 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Which is why there should be laws against driving while under the influence of certain drugs, not the drugs themselves.
Criminalizing drugs (barring, for example, pcp) makes as much sense as criminalizing cars or knives.
And how often does this happen?
Why? So alcohol consumption would increase? So the crime rates would drastically increase? |
Marijuana is implicated in violent crime quite often, but as I pointed out above almost everyone who smokes pot also drinks or does other drugs.
Prohibition did not increase alcohol consumption or crime. One of the nasty tricks played by the anti-Prohibition crowd was to compare statistics for crime in the 3 to 5 years preceeding the official enactment of prohibition with that of the decade from 1921 to 1931. The nation was at war from 1917 to 1919, with large numbers of soldiers not returning to civilian life until 1920. One way of dramatically reducing crime is to take the bulk of the young male population and put them in the army. Had they used statistics for 1900 to 1910 there would have been a clear decrease in crime after Prohibition. Furthermore, since there were no combined Federal statistics prior to 1920, they used statistics for New York and Chicago as the basis for the pre- Prohibition figures, and then compared those figures to Federal statistics for the whole country after 1920! Obviously doing this would bias the pre-1920 figures because the bulk of the US wouldn't have the high crime rate of the big cities.
Deaths from liver disease dropped dramatically after 1920. I believe that this is a good indicator that alcohol consumption decreaased.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I disagree, 90 million have not used pot. |
Give something to back that up, then. Until then, enjoy some more numbers:
In the year 2000, 24.5 million people used illegal drugs. (also note that 42.7% of cigarette smokers have used an illicit drug in the past month. And marijuana is a "gateway drug"?) Check out the tables - they're easier. And look at that, 87 million people have used some sort of illicit drug in their lifetime, 76 million of which have used marijuana. The "lifetime" percentages of people around 16-20 years old (in regard to marijuana) hover just below 50% and when age hits 35 or older, it drifts to about 30%.
quote:
We should declare war on drug lords, as they are connected with terrorist groups, the FARC for example... |
Why are they linked? Because the drug lords can make a lot of money off of drug trade (and make that much because of price inflation due to illegalization) and the terrorist organizations know they can finance themselves using drug money.
So what do you do? You make things harder, prices go up and groups like the FARC are willing to do more work for more money. Or, you could cut off their funding entirely by legalizing a drug or two.
quote:
the Burmese Triangle where most of the marijuana comes from and Mexican Cartels. |
Care to back up the statement that most marijuana in the US comes from there?
quote:
But illicit drugs have no place in society |
Obviously they do have a place, or we wouldn't have this problem.
quote:
and should be eliminated once and for all with excessive force |
What're you going to do, exterminate the cannibis plant from every forrest of every country in the world? Even if you destroyed all the drug cartels in existance today, there'd still be some kid growing marijuana in his basement, cooking up some meth in his bathtub and building an ecstacy lab in his garage. You can't stop it. That's the nature of capitalism.
Last edited by rev on 25-12-2001 at 00:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
One of the nasty tricks played by the anti-Prohibition crowd was to compare statistics for crime in the 3 to 5 years preceeding the official enactment of prohibition with that of the decade from 1921 to 1931. |
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...ry/homrate1.htm
According to the Department of Commerce, the homicide rates during the period of 1910 to 1944 are:
quote:
The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceeding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition
1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0
|
Clearly, if you throw WWI, you still see a marked increase of homicide during prohibition (keep in mind that the federal prohibition law was preceded by many local prohibition laws). And more importantly, during the period after prohibition ended and WWII ('33 - '42), there was a drastic decrease in homicide rates.
quote:
Furthermore, since there were no combined Federal statistics prior to 1920, they used statistics for New York and Chicago as the basis for the pre- Prohibition figures, and then compared those figures to Federal statistics for the whole country after 1920! Obviously doing this would bias the pre-1920 figures because the bulk of the US wouldn't have the high crime rate of the big cities. |
Eh? That should throw the bias in favor of the pro-Prohibition advocates. Since the pre-1920 stats only cover NY and Chicago, the crime rates should be substantially lower than they were presented during the pre-federal Prohibition period!
quote:
Deaths from liver disease dropped dramatically after 1920. I believe that this is a good indicator that alcohol consumption decreaased. |
Granted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...ry/homrate1.htm
According to the Department of Commerce, the homicide rates during the period of 1910 to 1944 are:
Clearly, if you throw WWI, you still see a marked increase of homicide during prohibition (keep in mind that the federal prohibition law was preceded by many local prohibition laws). And more importantly, during the period after prohibition ended and WWII ('33 - '42), there was a drastic decrease in homicide rates.
Eh? That should throw the bias in favor of the pro-Prohibition advocates. Since the pre-1920 stats only cover NY and Chicago, the crime rates should be substantially lower than they were presented during the pre-federal Prohibition period!
Granted. |
Oh Yeah! I'm really impressed by data supplied by an organization which advocates drug realization! I'm utterly certain that the basis from which the data reported in the 1st and 2nd decades of the 20th century could not possibly be the same as that for the 3rd and subsequent decades because many states simply didn't compile statewide data prior to 1920. In the 1920's the FBI convinced the states to begin compiling statewide statistics in a uniform manner. The difference in the way data was compiled would make a considerable impact on results. Let's say a state prior to 1920 has reliable data pertaining only to it's major cities, which accounted for 40% of the population. After 1920 the state, having established a state police organization, improves collection of data from rural areas as well. Now the data is being collected from 100% of the state, resulting in an apparent increase in the gross number of crimes. When researchers at a later date compute rates of crime they don't take into account that the earlier data only pertained to a fraction of the state and erroneously treat the data as if it pertained to the whole state. The crime rate of the earlier time periods is computed as lower than it really was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
|
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
But for marijuana, there is already a huge black market in place, yes? So perhaps people will decide they may as well continue to use it (=the black market).
And I was under the impression that the taxes proposed for marijuana would be higher than for cigarettes? |
Honestly, though, how many people would try calling and paging their various dealers half a dozen times and arranging a meeting place when they could go into a gas station, show their ID and get a sack? Plus, all the massive growers outside (and inside) the US would be contracted out by legal companies, not drug lords. Thus, both demand and supply go down, meaning the number of marijuana dealers drops dramatically. Instead, they have to stick with selling the harder drugs (which, let's admit, most marijuana dealers already sell as well -- in my experience, at least). Now those millions of marijuana consumers are kept seperate from the dealers (no forced interaction), meaning that they're a bit less likely to be introduced to those drugs. It's not a miracle solution, of course, but it would greatly help.
The key is that the retail price has to be a bit lower than what the dealers sell it at, and I think that's a very real possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gareth Edmunson
|
 |
Public Enemy #1
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You've smoked a little too much, my friend.
You also appear to be one of those people who smoke it because it is illegal.
Or vice versa. In Canada, the federally grown (by the government) stuff is entirely pure.
Or the people who have almost got arrested with it, or the people who wonder why the hell it's so bad when cigarettes and alcohol still are legal, or the people who aren't doing it just because it's illegal.
Kinda like the end of prohibition didn't stop the majority of the black market for alcohol, right? |
I smoke too much? Really? That never occured to me. Your insight is never ending. I know I smoke too much. I've promised myself I wouldn't smoke until after new years, and then not smoke so much.
All I'm saying is that weed isn't booze, it affects your body differently. It has different long lasting effects. And I should have known you'd use my weed smoking as an argument to prove I'm stupid, but it doesn't work like that, which again proves you know nothing about Marijuana. My brain still functions normally, I still thinks the same thoughts, just not as fast. In about a week, I'll be back to normal, but for right now, I'm slow. Not slow like retarded slow, just speed slow. I can't think as fast as I once could. If we were having this argument in person, you'd say something, then I would have to think about it for a few seconds, then respond.
I wish I smoked it only because it was illegal, but the truth is I smoke it because I'm ****ing addicted. You hear all this crap that weed isn't addictive, and it isn't (not in the normal sense), but its emotionally addictive. You get so used to the high that when you're sober its like living life at half speed. When you're high you dont worry about anything, so when you're sober, little problems seem 10x worse than they actually. Everything seems so overbearing on you that you just cave in and blaze up. Smoke for a 7 days straight from the time you wake up until you go to bed. Your opinion of marijuana will change. Its HIGHLY addictive. And it doesn't take long to get hooked either.
The same thing happens with alcohol (in a different way though) but its such a huge industry and its so engrained into western culture that no government would ever regulate it. Unless you're Ontario and just want to get money off it.
It has nothing to do with freedom. I do believe that marijuana has medicinal uses, and should be treated like any other drug and be available only by prescription...not for recreational use like booze.
Please don't say I smoke too much, I know I do. it doesn't help your argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Firstly, I am all for legalization of marijuana. The benefits heavily outweigh the risks, and we can use the enormous swing (from a huge net loser to a nice tax gainer) to do something useful like make substance abuse programs better and more readily available, or god forbid, cut other taxes.
I am somewhere between the sides trying to score points for their pro or con views of legalization. Marijuana does have a serious downside, which is not the fact that someone suffering from addiction may make it his drug of choice. Aside from the arguments put forward about it's effect on the reflexes (minor in comparison to alchohol) or it's effect on the lungs (minor in comparison to tobacco) there is another more serious health problem that has a strong correlation to marijuana, which is depression.
While everyone gets depressed to some extent, clinical depression kills a fair percentage (over 10% IIRC) of the people who suffer from it. Everyday marijuana smokers very often suffer from clinical depression from time to time (not surprising really considering that the effects of the drug seem to mirror many of the symptoms of depression), and especially when they quit using marijuana. (While they are still used to smoking it, but not smoking it).
I wish that people were more trusting of each other (freedom) so that we did not have to contend with competing camps of propogandists and apologists every time we just wanted to get information to make our own choices. Everything you choose comes with it's own risks or opportunity costs. I would rather have clear information and the freedom to use it than to have to live in a world full of drug cartels and police officers who are invested in the status quo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gareth Edmunson
|
|
Public Enemy #1
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Gareth: Weed is only addictive in the sense that alcohol is addictive. Some people use it as some kind of emotional shield or something, it's not biologically addictive. |
What did I just say Asher? Did you even listen?
Emotional or biological, its the same thing. You gte addicted, who cares why or how. In the end, you need it.
Like I said, smoke for 7 days straight, and I don't care how happy or content you are with life, you'll be addicted. But of course you shouldn't smoke for 7 days straight, so I wish you'd take my word for it... I've been there, I am there and I know what its like. But instead, you continue to run your mouth not having a clue what you're talking about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
What did I just say Asher? Did you even listen?
Emotional or biological, its the same thing. You gte addicted, who cares why or how. In the end, you need it.
Like I said, smoke for 7 days straight, and I don't care how happy or content you are with life, you'll be addicted. But of course you shouldn't smoke for 7 days straight, so I wish you'd take my word for it... I've been there, I am there and I know what its like. But instead, you continue to run your mouth not having a clue what you're talking about. |
Okay, so now explain to me this: Why should WE suffer because you aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with your problems properly?
Should we ban cars incase some dumbass decides to drive one through a mall and run people over?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
Because I'm not special, it could happen to anyone. |
Yeah, and so can being murdered with a knife. Ban those too.
quote:
With your logic, why don't we just legalise acid or heroin or coke. Whats your take on that? Why do we need prescriptions for any kind of drug, why aren't we just put on the honour system with it? its our choice, if we want to abuse it, we should be allowed to. |
Because those drugs are biologically addictive, are they not? (I believe they are, not sure.)
Any drugs that are biologically addictive should be perscribed by doctors only.
quote:
Your argument is selfish, uninformed and full of holes. |
Mine is? Isn't yours the one "you should ban it because people like myself abuse it out of emotional problems?"
If you can't deal with it, don't use it.
Having it illegal obviously isn't stopping you anyway, so explain to me again what we lose by legalizing it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
|
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
Another major difference between marijuana and coke, acid, and heroin is that the latter three (er, at least coke and heroin) can kill through normal use. Marijuana won't kill you unless you do something stupid like drive or drink a lot while smoking, whereas cocaine might make your heart explode. Now, the rates of death aren't all that high, but it's still something to think about.
RE: emotional addiction. People should be warned about this; they should be EDUCATED, not simply told "just say no". Tell people the truth about cigarettes, marijuana, ecstacy, cocaine and all the other popular 'drugs' out there. Yeah, it feels good, but if you've got this disease or if there's a long line of alcoholism in your family, you shouldn't be doing it or you should be incredibly careful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Learn some economics, BAM. By criminalizing mj, we're artificially increasing the price, and therefore the supply. |
Actually, Ramo, supply (and demand for that matter) are depressed by the War on Drugs. In that way it does seem to work, but the 'bang for the buck' is not good.
All black market goods have their usage declined. Price does rise, BECAUSE, the criminalization itself reduces supply (Less supply, same demand, equals higher prices). The higher price follows the less supply thing. Demand is also reduced because of the higher price and it is illegal.
quote:
I like it being illegal. There's always the slightest remotest chance of getting caught, but other than that its a good thing. It keeps prices down and makes it easy to get. |
Say what? The fact that it IS illegal makes the prices rise and harder to get. Unless you are being sarcastic... are you high? 
quote:
What would it solve by legalising it? If you think it would eliminate the black market for it, you're dreaming. It would only drive their prices down and drive the quality up, and create another incentive to get it ilegally. Who would benefit from it being legalized? |
The black market would be significantly reduced, akin to the current black market for alcohol (very tiny).
Prices would go down across the board, and the quality would go up across the board, in legal and illegal sellers' hands. Everyone that smoked marijuana would benefit from it being legalized, and so would those that end up living because of the end of the drug war in the ghettos.
--
Personally, I believe EVERY drug should be legalized, with warnings placed on them. People should have freedom to injest what they want. Of course, health care benefits needed because of use of these drugs should be denied. You take the risk into your own hands, and no one else will help you pay for the costs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Dr Strangelove - quote:
Marijuana is implicated in violent crime quite often, but as I pointed out above almost everyone who smokes pot also drinks or does other drugs. |
Yeah, barrooms are full of potsmokers getting into brawls. Since you've acknowledged that many people who use drugs use multiple drugs, just how do you know it's the marijuana that is "implicated"?
quote:
Prohibition did not increase alcohol consumption or crime. |
Ramo has already refuted your claim that crime didn't increase. But according to Commerce Dept statistics posted here a while back in a similar debate, alcohol consumption did increase.
quote:
One of the nasty tricks played by the anti-Prohibition crowd was to compare statistics for crime in the 3 to 5 years preceeding the official enactment of prohibition with that of the decade from 1921 to 1931. |
No one here even compared pre-prohibition and prohibition crime rates. I have mentioned in past debates that the murder rate dropped 13 years in a row following the repeal of prohibition and the stats Ramo posted support that claim.
quote:
Had they used statistics for 1900 to 1910 there would have been a clear decrease in crime after Prohibition. |
There was a clear decrease after prohibition using stats from the 20's and 30's, explain that one away.
quote:
Furthermore, since there were no combined Federal statistics prior to 1920, they used statistics for New York and Chicago as the basis for the pre- Prohibition figures, and then compared those figures to Federal statistics for the whole country after 1920! Obviously doing this would bias the pre-1920 figures because the bulk of the US wouldn't have the high crime rate of the big cities. |
And yet you would have us compare stats from 1905 with 1935? Ramo offered stats including prohibition and post-prohibition years.
quote:
Deaths from liver disease dropped dramatically after 1920. I believe that this is a good indicator that alcohol consumption decreaased. |
So they had no national crime statistics prior to 1920 but they had deaths from liver disease? Where is your source? The Commerce Dept stats show per capita alcohol consumption increased during prohibition.
quote:
Oh Yeah! I'm really impressed by data supplied by an organization which advocates drug realization! |
It must be blissful to discard rebuttals with accusations of deceit. Why are we to trust anything you claim based on government data since government wants these drugs to remain illegal?
quote:
I'm utterly certain that the basis from which the data reported in the 1st and 2nd decades of the 20th century could not possibly be the same as that for the 3rd and subsequent decades because many states simply didn't compile statewide data prior to 1920. |
While you accuse the anti-prohibition crowd of playing nasty tricks for not citing statistics from 1900-1910, in the next breath you tell us stats prior to 1920 are unreliable. 
quote:
In the 1920's the FBI convinced the states to begin compiling statewide statistics in a uniform manner. The difference in the way data was compiled would make a considerable impact on results. |
Which would mean the stats from 1920 on are more accurate. And those stats refute your claim that crime did not increase under prohibition because they clearly show an enormous drop in homocide rates after prohibition was repealed. I'd love to hear you explain why crime rates have been so much higher since the late 60's when Nixon began the drug war.
Sikander - quote:
there is another more serious health problem that has a strong correlation to marijuana, which is depression. |
Source?
Gareth - quote:
Not true and not true. Although you're right about the depression part. |
So you're claiming marijauna has a similar
impact on reflexes as alcohol? You can't be serious! And claiming marijuana has a similar impact on the lungs as tobacco is also preposterous unless you mean only by consuming roughly equal amounts and not comparing the typical pot smoker with the typical cigarette smoker - a joint or two a day compared to 1 to 2 packs a day.
Of course, pot smokers on average don't smoke nearly as long as cigarette smokers so it's no surprise it's the tobacco users who die in such amazing numbers while the prohibitionists cannot point to anyone who actually died from a pot-related disease.
quote:
Because I'm not special, it could happen to anyone. |
Oh nonsense, most pot users do not indulge like you claim to do. In fact, I've never heard of anyone who consumed as much pot as you.
quote:
With your logic, why don't we just legalise acid or heroin or coke. Whats your take on that? Why do we need prescriptions for any kind of drug, why aren't we just put on the honour system with it? its our choice, if we want to abuse it, we should be allowed to. |
Freedom - darn right!
quote:
Your argument is selfish, uninformed and full of holes. |
Selfish? You are the one who wants to steal our money - "taxes" - to put millions of people in cages for failing to get your permission to ingest their own property!
And you accuse your victims of being selfish? Might as well say, "I want to rule the country, and you'll are selfish for opposing me".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
connorkimbro
|
 |
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
is that the latter three (er, at least coke and heroin) can kill through normal use. |
As far as i know, this is not exactly true. The reason people die from these drugs is BECAUSE they are illegal. They are illegal, hence, they are unregulated, hence, some stuff will be good stuff, some will be bad stuff. Some will be a strong concentration, most will be weak concentration. Now, people start dying when they are used to weak stuff, and they get their hands on some strong stuff. They don't realize the differance in dosages, and bam, they overdose quite badly, heart attack, death.
Now, i'm not saying these drugs are good for you. I'm not saying they're not dangerous. Nevertheless, the fact that they are illegal leads to MORE people dying from this stuff, not less.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2001 19:40
|