TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US supreme court rules on 2nd amendment case
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Let me also clear one thing up. I don't advocate legalizing hard drugs like cocaine and heroine. I am advocating DECRIMINALIZATION of all drugs. Legalization marijuana cultivation, but manufacturing hrd narcotics should still, in my book, be illegal. Focus on the law enforcement against suppliers of hard drugs, and on health rehabilitation of the users [if they choose to do so]. I am for freedom. I hope you are too.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo to an extent. so? it doesn't eliminate violence and it creates more competition. and if you agree that drugs themselves can cause violence to an extent, then you must conceed that more drugs would cause equally more violence.

1. I never agreed with your conclusion that drugs create violence. This is our fundamental uncomprimising difference. So I will never concede any conclusion that more drugs would lead to more violence.

2. It does eliminate violence. What would happen if Target sent a death squad over to Wal-Mart? You guessed it! They'de be ARRESTED.

quote:

so now you want to regulate it? legally, ok. how? and how would that not contradict and exacerbate further your fundamental premise?

How to regulate? Pass out clean needles, provide free AIDs testing, taxation.

quote:

again, a causation but you still can't explain to me how that would stop competition among those same people with "little or no education" if you believe that competition is one of the fundamental causes of violence among people with little or no education.

Do you see youths selling cigarrettes on the street corner? I don't think so....

quote:

who cares.

Not comprehending? Criminalizing a market only leads the business underground. It's simple economics.

quote:

so you want illicit drugs to be exclusively in the corporate domain? how does that eliminate black markets? explain yourself better.

Who else would manufacture drugs? It eliminates black markets the same way regulation of cigarrettes and alcohol eliminates illegal commerce in those products. There will always be some black market (i.e. moonshine), but no one is selling cigarrettes on street corners.

quote:

corprate competion is also partly responsible for underage drunk driving and the misery associated with it. corporate competion is also largely responsible for underage smoking as well. <---there is a point here and i hope you are sharp enough to get it

Explain to me how criminalizing drinking and smoking would end intoxicated driving or underage usage? Also keep in mind the effects of 1920's Prohibition in your answer. I find the individual more responsible for their own actions than blaming the manufactorers. That's an easy cop out. It's like blaming Smith & Wesson for their weapon being used in a bank robbery.

quote:

you can't explain to me how decriminalizing the drug trade will eliminate violence, depression, mental illness, disease, unwanted pregnancy and death. [RESTATED] you simply can't explain to me how decriminalizing the drug trade will eliminate violence, depression, mental illness, disease, unwanted pregnancy and death.

I can and do explain. Simply saying I can't provide a response you find exceptable does not make it so. I don't claim that decriminalizing the drug trade would eliminate the negative consequences of drug use. I am of the opinion that give the people freedom and things will be better. There should be no such thing as a victimless crime. Give the people choices. Hardline socialism does not work, and I am surprised an avid neocon would not agree.

quote:

you want to increase supply knowing full well that it will only increase demand. how does that eliminate competition? and how does that limit the harm drugs do?

I don't want to increase supply first of all. I want decriminalization of victimless crimes. The government can not police victimless crimes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If people want to harm their health, they are going to do it whether or the not the government criminalizes it or no.

quote:

thats not a point.

Of course it is. You know why Congress repealed the Prohibition amendment. You know prohibition was the best thing to have ever happened for the proliferation of the mob. Proliferation today is the best thing to have ever happened for the drug cartel. Mexico today is being overrun by drug cartels who have employed at their disposal, high powered weapons, and former special forces soldiers (Zetas). Why? Inflated profits can pay for it all.

quote:

i'll say it again b/c you deserve it. your position is selfish, shallow, myopic and stupid.

Yours is socialistic, undemocratic, demonstrably failed, and authoritarian. Always glad to throw useless adjectives at each other...

side note.

for all intents and purposes these people enjoyed an "un-regulated" drug trade free of little competition or violence. the only difference between them and the rest of us (aside from a reasonable amount of talent) was unlimited funds.

imagine, if you will, just regular people, moms/dads/children/working stiffs living paycheck to paycheck or with decent income enjoying similar un-regulated access to narcotics. does anybody believe for one second we would see an appreciable decline in violence or de-humanization? think again.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo side note. for all intents and purposes these people enjoyed an "un-regulated" drug trade free of little competition or violence. the only difference between them and the rest of us (aside from a reasonable amount of talent) was unlimited funds. imagine, if you will, just regular people, moms/dads/children/working stiffs living paycheck to paycheck or with decent income enjoying similar un-regulated access to narcotics. does anybody believe for one second we would see an appreciable decline in violence or de-humanization? think again.

I'm sorry Q. The government has no business legislating morality or prosecuting victimless crimes. Doing so only leads to a denegration of individual freedom and morality crusades.

Our drug policy should abandon its hardline socialist idealism and adopt a practical pragmatc approach to drug use. I believe Holland has the best drug policy in the world. And contrary to your assumption that decriminalization leads to more drug use, Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category. CLICK

Policy should be focused on two principles.

1. Drug use is a public health issue, not criminal.
2. A distinction between hard and soft drugs should be made.

Q5echo, where do the mafia and gangs get most of their "income" from?
What do you think would happen to them if you could buy pure coke at the drugstore for 10 bucks?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Our drug policy should abandon its hardline socialist idealism

could you please stop throwing around terms? 'socialism' and the criminalisation of narcotics have absolutely nothing to do with each other; your persistent use of 'socialism' as a euphemism for anything 'government' is incorrect and a little bit silly

quote:

Originally posted by robstar Q5echo, where do the mafia and gangs get most of their "income" from?

drug addicts.

quote:

What do you think would happen to them if you could buy pure coke at the drugstore for 10 bucks?

not sure what would happen to them (frankly, greedy violent criminals tend to stay that way one way or another. criminals will forever exploit criminality. if it's not drugs it's human trafficking, theft, counterfieting, or any number of racketeering schemes.) however i can imagine what would happen to my neighborhood. it wouldn't be pretty.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo drug addicts. not sure what would happen to them (frankly, greedy violent criminals tend to stay that way one way or another. criminals will forever exploit criminality. if it's not drugs it's human trafficking, theft, counterfieting, or any number of racketeering schemes.) however i can imagine what would happen to my neighborhood. it wouldn't be pretty.

id be more worried about addicts committing crime to fund their habit than people in the neighbourghood being high. your neighbourhood seems to cope ok with all the raging alcoholics that no doubt live there.

the worst social fallouts from drug use is related to its illegality, not the drug itself. let them all OD on pure drugs at rock-bottom prices rather than break into my house to steal my stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't advocate legalizing hard drugs like cocaine and heroine.

what about meth?

quote:

I am advocating DECRIMINALIZATION of all drugs.

can you explain to me the difference?

whatever it is your advocating one thing will be true; increasing availability would increase the the number of addictions. whether that sees a drop in violence, which i can't see that happening, that then becomes moot in the larger picture.

quote:

but manufacturing hrd narcotics should still, in my book, be illegal. Focus on the law enforcement against suppliers of hard drugs, and on health rehabilitation of the users [if they choose to do so]. I am for freedom. I hope you are too.

youre not really saying anything then. you want to keep meth, coke and opiates where they are, you just want to be able to smoke a doobie? wtf are we arguing about then?

quote:

How to regulate? Pass out clean needles, provide free AIDs testing, taxation.

thats not regulating a market. thats addressing the symptoms the market causes.

answer the question. how are you going to regulate the drug trade? how are you going to reconcile with responsible communities that want nothing to do with the drug trade? force them?

i'm all ears about how youre going to apply this libertarian-at-all-costs and individual freedom bullshit with real people that aware of the real problems that come with addiction.

quote:

Not comprhending?

no. i don't care about socialism or any ism associated with drugs.

quote:

Who else would manufacture drugs?

the same assholes that already do. you mean to tell me that if we decriminalize all class-A narcotics the Columbians are just gonna pack it up and sell used cars for a living?

get a clue dude. the addict doesn't give a fuck who he buys from as long as he can buy it. you said it yourself, demand begets supply. the Columbians and the Afghanis of the world are still going to want to move product regardless. if they see demand shoot through the roof from decriminalization, nothing would stop them.

quote:

It eliminates black markets the same way regulation of cigarrettes and alcohol eliminates illegal commerce in those products. There will always be some black market (i.e. moonshine), but no one is selling cigarrettes on street corners.

it's so is not in the same way. alchol and tobacco growers aren't violent psychopaths that want complete control of a multi-billion dollar market.

quote:

Explain to me how criminalizing drinking and smoking would end intoxicated driving or underage usage? Also keep in mind the effects of 1920's Prohibition in your answer. I find the individual more responsible for their own actions than blaming the manufactorers. That's an easy cop out. It's like blaming Smith & Wesson for their weapon being used in a bank robbery.

you said "Corporate competition turns to violent competition in an underground market." which may be true to an extent, but any competition in a drug market has it's social downside regardless of who's doing the competing. you can't guarantee that you can eliminate all or any of the downside through "corporate competition"

quote:

I can and do explain. Simply saying I can't provide a response you find exceptable does not make it so. I don't claim that decriminalizing the drug trade would eliminate the negative consequences of drug use.

again i'll refer to my original statement that you don't care what the negatives are, you want it despite all the negatives. you want cartels and manufacturers to have their way with the market at the expense of your fellow man. it's selfish and destructive. it's shallow to the point of idiocy.

quote:

I am of the opinion that give the people freedom and things will be better. There should be no such thing as a victimless crime. Give the people choices. Hardline socialism does not work, and I am surprised an avid neocon would not agree.

first off you haven't the slightest clue what neocons are, otherwise you would have never brought it up in this context so f**king can it. from the sound of it i'm not sure you even know wtf "hardline socialism" is

second when you start refering to "freedoms" in the abstract never, ever, apply that to drug use. there is no "freedom" in addiction. addiction is diametric to "freedom"

if you have ever personally watched someone destroy themselves through addiction you would have thought twice about saying stupid shit like that.

quote:

I don't want to increase supply first of all.

you said "If there is a demand, there will be suppliers, and those suppliers will compete for demand". if you decriminalize, you automatically increase demand. therefore, how could you not be increase supply? you would have to, otherwise we come back around to to the problem of competition and the inherent violence associated with it.

quote:

I want decriminalization of victimless crimes.

youre going to have to do better or elaborate on that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN your neighbourhood seems to cope ok with all the raging alcoholics that no doubt live there.

not really, but lets go ahead and make everybody crackheads too while we're at it. problem solved

quote:

the worst social fallouts from drug use is related to its illegality, not the drug itself.

youre looking at it from the perspective a prohibitive world though. i don't understand this thinking that only sober people commit crimes like rape, child abuse, murder, property damage, theft and so on and not people under the influence of drugs like meth or coke or crack.

quote:

let them all OD on pure drugs at rock-bottom prices rather than break into my house to steal my stuff.

get better security then because increasing the numbers of doped up addicted bastards on fixed incomes will eventually do just that.

LOL someone watched Reefer Madness and actually believed it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN could you please stop throwing around terms? 'socialism' and the criminalisation of narcotics have absolutely nothing to do with each other; your persistent use of 'socialism' as a euphemism for anything 'government' is incorrect and a little bit silly

The context I use "hardline socialist idealism" is the utopian dream of a "drug-free America" which is just as psychotic as a "class-less society".

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what about meth?

What about it? Do you need me to list off every single hard drug out there?

quote:

can you explain to me the difference? whatever it is your advocating one thing will be true; increasing availability would increase the the number of addictions. whether that sees a drop in violence, which i can't see that happening, that then becomes moot in the larger picture.

The difference is, a drug user is not arrested just because they use drugs. TA DA!! Decriminalization does not increase availability because it would still be illegal to produce hard drugs. So there goes that premise.

quote:

youre not really saying anything then. you want to keep meth, coke and opiates where they are, you just want to be able to smoke a doobie? wtf are we arguing about then?

I actually don't smoke anymore. If you agree that there should be a distinction btween hard and soft drugs, then this is unprecedented. We actually agree on something...

quote:

thats not regulating a market. thats addressing the symptoms the market causes. answer the question. how are you going to regulate the drug trade? how are you going to reconcile with responsible communities that want nothing to do with the drug trade? force them? i'm all ears about how youre going to apply this libertarian-at-all-costs and individual freedom bullshit with real people that aware of the real problems that come with addiction.

Regulation of soft drugs in the form of taxation, safety standards, and licensing suppliers. Communities would do as they always have. Ever heard of "public intoxication" or "DUIs"? If they don't want a cannibis shop, there is some called an "ordinance" to prevent it. It's not rocket science.

quote:

no. i don't care about socialism or any ism associated with drugs.

Trying to limit the free exercise of liberty is authoritarian socialism.

quote:

the same assholes that already do. you mean to tell me that if we decriminalize all class-A narcotics the Columbians are just gonna pack it up and sell used cars for a living? get a clue dude. the addict doesn't give a fuck who he buys from as long as he can buy it. you said it yourself, demand begets supply. the Columbians and the Afghanis of the world are still going to want to move product regardless. if they see demand shoot through the roof from decriminalization, nothing would stop them.

It is fallacy to assume decriminalization leads to higher demand. Do you have any evidence for that?

quote:

it's so is not in the same way. alchol and tobacco growers aren't violent psychopaths that want complete control of a multi-billion dollar market.

It so is. Understand the economic-side of the black market. If you are not ruthless in how you deal with your competition, competition overtakes you. Anyways, I don't want to legalize production of hard drugs.

quote:

you said "Corporate competition turns to violent competition in an underground market." which may be true to an extent, but any competition in a drug market has it's social downside regardless of who's doing the competing. you can't guarantee that you can eliminate all or any of the downside through "corporate competition"

What you would do is take the market out the hands of criminals. What does this do? There would be no question as to the quality of the product, no violent competition, legal and regulated production.

quote:

again i'll refer to my original statement that you don't care what the negatives are, you want it despite all the negatives. you want cartels and manufacturers to have their way with the market at the expense of your fellow man. it's selfish and destructive. it's shallow to the point of idiocy.

Wrong. I want authoritarians such as yourself to stop enforcing your social code on the rest of society. There is something called "liberty", which this country was founded on. You have no right to tell me or anyone else how to exercise their free will. So I'de suggest you stop telling me what I want, because you hardly know.

quote:

first off you haven't the slightest clue what neocons are, otherwise you would have never brought it up in this context so f**king can it. from the sound of it i'm not sure you even know wtf "hardline socialism" is

You are a self-admitted neocon, so explain to me how I am wrong? You are also advocating stifling millions of people's free exercise of their liberty, which is hardline socialist. Authoritarian conservatives are just so full contradictions:rollseyes:

quote:

second when you start refering to "freedoms" in the abstract never, ever, apply that to drug use. there is no "freedom" in addiction. addiction is diametric to "freedom"

You have no right to limit anyone's free exercise of their liberty. No one forced the addict to try drugs. So please don't forget that point.

quote:

if you have ever personally watched someone destroy themselves through addiction you would have thought twice about saying stupid shit like that.

I have watched people I know destroy themselves on drugs. I'de suggest you stop assuming I'm a sheltered well-to-do college kid, because you're assumptions are completely wrong. You can't force someone who does not want to stop using drugs, to stop. And if you do, you're on an authoritarian power trip. Put them jail, huh? Guess what? There are drugs in jails too. Did you know that?

quote:

you said "If there is a demand, there will be suppliers, and those suppliers will compete for demand". if you decriminalize, you automatically increase demand. therefore, how could you not be increase supply? you would have to, otherwise we come back around to to the problem of competition and the inherent violence associated with it.

Your assumption is wrong. Prove that decriminalization leads to higher demand. You keep throwing this out there, but I still have not seen one study or statistic proving it. Holland, which does have decriminalization policy has lower drug use rates IN ALL CATAGORIES compared to the USA.

quote:

youre going to have to do better or elaborate on that.

A crime is when a free person violates the life, liberty, or property of another free person. If I smoke weed, I am not killing anyone. I am not forcing anyone to anything against their will (liberty). I am not violating anyone's property rights (i.e. stealing). It is a victimless crime, and to prosecute victimless crimes is authoritarian, anti-democratic, and against the ideals of so-called inalienabe rights.

What's the point if the so called "hard drugs" stay illegal?
Legalize beer but keep bathtub gin illegal?

The market would self regualte somehow imo besides who is stupid enough to do heroin these days? Crack would probably go away since pure coke would get super cheap. And who knows maybe the colombian farmers would get the military of their backs and start growing crops instead of coca bushes.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.