The best way to reduce gun violence is to end the Drug War

[qwerty]

Right. I'll answer you and mrj at the same time.

I understand libertarians will call for the end of the welfare state. That however isn't my proposal.

My proposal is to include, in the legalization law, the welfare testing and exclusions in my earlier post.

You'd think that would be a win-win for libertarians. They get legalization, AND the ability to make the welfare state smaller at the same time by excluding drug users.

So, any libertarians want to agree to that? I'm still waiting.

Sounds good to me, through in random alcohol and nicotine testing too.

And fast food testing.....

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Right. I'll answer you and mrj at the same time.

I understand libertarians will call for the end of the welfare state. That however isn't my proposal.

My proposal is to include, in the legalization law, the welfare testing and exclusions in my earlier post.

You'd think that would be a win-win for libertarians. They get legalization, AND the ability to make the welfare state smaller at the same time by excluding drug users.

So, any libertarians want to agree to that? I'm still waiting.

Most drugs are out of your system in a couple days. You could test drug users that have only been clean for less than a week, and they could pass the test. So i ask you, what will testing these people accomplish besides wasting more money?

 

[mrjarrell]

Most drugs are out of your system in a couple days. You could test drug users that have only been clean for less than a week, and they could pass the test. So i ask you, what will testing these people accomplish besides wasting more money?

Exactly. Drug testing welfare recipients has already been tossed out by the courts, what makes him think that they'll change their minds? They'll just toss the repeal or toss that section. Why would you test for legal substances anyway? Dismantle both the drug war and the welfare state, they don't have to be done away with in any particular order. We'll take what we can get. Both are damaging, but the drug war is much worse than welfare.

 

[lucky4034]

Right. I'll answer you and mrj at the same time.

I understand libertarians will call for the end of the welfare state. That however isn't my proposal.

My proposal is to include, in the legalization law, the welfare testing and exclusions in my earlier post.

You'd think that would be a win-win for libertarians. They get legalization, AND the ability to make the welfare state smaller at the same time by excluding drug users.

So, any libertarians want to agree to that? I'm still waiting.

I don't see why you are lumping apples with oranges... The welfare problem is totally separate from the war on drugs problem.

How about we test all gun owners and if they test positive for NOW LEGAL marijuana, we take away their ability own a gun?

I mean... gun ownership is a separate issue? All of this "Liberty void of responsibility" is non-sense.

 

[Jludo]

I'd be for an entire overhaul of the welfare system, I don't think if people are on welfare they should have any frills. Cable, tv, whatever else. I think the extent of our welfare should only be that people have shelter and food, if they want anything beyond that they have to go earn it themselves. As for drug users abusing the welfare system you're obviously absolutely correct, but as long as we are talking about hypothetical solutions mine wouldn't be to drug test but to strip down any benefits to the bare minimum.

 

[rambone]

If you agree to simultaneously test everyone on ANY TYPE of public assistance (I don't care even if it's just WIC) for drugs (you can throw alcohol in too for all I care), and if positive, they permanently lose the ability to EVER receive ANY TYPE of public assistance again, then I'll support legalization. We also test all new applicants going forward, and test all current applicants every 90 days.

Do we have an accord?

I would end prohibition at the first possible opportunity. Whether you cling to prohibition is inconsequential.

Which do you think would save more tax dollars?

1. Spending a bunch of money mass-testing every welfare recipient in the country every 3 months. A FEW who can't figure out how to defeat the test are taken off the dole. The tests are NOT FREE, by the way. When this idea was implemented in Florida, the tests costed more than they saved.

2. Ending the Drug War, which would shrink government bureaucracy, reduce the burden on courts, reduce prison over-crowding, shrink the role of police, reduce the power and influence of gangs, create jobs, free up science & innovations, and a whole lot more.

Exactly, but notice that rambone and his fellow libertarians won't take that offer. They're all about "freedom" but only pay lip service to personal responsibility. Freedom without responsibility, that's the libertarian motto.

You're more invested in prohibition laws for moral reasons than financial ones. If you attempted to have an honest discussion about the costs of prohibition you would lose handily. The Drug War has directly blown away an estimated $1.5 Trillion (with a lot of other unmeasurable costs), and you're preaching about how THAT is somehow the "responsible" position. Good one.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't see why you are lumping apples with oranges... The welfare problem is totally separate from the war on drugs problem.

How about we test all gun owners and if they test positive for NOW LEGAL marijuana, we take away their ability own a gun?

I mean... gun ownership is a separate issue? All of this "Liberty void of responsibility" is non-sense.

LOL. This is why I rarely respond to your posts. You love being purposely obtuse.

They're not apples and oranges if you put those conditions in the legislation together.

 

[Liberty1911]

I would end prohibition at the first possible opportunity. Whether you cling to prohibition is inconsequential.

Which do you think would save more tax dollars?

1. Spending a bunch of money mass-testing every welfare recipient in the country every 3 months. A FEW who can't figure out how to defeat the test are taken off the dole. The tests are NOT FREE, by the way. When this idea was implemented in Florida, the tests costed more than they saved.

2. Ending the Drug War, which would shrink government bureaucracy, reduce the burden on courts, reduce prison over-crowding, shrink the role of police, reduce the power and influence of gangs, create jobs, free up science & innovations, and a whole lot more.


You're more invested in prohibition laws for moral reasons than financial ones. If you attempted to have an honest discussion about the costs of prohibition you would lose handily. The Drug War has directly blown away an estimated $1.5 Trillion (with a lot of other unmeasurable costs), and you're preaching about how THAT is somehow the "responsible" position. Good one.

As I said. I'm ok with legalization but I don't want my tax dollars supporting the additional drug addicts legalization will create. Nice try throwing the "morality" red herring out there.

It's funny that, and noting the libertarian responses above, libertarians won't go for that though. It's legalization full speed ahead, we couldn't care less about the social burden.

The claim I've made all along, and your responses prove, is that libertarians only pay lip service to personal responsibility, but they want "freedom" no matter the cost to their fellow citizens.

Freedom without responsibility - the libertarian motto.

 

[Jludo]

LOL. This is why I rarely respond to your posts. You love being purposely obtuse.

They're not apples and oranges if you put those conditions in the legislation together.

I don't think welfare and the drug war are connected enough to condition legislation of on on the other.

 

[rambone]

I disagree with Rambone that legalizing hard drugs will remove all black markets.

I'm interested to know why.

A black market can only exist when something is illegal. No ban (or sin tax) -> no black market.

I agree that legalizing Marijuana will not necessarily lead to further addictions but I don't see it as a solution to violent crime. Those who after the easy money where the violence takes place will not suddenly be overcome with the will to buckle down and become productive citizens. The use of force is how they live.

It would lead to less violence. Follow the logic.

No bans -> No black market

No black market -> Reduce profitability of gang life -> Less gang members

No black market -> Clean, "safe" drugs manufactured in the USA -> Jobs, Income

No black market -> No reason to buy drugs on the streets -> Less gang turf war

No black market -> No risk of imprisonment for doing business -> No reason to shoot at cops

I could go on...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Because all those gang bangers are going to be unemployed when the black market drug revenue dries up, so they'll obviously have no choice except to get jobs and become law abiding citizens.

Yeah, because that's never happened before.

Joe Kennedy and Bill France Sr. just kept on running that liquor and breaking the law, didn't they?

 

[ATOMonkey]

there would be no fear of prosecution more people would become users and then they would become addicts.They would more than likely loose/quit there jobs,crime rates would rise due to theft to support their habits.more lives would be destroyed from the drugs themselves..

Yep, just like when they made alcohol legal. Nothing but drunks everywhere.

 

[LANShark42]

Criminals are criminals. They may move into a different business but if you think ending the drug war will suddenly make them hard working law abiding citizens, you're living in a fantasy world.

+1

 

[churchmouse]

I'm interested to know why.

A black market can only exist when something is illegal. No ban (or sin tax) -> no black market.


It would lead to less violence. Follow the logic.

No bans -> No black market

No black market -> Reduce profitability of gang life -> Less gang members

No black market -> Clean, "safe" drugs manufactured in the USA -> Jobs, Income

No black market -> No reason to buy drugs on the streets -> Less gang turf war

No black market -> No risk of imprisonment for doing business -> No reason to shoot at cops

I could go on...

This is all well and good on paper. There is a sub-culture in this country that will never, ever be productive members of society. If you remove the drug black market they will just move on to another area or create another tax free illegal enterprise. It is what they know. The gangs are here to stay as long as we keep breeding future members.

 

[Raskolnikov]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rambone again.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Stschil]

I'm interested to know why.

A black market can only exist when something is illegal. No ban (or sin tax) -> no black market.


It would lead to less violence. Follow the logic.

No bans -> No black market

No black market -> Reduce profitability of gang life -> Less gang members
Gangs move on to something else that makes them money, the less profitable, the more violence to expand turf, increased theft, increased violent attacks.

No black market -> Clean, "safe" drugs manufactured in the USA -> Jobs,

More Govt oversight, more intrusion to "Maintain Safety and Cleanliness"

No black market -> No reason to buy drugs on the streets -> Less gang turf war
See Above
No black market -> No risk of imprisonment for doing business -> No reason to shoot at cops

I could go on...

No Black Market for drugs is all you'll get, IF the Federal Govt doesn't tax the living crap out of it, which they will. Someone will have to pay for the rehab, the Office of Dope Management, the IRS tax collection arm, the FDA studies, the CDC reports, the USDA inspection/certification, I could go on too.

You are never going to stop crime by legalizing drugs. The folks who kill, maim and steal to get drugs now will still kill, maim, and steal to get them after your utopia is erected.

You won't stop organized crime either. They will be the ones collecting protection money from the corner Smoke, Sniff and Stab to keep the zombies from breaking in.

The repeal of Prohibition didn't stop Moonshiners from brewing and selling their Untaxed Liquor, nor will Legalization of MJ stop people from 'stickin to da tax man' and selling weed just like the do now.

The problem IS NOT DRUGS, its money. Money for the criminal, money for the Gubbmint. Your not going to fix criminal nor govt greed by legalizing Pot.

 

[ATOMonkey]

These are the same tired arguments prohibitionists used nearly a hundred years ago.

Same old song and dance, new day.

 

[lucky4034]

LOL. This is why I rarely respond to your posts. You love being purposely obtuse.

They're not apples and oranges if you put those conditions in the legislation together.

They are... sorry. Just because some people on welfare use drugs doesn't mean that these two subjects should be lumped together in the same discussion.

The War on Drugs reaches much further than welfare. Hinging the legalization on of drugs to testing welfare is a stupid argument.

"We shouldn't legalize drugs unless we test basketball players and penalize them for using"

Both Welfare and The War on Drugs are problems in the USA... both can and should be handled separately. Welfare is a whole other ball of wax. The interesting thing is how you attach the two... from a monetary standpoint.

If you are worried about the money involved, than regardless of welfare... you must agree that ending the War on Drugs is cost effective?

By the way... you ALWAYS respond to my posts. You can't resist yourself... I think you've only ignored me one time and that was because you stated "I ignore your posts"....

 

[lucky4034]

This is all well and good on paper. There is a sub-culture in this country that will never, ever be productive members of society. If you remove the drug black market they will just move on to another area or create another tax free illegal enterprise. It is what they know. The gangs are here to stay as long as we keep breeding future members.

If thats true.. then what is the point of dumping Trillions of Dollars into the war on drugs?

Why let them **** us twice?

 

[yepthatsme]

I'm not sure that we could ever stop the drug problem. Our government has too much to lose if it were to end. All of the funding for the war on drugs and all of the property that is confiscated from drug related arrests, there is just too much at stake for them to stop it. It is the perfect government funding machine.