Does Anybody Argue That Drug Use Isn't Bad For You

[TDPerk]

""a very few people"? You must be joking. What planet do you live on? "

This one, where only a small fraction of people get hooked on drugs even though they can be had on every other street corner in most cities.

[GIThruster]

You can talk about a "small fraction" if you like, but we're talking about 9% of the populous above the age of 12, or about 25 million people in the US alone. That's more than twice the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Amongst these 25 million we find the vast bulk of all crime, poverty and entitlement recipients. It doesn't matter that the percent is relatively small when the numbers are this large. Add to this that the money paying for the drugs is going directly out of the country and into the hands of violent offenders, that the drugs are used to manipulate people into the sex trade and slavery, the fantastical costs based on reduced health, etc. . .this is no small problem.

[TDPerk]

with free drug usage it does become a self correcting problem. Those with the problem are usually dead. Went thought this in the seventys, so we just can see it again now.

Saw what? Very few people dying of drug abuse, when it was no more legal then than it is now, but still more than when it was legal prior to the drug laws?

[TDPerk]

You can talk about a "small fraction" if you like, but we're talking about 9% of the populous above the age of 12, or about 25 million people in the US alone. That's more than twice the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Amongst these 25 million we find the vast bulk of all crime, poverty and entitlement recipients. It doesn't matter that the percent is relatively small when the numbers are this large. Add to this that the money paying for the drugs is going directly out of the country and into the hands of violent offenders, that the drugs are used to manipulate people into the sex trade and slavery, the fantastical costs based on reduced health, etc. . .this is no small problem.

Why do you imagine it's 9%? And 9% means what, exactly?

There aren't 9% of people who will become unable to support a drug habit legally. It's right now far below 9% when everyone who wants to try them can, and most support their habits legally even when the habit itself isn't. That will only improve with legalization.

[TDPerk]

And too, I would not say that the war on drugs has been ineffective. We make bigger busts every year. We close more and more tunnels. We incarcerate more criminals and take them out of the populous. And criminals like simon are obviously living in some fear. So obviously the war is working to some degree. I'd say one remedy is to fund it much better. We need a lot more security along our boarders.

It is obviously and drastically ineffective. The cost of drugs goes down in spite of the busts and closed tunnels. I don't think Simon is living in any fear, neither so I think he's a criminal--you can't name one law you know he's breaking, I expect. And taking people out of the working populace whether or not they are paying their bills is obviously anti-productive.

We should stop wasting the money on the drug war and quit doing this useless thing we have no right to do, which is pretend we have a just power to punish behavior in and of itself without it yet having caused harm.

[GIThruster]

Without it causing harm? Are you mad?

Seriously Perky, there is just never any value added from reading your posts. You're off in la-la land. Literally nothing you say is true and it always turns out this way! Drugs don't cause any harm? How can you look in the mirror after typing something like that?

[TDPerk]

"it has nothing to do with your empty argument on drugs where you want to play absolutist, while those you attempt to reach with your weak attempt at Indoctrination do not."

The person thinking prohibition is a good response to the fact a very few people will become addicted to and destroy themselves with drugs, that person is the absolutist.

I am really getting tired of saying that "prohibition" is not working. If you want to comment on my position, take the time to understand it.

I read the post I responded to, and it seemed clear.

In some things I am an absolutist, in others I am not.

I also think you are completely niave if you really think:

the fact a very few people will become addicted to and destroy themselves with drugs,

I guarantee that I can addict you to any of the aforementioned drugs, and to do so would not take so much time nor effort. That is the entire point.

No, I doubt you can in the sense that you mean. It's nothing magical, most people just don't need them, however much they enjoy them from time to time.

Of course forced administration can produce a physical accommodation to a drug, and abruptly withdrawing it produces some vile and even life threatening symptoms...which doesn't mean that having withdrawn, most people will go right back on it if offered, or even that many will.

The people that market these things do so targeting the weak, on purpose.
It is like giving a child a loaded gun and no supervision.

An excellent reason for it t be legal, so the civil tort and profit motives conspire to prevent that. Wise liquor store owners watch carefully for minors, and those who don't lose their businesses and freedom.

[TDPerk]

Without it causing harm? Are you mad?

Not even slightly. You are, what with the definition of insanity, and your UFO conspiracy theories.

If someone does a line of coke, or takes a toke, or downs a tumbler or three of gin--if it's worth it to them, it sure hasn't taken any money out of my or your packet.

Seriously Perky, there is just never any value added from reading your posts. You're off in la-la land. Literally nothing you say is true and it always turns out this way! Drugs don't cause any harm? How can you look in the mirror after typing something like that?

In reverse order:
Because I'm speaking the truth, and I know you aren't. (Hell, what with the UFO crap, I seriously doubt you can even distinguish it.)
What the harm/cost to help/pleasure ratio of enjoying anything with any risk is, is all that person's own business, until you can show how any specific act harmed you or someone else. Then, you can without prohibition, get them arrested/tried/sued for it, which is a fine remedy for infractions done under or without the influence of drugs.
I've never lied on this whole forum, not once.
I'm in the real world where drug runners can profitably fund the building of submarines to run tens of tons in at a time, and they are suborning governments to the south of us with the profits we stupidly afford them by attempting prohibition.

Your posts are of no value, you repeat stock idiocies without bothering to do a reality check once.

Drugs are freely available despite the costs of prohibition, addicts are made more likely by the criminal distribution system we have, and their addiction made more costly and less manageable.

There is not one good reason not to treat all recreational drugs like alcohol, and have the sole restriction to them be that they can only be sold to unintoxicated adults, who are then held responsible for their actions.

[TDPerk]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Did people keep on using WWI surplus U-boats to smuggle whiskey into the country after Prohibition ended?

Can you think well enough to draw an obvious conclusion?

[paperburn1]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Did people keep on using WWI surplus U-boats to smuggle whiskey into the country after Prohibition ended?

Can you think well enough to draw an obvious conclusion?

No it was far cheaper to make it at home, and I believe usage did go up a tad bit.

[Diogenes]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Your argument overlooks the most salient aspect of the discussion. Drugs KILL people. Thousands every year. And that's with them being ILLEGAL. If you let them establish a safe beach-head in society, the numbers of people being killed by them will go up into the millions just like they did in China. Alcohol kills something like 75,000 people per year,and it is relatively benign compared to most drugs.


Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.

[GIThruster]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

I don't think you understand the point. The mitigating action is to hold back the flood gates of what we have when various drugs are in common use the way alcohol is. This has been Dio's point concerning what happened in China with opium. If there is no mitigation, then drugs become prevalent. People who would otherwise never touch them--about 91% of the population--start using regularly. The consequences of this are what we see when we look at the opium trade in China and they are devastating.

Right now, the US is still the beneficiary of the Protestant Work Ethic. Even though we have an official 40 hour work week, most business owners and corporate business types work far more than 40 hours/week. That's in part the result of our heritage. You can contrast this with Europe which is much more decadent and lazy--pushing for a 4 day work week, fewer hours each day, earlier and earlier retirement, etc. Now look at what you have when that same dynamic is applied to hundreds of millions of drug users. Suddenly everything we know of as "western civilization" goes out the window. That is really what you're proposing when you propose ending all prohibition. This is what you don't get--the consequences of these extremist libertarian ideals are severe and irreversible.

[TDPerk]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Did people keep on using WWI surplus U-boats to smuggle whiskey into the country after Prohibition ended?

Can you think well enough to draw an obvious conclusion?

No it was far cheaper to make it at home, and I believe usage did go up a tad bit.

Then what good could Prohibition have done? Those who didn't mind the bottom of their mattresses wet made their own, and the smugglers' customers funded a certain regrettable Senator Kennedy and his son, and some 'shiners customers went dead or blind from bad whiskey.

A win-win for everything but society, that's all Prohibition ever is.

[paperburn1]

Then what good could Prohibition have done? Those who didn't mind the bottom of their mattresses wet made their own, and the smugglers' customers funded a certain regrettable Senator Kennedy and his son, and some 'shiners customers went dead or blind from bad whiskey.

A win-win for everything but society, that's all Prohibition ever is.

get your history straight and maybe we will listen to you seriously. Joe Sr was not a senator, He was an ambassador to Ireland and yes he did run rum up and down the border He ran legal canadian rum and whiskey so I doubt there were all those dead and blind customers. Remember he was supplying the boston elite with product and winning political influence up and down the northeast coast. A bad product would have killed his political ambitions.
It looks to me as if you will use any agreement to support your position even if it counters a previously made statement.
If your so really hell bent on making pot legal do it the proper way. Get involved in the political process and vote. Build support bases and funding show documentation, tax basing control and distribution management plans and how to regulate industry/ growth in a manor that benefits the state and submit it to your Representative from the local level all the way up to the federal level. Use the process's at hand to make a difference locally, state wide ,then federally. Hard work and perseverance in these forms may show a tangible result. If that does not work move to a country that has the same view on the subject as you (AKA Johnny DEPP) But flapping you lips here does nothing but irritant people and lower your credibility . para fides paternae patria

[TDPerk]

get your history straight and maybe we will listen to you seriously.

No, the minds of the pro-Prohibitionists are quite closed and empty, a vacuum. I'd seen the man referred to as Senator Joe in the context of being JFK's father, so I assumed at some point he'd been a Senator before or after going to the Court of Saint James.

Joe Sr was not a senator, He was an ambassador to Ireland and yes he did run rum up and down the border He ran legal canadian rum and whiskey so I doubt there were all those dead and blind customers.

As if I said he was a moonshiner, or as if that didn't happen. You haven't caught a straw you've reached for yet.

Remember he was supplying the boston elite with product and winning political influence up and down the northeast coast. A bad product would have killed his political ambitions.

Never said anything to the contrary, did I? And you yourself make the point thereby, prohibition is a corrupting influence on society. It should be ended.

It looks to me as if you will use any agreement to support your position even if it counters a previously made statement.

Oh yeah? It's never happened yet.

If your so really hell bent on making pot legal do it the proper way.

I'm hell bent on the constitution being respected, its the pro-Prohibitionists who haven't done it the proper way.

Get involved in the political process and vote.

You gasbag, you clanging gong. On the basis of what do you presume the contrary?

Build support bases and funding show documentation, tax basing control and distribution management plans and how to regulate industry/ growth in a manor that benefits the state and submit it to your Representative from the local level all the way up to the federal level.

It's been done, and it's working.

Use the process's...lower your credibility . para fides paternae patria

Says the gasbag.

Good to know you think the American Revolution was joke, probably too extreme for you or something.