Because, yeah, EVERYTHING the government says is completely and totally to be taken without any salt grains. Mmm...government info is delicious as is.Originally Posted by HoustonGM
παραλία
Because, yeah, EVERYTHING the government says is completely and totally to be taken without any salt grains. Mmm...government info is delicious as is.
Registered User
Well I caved a bit in here and cited about a dozen examples. If you doubt or need additional information about them individually...you can look them up. I have cited on more than one occassion sources and sites only to have them continously disregarded without realistic fact or reason ie. this 'flawed study' Ohms points out.
Certifiable
I have no doubt that legalizing drugs results in some bad outcomes, so I've never brought up any of these studies, or ones that show crime drops too because taking the "territorial wars" out of the illicit trafficing goes away. I believe both are valid points.
But, its not about those studies or any others. Its about personal beliefs. You seem to believe that if, in your opinion, some behavior or act is bad, and can result in bad outcomes, then government has a right to ban it. Which is a fine belief, one that is shared by many.
I disagree, and I object to the belief when its not carried out accross the board. As I stated in an above post, I could site statistics showing the number of people dead as a direct result of religion would be in the millions. In the millions. Yet I hear no outcry to ban that.
I could post studies showing that deaths each year (not to mention maimings) from LEGALLY PURCHASED automobiles is the hundreds of thousands, yet I hear no outcry to ban that.
Legally manufactured and legally obtained guns are going to kill thousands this year, just like they do every year. Someone, in the very near future, accross this country, is going to become paralyzed on a football field. It happens nearly every year, from the high school level on up. Thousands and thousands of activities, legally performed, are going to results in thousands and thousands of injuries and deaths. Should we ban them all?
That's the hypocrisy part. The bottom line Dickay is, that I believe you're opposed to legalized drug use because you believe using drugs is wrong, not because your worried about the costs to society. Otherwise, why not ban all dangerous activities?
And again, it comes down to whether you believe in the fundamental meaning of freedom. Not free to do anything anytime anywhere. But the fundamental belief that adults, acting in the privacy of their own homes, and not directly harming or threatening anyone else's safety or property, should be free from government intrusion. I believe in this, even knowing there will be bad outcomes. Like I said, freedom isn't easy. Some people say things that piss me off, but I vehemently support freedom of speech. Some people do things that piss me off, but I don't pretend to be God-like and judgemental enough to tell them they can't do it. Unless it threatens me or my family or property.
So, what do you say. Care to join me in my crusade to make religion illegal since it's caused so many deaths and wars and violence?
E=I*R
...OK
Drug use is bad. True.
You think that criminalizing drug use is effective, while clearly I don't. I'd much rather see drug use decriminalized, and instead of all of that money going to enforcement I'd rather see it being spent on things that clearly work.
In your view crime has improved here and it hasn't improved in Europe. From what I've seen, the exact opposite is true. So... I'm not really sure what to say except that I think that you're seeing what you want to see. As outlined in the post above, there are clear flaws with the study that you're basing you're views on. The DOJ and FBI say that crime is underreported here in the US, and the study which you're citing clearly used a smaller sample size in the US than they did in Europe.
On top of all of that, HGM is right. You keep saying "you can look them up." Well, I obviously have, and clearly you're views are backwards. So... You're wrong?
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Not entirely true. I don't support legalizing drugs because I believe they are wrong, I do so because I believe they do have extreme costs on society from a crime and healthcare standpoint. All dangerous activity does not effect society. I remain consistent that I believe alcohol and guns (hand guns at least) should also be banned but have explained why I believe they never will be. I happen to endulge in alcohol from time to time, am not a gun owner but have been around guns most of my life and would not be against owning one.That's the hypocrisy part. The bottom line Dickay is, that I believe you're opposed to legalized drug use because you believe using drugs is wrong, not because your worried about the costs to society. Otherwise, why not ban all dangerous activities?
The fundamentals of freedom are precisely what I am referring to. Adults acting in the privacy of their own homes, not directly harming anyone are not my concern. My concern is that IMO legal drug sale and use has great effects on society in a negative way in many areas. Studies have shown it increases addiction, largely amongst minors. Domestic abuse, theft, DUI, and violent crime also increases. Healthcare costs increase as well as our govt. must then deal with all the addicts and the health related circumstances. That effects MY POCKETBOOK as I then have tax increases to fund the many programs. My personal freedom to walk safely down the street and intruded upon as well as the fact my tax burden rises. One of the governments few responsibilities is to provide Americans with safe streets. Law is necessary at times for that. So, your last sentence...."unless it threatens me or my family or property" is the one I cling to. I believe as a whole, legalizing drugs threatens just that.And again, it comes down to whether you believe in the fundamental meaning of freedom. Not free to do anything anytime anywhere. But the fundamental belief that adults, acting in the privacy of their own homes, and not directly harming or threatening anyone else's safety or property, should be free from government intrusion. I believe in this, even knowing there will be bad outcomes. Like I said, freedom isn't easy. Some people say things that piss me off, but I vehemently support freedom of speech. Some people do things that piss me off, but I don't pretend to be God-like and judgemental enough to tell them they can't do it. Unless it threatens me or my family or property.
Religion has been the cause of many wars, I agree. We do have laws restricting the actions of fanatics of all types to a point. Our constitution forbids the creation of a state sponsored religion which really prevents our country from ever going to war for a religious belief...I think??? Sure we have beliefs on human rights, and that genocide should not take place. We have gotten into skirmishes because of that, but is that a religious principle?? I really fail to see where you connect the dots here. Practicing religion, whatever your beliefs, does not cause any harm whatsoever to society. Those who take beliefs to an extreme, form cults that desire to harm others are subject to laws already on the books.So, what do you say. Care to join me in my crusade to make religion illegal since it's caused so many deaths and wars and violence?
Certifiable
Aren't there already laws on the books for this? It's insanely funny how you lump drug use itself with the other bad outcomes that there are already laws on the book against, then lower in this very post refuse to link practicing religion and point the laws already existing.
Religion has been the cause of many wars, I agree. We do have laws restricting the actions of fanatics of all types to a point. Our constitution forbids the creation of a state sponsored religion which really prevents our country from ever going to war for a religious belief...I think??? Sure we have beliefs on human rights, and that genocide should not take place. We have gotten into skirmishes because of that, but is that a religious principle?? I really fail to see where you connect the dots here. Practicing religion, whatever your beliefs, does not cause any harm whatsoever to society. Those who take beliefs to an extreme, form cults that desire to harm others are subject to laws already on the books.
And using a drug responsibly and drinking responsibly doesn't cause any harm to society either. See the hypocrisy?
Registered User
There's really no point in continuing to waste time with the childish " I'm right, you're wrong" behavior. Even if your sources say the US is 'underreporting' crime I suppose you're saying that Europe is 'overreporting' it? Your finding which supposedly refutes a study I provided really does nothing at all other than say that American crime is underreported which really wasn't the point of my post anyhow. I posted a dozen or so examples of attempts gone bad to legalize drugs. In the past I've gotten more into depth providing resourses. You and HGM fail to remember those because you 'choose to see what you want' and disregard anything that contradicts your beliefs.
Registered User
No I don't. As someone stated in another thread.....I can responsibly roll through a stop sign or exceed the speed limit, doesn't mean that it should be legal. Laws are necessary to protect society as a whole. If my hobby happened to be researching missles, and pipe bombs and the like....does it mean I should be able to build these in mass production in my basement? There are some things that society is better without, even if individually some of us can perform without issue. Because with them, other personal freedoms are compromised.
Song of Solomon 5:4
How are your personal freedoms compromised if someone smokes a joint?
]
Certifiable
Like religion?
If you can't see the obvious hypocrisy of claiming to want to ban drug use because you believe it results in other bad acts (which already are and should be illegal), but then correctly point out that practicing religion itself isn't harmful but only those who take it to extremes then you don't know the meaning of the word.
Drug use may lead to street crime. Street crime is already illegal. But instead of enforcing the laws on the street crime, you insist on making drug use itself illegal.
Religious beliefs may lead to extremists committing violence. Violence is already illegal. But instead of banning religion itself, you insist on just making the violence illegal.
HYPOCRISY.
Registered User
Now that is a VERY good argument...and alone it would be entirely accurate. However, it goes back to the argument that is really undisputable and one that proponents of legalization hate because they can't fight it. Drugs are addictive, some much more so than others and an increase in availability has always led to an increase in youth usage. While youth usage of drugs HAS declined greatly in the past 20 years in America, usage of steriods and alcohol is still very high and in many places has climbed. Why? Because they are much more available to minors and accepted by society.
Who bought you alcohol as a minor? If its available, kids will obtain it which leads to higher addiction rates, higher drop out rates, higher criminal activity = very negative effects on society and our 'personal freedoms' you are trying to protect.
Also, comparing the high rate at which drug use leads to addiction and crime and the low rates at which religious extremists commit violence in america is kind of ubsurd.
Registered User
No...but if its legal to do so, and higher crime, addiction amongst youths, and higher taxes result, then yes my personal freedoms are compromised.
Are your personal freedoms compromised because of a law that says you can only go 55 on the highway? Or a law that requires automotive companies to provide an internal combustion engine that won't blow up? Or laws on the handling of food at a meat packaging facility? Or laws prohibiting fishing or dumping of waste oil in your local resevoir? Why can't these people just do as they please?
Certifiable
What's been "ubsurd" has been your circular reasoning and arguments, in a futile attempt to find "facts" to fit your beliefs.
Notice I said "may" lead to higher street crime in my posts. There is no definitive proof of this, as you have stated studies that show its true, and Ohms has stated studies showing it may not be true. Yet, you cling to it as though fact.
But, then, at the same time, refuse to cling to the fact that other benign activities can also lead to bad outcomes. And they can lead to bad outcomes at high rates. Why not ban those too? But, for the sake of argument, I'll play along.
In regard to this last pile of dung, please show me the studies where it shows the comparable difference between the "high rate" at which marijuana use leads to crime as compared to the "low rate" at which violence in the name of religion occurs. I would be immensly interested to see that proof.
Of course, it doesn't exist.
No, the bottom line is the same Dickay. It is apparent that you're really only against legalizing drugs because you just plain believe using drugs is wrong. I can promise you there is no study that's going to show that using marijuana leads to a high rate of crime (unless, of course, one counts the act of using it or selling it in the first place a crime, well, then of course the numbers are spiked.) nor one that will show how low the "rate" of violence committed in the name of religion is (though I suspect it's a good bit higher than you think. Most gay violence is based on religious beliefs. A great deal of domestic abuse stems from some religious beliefs about the roles of men and women). Why not just get to the bare bones and make your arguments based on the fact that you just feel using drugs is "wrong" rather than bringing up circular and hypocrital reasoning?
I've personally witnessed dozens of folks smoking a joint, who then became obvious dangers to society when they mostly sat around a TV, munching on food, and laughing and giggling most of the time. I've seen many people have a few drinks and get behind the wheel of a car. Those folks are far more dangerous in my opinion.
Song of Solomon 5:4
Because those things would directly hurt me, and I can easily explain how they would. You are using a faulty slippery slope argument to defend the criminalization of drugs.
Slippery slope arguments never work, sorry.
]
Registered User
Circular reasoning? You talk about smoking a joint in the same sentence with legalizing all drugs. As if to say marijuana and crack cocaine have similar effects. Of course you use marijuana because it is far and away the least invasive and destructive of the illegal drugs in dispute, but to say we only want to make marijuana legal and not crack because of personal responsibility would be well....hypocritical.
If you want to just talk about pot...then that is drastically different than talking about all drugs in particular. But the argument never was and never can be just about it...for some reason it has to include the legalization of all drugs. And you pro-legalization folks won't even spell out exactly what you mean. Is it legal for adults, for everyone, by prescription only or for open sale, with restrictions or not???? You just say 'legalize drugs' and very often have your own set of restrictions you wish to place on them but don't embellish.
Reply With Quote
