anyways?
In the end, government regulating a private industry is a weaker government than the government carrying arms and imprisoning people in an open war against drugs.
I propose defeating the drug dealers economically, instead of by government militant force. This goes right along with my small government values.
Post by
TheMediator
Well... if you'd rather innocent people becoming addicted to drugs and stealing and murdering to get their fix until the drug dealers run out of money and stop producing (which they won't, drug dealers won't just roll over), as opposed to different governments seeking out and killing the drug lords themselves... ok.
Post by
MyTie
Well... if you'd rather innocent people becoming addicted to drugsHow does my plan cause this to happen? This seems like an arbitrary claim on your part and stealing and murdering to get their fixThey already do this. I would love to also fix this, but I don't know a way to. My plan doesn't CAUSE this... it is already a problem. until the drug dealers run out of money and stop producing (which they won't, drug dealers won't just roll over),Ok, WHAT would they do? No one is buying from them, so what are they going to do? as opposed to different governments seeking out and killing the drug lords themselves... ok.They do this over and over and over already. More drug lords pop up because there is MONEY TO BE MADE. I propose to take the money supply away, then exile the drug lords. No more opportunity to make money, no more illegal drug trade.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
then exile the drug lords
And what would stop them from coming back? We already have border issues with thousands coming across the border illegally, what's to stop an exiled drug lord from doing it too?
The large "D" tattooed on thier forehead.
Edit:
Drug dealing
Rape
Child Molestation
Political Corruption
All these are tattooable offenses in my book. Maybe you have to have kids yourself to understand why.
Post by
MyTie
But you still have not answered where they would go after they get high. What addicts do while they are high would be a
major
issue still. Who really knows what they could be capable of while under the influence.I'm saying I don't have an answer. No matter what happened though, it couldn't be worse than it already is.They would get their money from other drugs (if your plan really does work...). Removing
just
cocaine isn't enough to stop the drug cartels. Going after the drug cartels would be the only way to ensure that they don't sell anymore. "Another issue?" Really? What good does just removing cocaine do if there are still other drugs out on the street? The drug dealers won't go away simply because 1 drug is legal. You are really just guessing that they wouldn't be able to compete. There is no fact this way or that that they wouldn't be able to. So, yay cocaine is out of our economy... make way for the next new drug. All that it would do is prune one leaf off a very big tree.Hmmm... A pretty nasty leaf, though. If it worked for cocaine, maybe we could look at doing it for other drugs. Even if it didn't fix EVERY drug problem, it would at least take SOME money away from drugs.Agreed on the underlined part, but it wouldn't debase them enough to put them out of business. Many drug dealers deal more than 1 drug. They like to cover all the bases they can to make as much as they can. Same point as before. One problem at a time, though.Also, where would these proposed facilities be? In every city in the country? That would cost
billions
. If Joe Addict wanted to get high but the nearest facility was 100 miles away, he would just go to his usual place and get it from there. I highly doubt he would drive that far to get high. Or maybe you propose to build housing for the addicts close to any facilities. Great... you create a new slum area.I brought this up earlier. They would have to be in major urban areas, where the demand is. This will cause slum areas, true. How is this different than how it is now, besides the money is taken away from gangs?
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Ya... thats right. The "D" on their forehead would totally stop them from crossing the border. And what's to stop people from tattooing
over
the scarlet letter you propose?
Nice dodge of my other post.
I was still getting around to your other post. Also, you would have trouble living in the United States with a Tattoo on your forehead that was capable of covering up a large "D". After that tattoo was put on, your pretty much screwed. Can't go into a convienece store to buy twinkees without a good chance the clerk will refuse service to you. Can't get stoped at a traffic stop without the cops checking to see if you were exiled. That large face tattoo would make a person SELF exile. Who would want to stay in a society that despised them?
I live in a relatively peaceful small town, but two doors down someone was shot to death by a drug dealer, on the same patch of sidewalk that my daughter rides her bicycle on. I'm all for exile, unfortunately that dealer will be back out and to business in less than 8 years. My daughter will still be a kid. We will be next door to a murderer.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
