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

[Lucas156]

How many freedoms do I have to trade to save a couple tax dollars and kick people off of welfare that really don't need it? Sums up this thread nicely

 

[Jludo]

Prison population is another reason to legalize, How does the freest country on earth have by far the highest prison population of any country? Including dictatorships, Monarchies, police states, communist states etc.

 

[Lucas156]

Secondly, another reason why you might get ignored is because you, and other legalization proponents, like to drag out the prohibition canard.

It sounds good on the surface, but you must know that prohibition had nothing to do with making the consumption of alcohol illegal.

You do know that right? .

It made the manufacture, sale, and transportation illegal. I'm thinking the intention was to keep people from drinking it don't you? Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...

 

[rambone]

Probably ignored, for a couple of reasons.

You won't even answer a simple yes or no question. It seems disingenuous to expect others to answer you, when you won't provide the same courtesy.

So, would you support legislation that legalizes drugs but prohibits drug users from obtaining public assistance? That's a pretty simple yes or no question.

I'm certain we went over this twice at least. I would end prohibition at the first possible opportunity. I would not sit around on my thumb and wait for 100 years of social programs to disappear. I think your idea of mass-testing is flawed, costly, and full of holes. But the Drug War is a far greater menace, more costly, and more detrimental. If it were the only way to end the Drug War, I'd support this hypothetical legislation.

There. We can resume Pretend Congress now. Rambone has entered his vote on Fantasy Bill 256980.

I'll point another thing out again, before you carry on with the same misrepresentations: I'm an individual, and I only speak for myself. The views represented in this post are the sole property of Rambone, not any political party or ideology.

I consider the matter settled now. If you want to join the discussion about black markets and violence, feel free.

 

[steveh_131]

Probably ignored, for a couple of reasons.

You won't even answer a simple yes or no question. It seems disingenuous to expect others to answer you, when you won't provide the same courtesy.

So, would you support legislation that legalizes drugs but prohibits drug users from obtaining public assistance? That's a pretty simple yes or no question.

Your questions have been answered over and over and over again. Nobody here supports this 'safety net'. You can keep claiming that we do until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it true. Refusal to accept your idiotic feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing does not constitute support of government handouts.

I am going to continue pointing out the hypocrisy of this absurd argument every time you bring it up. If guns were illegal, you would vote to keep them that way until this 'safety net' is removed. If junk food was illegal, you would vote to keep it that way until medicare is removed. If fornication was illegal, you would vote to keep it that way until medicare is removed.

If you want tyranny until we reach the utopia of zero safety nets, then so be it. But you're a hypocrite every time you complain about government over-reach, because your ridiculous argument requires you to support every bit of it until this safety net is removed.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Another thing i havent seen mentioned (granted there are a couple pages i havent read) is the fact that legallizing drugs would put one hellofa dent in the cartels money. This move could single handedly cause the callapse of drug cartels as we are their number one consumer / source of profit

 

[mrjarrell]

Another thing i havent seen mentioned (granted there are a couple pages i havent read) is the fact that legallizing drugs would put one hellofa dent in the cartels money. This move could single handedly cause the callapse of drug cartels as we are their number one consumer / source of profit

Exactly. The Zetas can't compete with the likes of Phillip Morris and Kraft or Lilly. They'd be relegated to the ash heap.

 

[Destro]

so we solve our meth problem by making it legal for folks to burn their children and poison those who live next to them because our .gov shouldnt be involved in peoples lives?

 

[rambone]

so we solve our meth problem by making it legal for folks to burn their children and poison those who live next to them because our .gov shouldnt be involved in peoples lives?

No.

 

[IndyDave1776]

so we solve our meth problem by making it legal for folks to burn their children and poison those who live next to them because our .gov shouldnt be involved in peoples lives?

Last time I checked, burning children and poisoning neighbors was already illegal independent of drug laws. Incidentally, without the prohibition, these products would be manufactured in controlled labs like the politically correct drugs or else fall out of favor when the naturally occurring drugs are available for which the synthetic substitutes were developed.

 

[RockofStrength]

so we solve our meth problem by making it legal for folks to burn their children and poison those who live next to them because our .gov shouldnt be involved in peoples lives?

It's perfectly legal for me to purchase ingredients in sufficient quality and quantity to create materials that could level a city block. Yet you suggest that making it legal to make certain drugs in your own home is a major threat?

 

[steveh_131]

Lots of legal substances would be hazardous to produce in the basement of your home.

And yet this only seems to happen when those substances are legally prohibited.

Funny, that.

 

[Destro]

Lots of legal substances would be hazardous to produce in the basement of your home.

And yet this only seems to happen when those substances are legally prohibited.

Funny, that.

so your saying that people only use these substances because they are illegal, and if they were made legal people would not use them?

 

[Destro]

you suggest that making it legal to make certain drugs in your own home is a major threat?

when the production pose a wanton disregard to the health and saftey of others

 

[Destro]

Last time I checked, burning children and poisoning neighbors was already illegal independent of drug laws.

but when these things occur during lawful activity they are simply tragic accidents and not crimes

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

so your saying that people only use these substances because they are illegal, and if they were made legal people would not use them?

Not sure how you got that from what he said

 

[Destro]

Not sure how you got that from what he said

help me out

 

[IndyDave1776]

but when these things occur during lawful activity they are simply tragic accidents and not crimes

You are joking, right? Try either one attached to an act of negligence and see how long you stay on the outside of the bars.

so your saying that people only use these substances because they are illegal, and if they were made legal people would not use them?

The point he is making is that if such substances were legal, people would be buying them as the store just like cigarettes and not having explosions and contamination incidents trying it themselves. You would also eliminate the reason for most of the crime and violence that goes with it given that market share and territory would work itself out by market forces just as with detergent, snack foods, or the most relevant example, alcohol. I can's say that I recall Anheuser-Busch ordering a hit on Miller. Likewise, I would expect drugs to be commercially produced and the turf sorted out by consistent quality and by price rather than by gangs of thugs fighting on the streets.

While I consider drug use a terrible idea, once you take away the ancillary problems which are largely caused by the efforts at prohibition, you are left with the rationale of protecting people from themselves. This is a fool's errand. I am not willing to accept having the Constitution trashed, prisons filled, and crime driven through the roof by 'solutions' to a largely contrived problem which amount to a national frenzy of pissing in the wind in the name of 'doing something' (plus justifying the government's lust for more overreach).

 

[Liberty1911]

You would also eliminate the reason for most of the crime and violence that goes with it given that market share and territory would work itself out by market forces just as with detergent, snack foods, or the most relevant example, alcohol. I can's say that I recall Anheuser-Busch ordering a hit on Miller. Likewise, I would expect drugs to be commercially produced and the turf sorted out by consistent quality and by price rather than by gangs of thugs fighting on the streets.

Wow, I never thought this day would come but I have to disagree with IndyDave.

Alcohol is legal and yet we still have a thriving home brew community. Legalization isn't going to eliminate home meth labs either unless you want to have legislation that prevents people from making their own meth.

I can hear people like rambone and his cadre of legalizers howling about that too. "You can't tell people what they can make in their own homes! Meth is legal! Why would you want to keep people from making a legal substance in their own homes!" "Who cares if it's extremely dangerous!" "You can buy extremely dangerous chemicals right now at Walmart!"

Just another consequence of "freedom" at any cost, or as I've said 1000 times now, freedom without responsibility - the libertarian motto.

 

[Zoub]

Wow, I never thought this day would come but I have to disagree with IndyDave.

Alcohol is legal and yet we still have a thriving home brew community. Legalization isn't going to eliminate home meth labs either unless you want to have legislation that prevents people from making their own meth.

Yeah but since it is legal there are clubs, and brew pubs connected to clubs and breweries that sponsor brew clubs and people do not have to do it half assed in the cover of darkness underground with cheap equipment or Mt. Dew bottles (see Blichman Enginering web site).

So now if they can do it legal, they can also develop, perfect and use safer methods. In the end, who cares if or how a person destroys their mind, body or soul? It is a choice they make and will make.

As for gangs, they will always move to the next thing. Gangs will rob product from legal growers or cookers and sell it. They will go to other crimes they already do like pimpn' and numbers but very few will generate the kind of revenue, money worth killing for, that drugs do.

The future of crime is the Russian mob, not the street thugs. If you cut drugs, gangs can only pimp so many women and run so many guns, so they will look to others for new ideas and become hackers and disability slackers. It may be illegal but no one is shooting up the streets over control of bandwidth.