 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
People like Bill O'Reilly repeatedly throw this statistic out to paint a picture of addicts running around shooting and mugging people. But what is the truth?
Even if we accept the validity of the statistic as the percentage of drug users convicted of crimes, how many of these people were actually committing crimes with real victims in accordance with the picture being painted by the prohibitionists?
A large percentage of this number is made up of people convicted of possessing drugs - buying, selling, or possession. While I don't know the number I would expect that over half are convicted of possession, say, 60%, which means about 30% of the crime is committed by "addicts" (apparently every user is an addict). But the number shrinks even more when we acknowledge that some of these addicts are engaged in and convicted of prostitution to purchase drugs - maybe 3% of the 30%.
But the number decreases even more given the fact many addicts who steal from others to pay for drugs do so not because the drugs they are using somehow compels them to commit crimes, but because they run out of drugs and need money to buy more drugs. Claiming the need for money to buy the drugs is no different than "compelling" these people to commit crimes ignores the picture painted by the prohibitionists - that the drugs biologically induce criminal behavior. Johnny uses pot, and the pot makes Johnny shoot his neighbor because pot induces violence, rather than Johnny shoots his neighbor in a bungled mugging because he needs money to buy pot, etc.
The problem with this equation is that if it's not so much the drugs that induce crime but the need for money to buy drugs, then a policy - prohibition - designed to inflate the cost of drugs is linked to the crime. A heroin addict willing to steal from others to raise money for heroin needs to steal alot more - with more victims - if the heroin costs hundreds of dollars rather than the few dollars the drug would cost if legal.
If the cost of food was inflated by 40 times with a gallon of milk costing $100, the resulting crimes committed by people to raise money to buy food would be the result of a stupid policy as well as people willing to steal. If 25-30% of crime is committed by addicts, how much of this is committed by people trying to raise money for drugs rather than people committing crimes while "drug-crazed"? I'd bet much of this 25-30% is the result of people committing property crimes or muggings to raise the money to buy drugs.
That would leave us with about 10-15% of the crime - real crime with victims - in this country committed by people who were "compelled" by the drugs to commit their crimes. But the statistic is actually smaller given the fact some of the crime categorized as "drug-related" is the result of the black market - crime that does not include possession, but the Mafia/gangs fighting over marketshare.
How much is a matter of speculation, but I'll bet the percentage of "drug-related" crime actually committed by addicts who were "compelled" to commit their real crimes by the drugs is 1-3%!
Anyone know of a site that actually breaks down crime statistics to show a more accurate picture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Kyle - quote:
He actually used that as evidence that the drug war wasn't working. |
But his solution is to increase the drug war, not reduce or eliminate it.
Osweld - quote:
I thought being an addict in and of itself was a crime? |
Depends on how the word "crime" is defined. If we define it as any illegal activity, then real crimes like slavery and genocide are not crimes if they are legal.
This goes to the question of which came first, crime or "government". Was government created to identify what is or is not a crime or was government created to stop or deter crime that existed before the creation of government. In other words, did government invent crime by passing laws or did crime lead to the creation of government to combat crime.
Only the latter makes sense since the perpetrators of the worst crimes have been governments which precludes government as the arbiter of what is or is not a crime. The best definition of "crime" requires a victim, therefore, drug use is not a crime even though government says otherwise...
Faded Glory - quote:
But he doesnt like the war drugs either. He thinks the solution is to put army on mexico border to stop hard drugs. |
He likes the drug war - prohibition, he just wants it fought his way.
quote:
Which would probably work some to stop the hard stuff. |
Nah, the traffickers would just find a way around the army. And Posse Comitas(?) doesn't allow for the military to be used to enforce laws except in time of rebellion or war.
quote:
I think he wants to legalize medicinal and recreation marijiauna, not sure about latter. |
I'm not sure about either, I've never heard him advocate the legalization of pot for any reason, only the opposite.
quote:
But I think he is wrong. I disagree on some of his liberal ideas... |
If freedom is a liberal idea, what is the conservatism that opposes it? Remember, if "government" can outlaw your use of pot, it can regulate or ban anything else you might what to ingest - and that ain't freedom.
DinoDoc - quote:
Let's turn this thread away from the usual course it is bound to follow and have some people answer this question. What sort of changes would a Libertarian like to see made to current law in order to allow for legalization, ie How would you prevent another round of "Big Tobacco" type lawsuits? |
The same changes we need now anyways. No one can sue for the damage they do to themself as long as the product they are using doesn't malfunction within reasonable limits. The new TV I buy blows up and sets the house on fire - lawsuit. My 15 year old TV goes kaput, time for a new TV. Of course, with products like tobacco or pot, the only consumer protection would be against fraud or mis-labeling - selling a product as tobacco or pot when it's something else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
People like Bill O'Reilly repeatedly throw this statistic out to paint a picture of addicts running around shooting and mugging people. But what is the truth?
|
sometimes facts are the truth
quote:
A large percentage of this number is made up of people convicted of possessing drugs - buying, selling, or possession. While I don't know the number I would expect that over half are convicted of possession, say, 60%, which means about 30% of the crime is committed by "addicts" (apparently every user is an addict). But the number shrinks even more when we acknowledge that some of these addicts are engaged in and convicted of prostitution to purchase drugs - maybe 3% of the 30%.
|
so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient
quote:
But the number decreases even more given the fact many addicts who steal from others to pay for drugs do so not because the drugs they are using somehow compels them to commit crimes, but because they run out of drugs and need money to buy more drugs. Claiming the need for money to buy the drugs is no different than "compelling" these people to commit crimes ignores the picture painted by the prohibitionists - that the drugs biologically induce criminal behavior. Johnny uses pot, and the pot makes Johnny shoot his neighbor because pot induces violence, rather than Johnny shoots his neighbor in a bungled mugging because he needs money to buy pot, etc.
|
Johnny should get a job and stop shooting people and get treated for his addiction. Whats your point here?
quote:
The problem with this equation is that if it's not so much the drugs that induce crime but the need for money to buy drugs, then a policy - prohibition - designed to inflate the cost of drugs is linked to the crime. A heroin addict willing to steal from others to raise money for heroin needs to steal alot more - with more victims - if the heroin costs hundreds of dollars rather than the few dollars the drug would cost if legal.
|
This is a big assumption on your part. You are assuming the government wouldn't tax it at all. I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation to pay for all the treatment these people are gonna want when they realize heroin is destroying them.
quote:
If the cost of food was inflated by 40 times with a gallon of milk costing $100, the resulting crimes committed by people to raise money to buy food would be the result of a stupid policy as well as people willing to steal. If 25-30% of crime is committed by addicts, how much of this is committed by people trying to raise money for drugs rather than people committing crimes while "drug-crazed"? I'd bet much of this 25-30% is the result of people committing property crimes or muggings to raise the money to buy drugs.
|
Last I checked, this weekend, a gallon of skim milk cost me $3.25. Thats 3.25%(that was some easy math) of the price your are just making. When Milk does cost $100 a gallon, and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again.
quote:
That would leave us with about 10-15% of the crime - real crime with victims - in this country committed by people who were "compelled" by the drugs to commit their crimes. But the statistic is actually smaller given the fact some of the crime categorized as "drug-related" is the result of the black market - crime that does not include possession, but the Mafia/gangs fighting over marketshare.
How much is a matter of speculation, but I'll bet the percentage of "drug-related" crime actually committed by addicts who were "compelled" to commit their real crimes by the drugs is 1-3%!
|
Lets assume that what you said was true, even though it is mostly fictoral. And that 1%percent of crime involves your family. Your wife or your child or your mom is robbed and killed. It would have been nice to have saved their life.
quote:
Anyone know of a site that actually breaks down crime statistics to show a more accurate picture? |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"While I don't know the number I would expect that over half are convicted of possession,"
This does seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell exactly what that means thanks to the plea bargain system.
--"I thought being an addict in and of itself was a crime?"
Being addicted isn't, but trying to satisfy your addiction is.
--"What sort of changes would a Libertarian like to see made to current law in order to allow for legalization, ie How would you prevent another round of "Big Tobacco" type lawsuits?"
Major tort reform, which has been very much needed in this country for a long time. The lawyers have run the show long enough that this is highly unlikely, though.
--"so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient "
Actually, the part about half of them being convicted of simple possession matches some stats I dug up a while back for another thread, which did show that about half of people in jail with drug charges as their most serious conviction were in on possession.
The numbers you link to, by the way, are not at all detailed in breakdown. They lump all drug charges, including the basic posession charge, together.
--"I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation"
Nothing is taxed that heavily right now. Things like heroin and marijuna are not at all expensive to create, and wouldn't be expensive to store or transport if they were legal. Street prices are still several hundred, if not thousands, times greater than the expenses on some of those. Even going to European-gas-tax levels prices would be an order of magnitude lower.
--"and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again."
There's actually historical precedent for his argument. Perhaps you've heard of the Prohibition. Violent crime rates rose dramatically after it was instituted, fell greatly after it ended, and rose dramatically again when the War on Drugs got going.
Of course, milk prices are greatly inflated these days, as are most food prices. Kind of amusing how we on the one hand subsidize farmers to keep prices high and on the other hand out money so poor people can buy food... But, this is what passes for logic in government.
Wraith
"Many of the politicians who say that marijuana is a "gateway" drug (leading to cocaine and crack use) apparently smoked marijuana themselves when they were younger. By their logic, that makes them crack-heads and we should pay no attention to what they say."
-- Harry Browne
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Let's look at this a different way.
What do people here think would happen to crime rates and society in general if tobacco were made illegal and that law were enforced with the same zeal as the current drug laws in the United States.
My personal opinion is that:
A) Crime would go up since not everybody would quit, we can debate what pct. would or wouldn't, but some portion of the population would be involved in using a controlled substance, "the drug addict".
B) Someone would sell the substance to users, "the pusher". He's probably be the same guy you'd probably go to if u needed herion too so then tobacco would become "the gateway drug".
C) The price would go up since there would be no consistant supply and do to the added risk "the pusher" would assume.
D) Some people wouldn't have enough money to pay for the higher priced tobacco so they would steal to get the money. Others might go into prostitution (the tobacco whore) or sell the stuff (the pusher) themselves to get the money. Still others may spend money they would have spent on more worthwhile things like their kids college education fund.
E) The quality of the product would be dubious and perhaps more harmful then it already is.
F) The profit would go into the black market (the tobacco cartels) as opposed to being split by a legitmate business owner and the illegitimate government tax.
G) Your taxes would go way up to enforce the law (the war on tobacco).
H) Violence would increase as rival growers and distributors protected thier turf.
I) Someone would develop super powerful strains of tobacco (the nicotine overdose) and different forms of the drug (crystal nicotine)
J) My parents, in the 8th decade of their lives, would go from model citizens enjoying their retirement and going to 7-11 for a pack of cigareettes to the scum of the earth, addicted, "nicotine head" criminals living day to day to figure out how to get their next fix.
Thats just my opinion though. What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
CB2034 - quote:
sometimes facts are the truth |
The definition of "fact" is truth so all facts are truth, not sometimes.
quote:
so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient |
My estimates of how much "drug-related crime" is actually attributable to non-criminal activities like possession may be off by modest amounts, but not the fact that "possession" is included within the statistic O'Reilly offered as proof that addicts are running around shooting and mugging people. If possession is a crime according to O'Reilly and the stat compilers (and it is), then it is not only included in his stat, it makes up the largest percentage of crimes reflected by the stat. Are you disputing my claim that possession, which includes the buying and selling of drugs, factors into the stat O'Reilly offered?
quote:
Johnny should get a job and stop shooting people and get treated for his addiction. Whats your point here? |
The point is that not all muggings/murders are committed by people because the drugs they use somehow compel them to commit these crimes, but that because the drug war inflates the cost of drugs, many users who commit these crimes do so to raise the extra revenue to buy the drugs. And if Johnny doesn't do what you suggest, and continues doing what he is doing, the added costs of buying drugs because of the drug war means Johnny might need to rob people for money to buy the drugs. If he could buy the drugs at their legal market prices, then he could do so by panhandling or getting a minimum wage job.
quote:
This is a big assumption on your part. You are assuming the government wouldn't tax it at all. I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation to pay for all the treatment these people are gonna want when they realize heroin is destroying them. |
I'm not responsible for reading your mind as to what you want so don't tell me I am making a big assumption, my comment only pointed out that if a policy tries to dramatically inflate the cost of products in demand, and some people are willing to steal to get the money to meet those inflated costs, the policy is linked to the crime. Am I taxed now to pay for Alcoholics Anonymous? Forced treatment is a joke if the addict doesn't want to quit, and if he wants to quit, he doesn't need government "treatment". Btw, if you want "taxes" - legalized theft - to inflate the costs to their current level, you won't get rid of the black market fueling some of the crime in this country. The victims of property crimes resulting from the inflated costs of drugs are essentially paying a "tax" now to pay for the drug war.
quote:
Last I checked, this weekend, a gallon of skim milk cost me $3.25. Thats 3.25%(that was some easy math) of the price your are just making. When Milk does cost $100 a gallon, and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again. |
You're missing the point, If the cost of food was inflated as many times as the drugs, crime would go up, not down. If milk cost $100 a gallon and the costs of other foods were also increased in a similar fashion, not only would crime escalate beyong belief, the result would be a revolution or a change of the policy at the polls.
quote:
Lets assume that what you said was true, even though it is mostly fictoral. And that 1%percent of crime involves your family. Your wife or your child or your mom is robbed and killed. It would have been nice to have saved their life. |
But how did the drug war "save" their lives? According to the estimated breakdown of the stats I offered, they are more likely to be robbed or killed by an addict trying to raise the money to buy drugs, or as "colateral" damage because of the black market - government's enforcement of the drug laws. Believe it or not, I'm more worried government agents will break into our home in the middle of the night based on some paid informant's "word" that we have drugs than an addict robbing us for money. Btw, how do the actions of ~ 1% justify punishing the remaining ~ 99%? That is your argument! Punish millions of people - all drug users - because a much smaller group commit actual crimes with victims. Does it bother you that racists use your "logic"? One last point, I thought you were a Christian. If so, does the Golden Rule mean you want us to punish you because someone else committed a crime?
Your link didn't offer a breakdown of the "drug-related crime" statistics.
Wraith - quote:
This does seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell exactly what that means thanks to the plea bargain system. |
True, I imagine most plea bargains are lowering a drug dealing charge to possession.
quote:
Being addicted isn't, but trying to satisfy your addiction is. |
Through stealing, but you knew that 
quote:
Actually, the part about half of them being convicted of simple possession matches some stats I dug up a while back for another thread, which did show that about half of people in jail with drug charges as their most serious conviction were in on possession. |
Yup, a fact (estimate) ignored by O'Reilly and many other supporters of the drug war when they throw around statistics that paint a false picture of reality.
quote:
There's actually historical precedent for his argument. Perhaps you've heard of the Prohibition. Violent crime rates rose dramatically after it was instituted, fell greatly after it ended, and rose dramatically again when the War on Drugs got going. |
Another fact ignored by the prohibitionists. A rather amusing debate between Dr Strangelove (a prohibitionist) and Ramo had the good Doc claiming alcohol prohibition reduced crime even after Ramo posted Commerce Dept stats showing that homocide rates significantly increased - almost doubled - under prohibition. The Doc said the stats were invalid because they were not accompanied by publication dates, lol.
Kyle - quote:
And so what if he did want to increase the drug war? |
I was responding to the claim he wanted to reduce current outlays for drug enforcement.
quote:
There can be more than one way to do it, but a population hooked on hard drugs or even soft drugs, is not a good thing for the country. |
You would use heroin if it was legal? I wouldn't and I've used a wide variety of drugs that never "hooked" me. But I have news for you, the rest of us do not exist to serve your desires. My only obligation to you is to not physically harm or defraud (or steal from) you. I wish you recognised the same obligation when you have "government" steal (yeah, it's "legal") my money to pay for what you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Deity Dude - quote:
What do people here think would happen to crime rates and society in general if tobacco were made illegal and that law were enforced with the same zeal as the current drug laws in the United States. |
The irony is that none other than Orrin Hatch (Sen. of Utah) had hearings a few months after the Rob Reiner cigarette tax went into effect in California and that the testimonials were from hand-picked crime experts who identified an increase in black market crime resulting from the tax. While Hatch agreed that crime increased due to the tax, he apparently cannot understand that the same cause and effect applies to other drugs as well. Of course, he gets money from tobacco dealers
My personal opinion is that:
quote:
A) Crime would go up since not everybody would quit, we can debate what pct. would or wouldn't, but some portion of the population would be involved in using a controlled substance, "the drug addict". |
Aside from the oxy-moron of claiming prohibition will reduce crime by criminalizing a peaceful activity - freedom -engaged in by tens of millions of people, the crime increases even more because of the black market and government enforcement "mistakes".
quote:
B) Someone would sell the substance to users, "the pusher". He's probably be the same guy you'd probably go to if u needed herion too so then tobacco would become "the gateway drug". |
That was what a recent government medical commission concluded - that marijuana is only a "gateway" drug in the sense that it's illegal status promotes the incentive to buy other illegal drugs offered by the dealer when pot supplies are low. Btw, I used alcohol and tobacco long before ever trying pot, but I don't hear the prohibitionists pushing for wars on these drugs based on the fact millions of people used these before other drugs.
quote:
C) The price would go up since there would be no consistant supply and do to the added risk "the pusher" would assume. |
quote:
F) The profit would go into the black market (the tobacco cartels) as opposed to being split by a legitmate business owner and the illegitimate government tax. |
It's quite funny to hear an "oil man" like Bush tell drug users they are guilty of funding terrorist groups that make money by "protecting" drug producers when it is government policies that push the drug producers into the arms of these groups.
quote:
D) Some people wouldn't have enough money to pay for the higher priced tobacco so they would steal to get the money. Others might go into prostitution (the tobacco whore) or sell the stuff (the pusher) themselves to get the money. Still others may spend money they would have spent on more worthwhile things like their kids college education fund. |
I couldn't see myself stealing to buy tobacco if it was illegal, but then again, I didn't steal to buy the illegal drugs I used either. But the nature of black markets leads to more crime because the suppliers and buyers are already breaking one set of laws so breaking other laws to avoid getting caught or in the course of doing business becomes a viable option. But obviously some people do steal to buy what they want, most of these people are called Democrats and Republicans 
quote:
E) The quality of the product would be dubious and perhaps more harmful then it already is. |
Which is why I can't take seriously the prohibitionists who claim they are concerned with the addict's well-being. If they were, they wouldn't support a policy that promotes a lack of quality control along with the often hostile environment in which transactions take place.
quote:
G) Your taxes would go way up to enforce the law (the war on tobacco). |
Yup, taxes are nothing but "legalized stealing", but it's those drug addicts who are immoral 
quote:
H) Violence would increase as rival growers and distributors protected thier turf. |
When was the last time you heard about alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare? I usually ask this question when debating prohibitionists but never get an answer.
quote:
I) Someone would develop super powerful strains of tobacco (the nicotine overdose) and different forms of the drug (crystal nicotine) |
That was how "crack" was invented, the poor man's cocaine. But when crack hit the streets, the prohibitionists NEVER acknowledged it was the result of the war on cocaine which, in turn, was a result of the war on marijuana.
quote:
J) My parents, in the 8th decade of their lives, would go from model citizens enjoying their retirement and going to 7-11 for a pack of cigareettes to the scum of the earth, addicted, "nicotine head" criminals living day to day to figure out how to get their next fix. |
How can we have a war without "demons" to fight?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Drago - quote:
It seems to me that criminal behaviour and drug abuse are further linked and interwined in that both activities are stupid and self destructive. The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes. |
Neither I nor millions of others who have used drugs - legal or illegal - committed petty crimes. Do fools make these kind of generalizations
quote:
So the real problem to correct is not drugs, or crime, but stupid self destructive behaviour. |
You mean "re-education" centers to teach us how to better take care of ourselves?
quote:
In other words you need to cure the disease not just bandage over the symptoms of the disease. You need some way for the fools in question to maximize what intelligence they possess, and to increase their self image so that they have no wish to harm themselves anymore. |
You're assuming every drug user is causing an unacceptable level of harm by their standards, not yours. Many addicts are trying to ease the physical or emotional pain they've suffered so you're right to a degree. Often the drugs are not the cause, but a symptom of other problems.
quote:
Then the drug and crime issues are moot, because the former criminals will be busy in some productive enterprise- being a vital part of society rather than sucking the life out of it- and themselves. |
I disagree that drug users are criminals. Just because "government" says an activity is "criminal" doesn't mean it is, nor is an activity non-criminal just because "government" says it is legal.
Slavery and genocide have been, and are in some places, legal activities, but they are still criminal. "Government" is nothing more than a group of people and their opinions are no better by virtue of their status as "government" than the opinions of others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I disagree that drug users are criminals. Just because "government" says an activity is "criminal" doesn't mean it is, nor is an activity non-criminal just because "government" says it is legal. |
Well, no, you are wrong. Government does in fact decide what is legal and what is illegal. Its is their primary function, it is what allows society to function. Without laws and government you have only chaos. Read the Constitution.
I suspect that you are trying to say an activity is not "right" or "wrong" because the Government says so. If that is the case, I agree.
To illustrate the difficulty of solving the problem of self destructive behaviour, look at the family of John Adams. He had three sons- presumably raised under similar circumstance. One became President and was considered among the most brilliant men of his time, John Quincy Adams. Another son was quite ordinary, he stayed home on the family farm. A third son became a drunk, and was so self destructive it eventually killed him.
So what was the difference? Genetic? Intelligence? Something else? I dont know. It may be an unalterable human condition, that some of us are just predestined to be "bad people". I dont believe that, but who knows?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
The problem is not drugs.
The problem is not crime.
The problem is poverty.
Addicts don't commit crimes. Poor addicts commit crimes. Rich addicts go on to found places like the Betty Ford Clinic, where other rich addicts can go to detox. You want to stop crime by addicts? Yes, legalize drugs and treat addiction as a disease, not a crime. But above all, ameliorate the devastating effects of poverty. (Bonus: you'll stop terrorism, too. Check my sig.) This is just one of the places where western Europe (and probably Canada and Australia too) is way, way ahead of the US.
Edit - Before any else sidetracks this: yes, rich individuals and wealthy corporations commit crimes, too; hell, if the Fortune 500 were a street gang they'd be on the FBI's Most Wanted list (among them, they average more than 1 felony per day). But when O'Reilly and other media blowhards mouth off about crime, they never mean tax evasion, political bribery, or toxic dumping. They mean the kind of crime commited by the poor.
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 08-01-2002 at 19:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Drago - quote:
Note that that I said "drug abuse", not "drug use". It is indeed possible to use a drug, like having a a glass of wine with dinner. However at some point it becomes self destructive- it becomes abuse. Whether your particular level of drug use falls into the former category or the latter, is for you to decide. And yes, I agree that to generalize is another way to make a fool of yourself. |
The problem with this is that users are not the ones who get to decide when they magically become "abusers", the people pushing the drug war decide that. I rarely hear them mention drug use, but drug abuse is the phrase commonly used. I most certainly qualified as a drug abuser in their minds back when I was using drugs, but I never stole to buy drugs.
quote:
The best possible moral education is certainly a good start, though. |
Hmm...are drug "abusers" immoral? If so, why? Please answer without making a generalization...
quote:
Well, no, you are wrong. Government does in fact decide what is legal and what is illegal. |
I didn't say otherwise, I said government is not the arbiter of what is or is not criminal.
quote:
Its is their primary function, it is what allows society to function. Without laws and government you have only chaos. |
And a government that has immoral laws is worse than chaos. Under a system of "chaos", people can defend themselves from evil-doers whereas under an immoral government, they are put in the position of defending themselves from evil-doers wearing badges. If we could ask the millions of victims of Hitler and Stalin if they could have lived in "chaos" rather than under those governments, I'd bet they choose "chaos".
quote:
Read the Constitution. |
I have, and no where in that document does it say Congress can decide what we ingest. The Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses were meant to create a free trade zone within the US while blocking the states from making their own trade treaties with other nations. But even if we ignore the Framer's intent, neither power touches intrastate commerce and non-commerce which makes up much of the drug use in this country.
quote:
I suspect that you are trying to say an activity is not "right" or "wrong" because the Government says so. If that is the case, I agree. |
What other basis do you use for determining what is criminal? Which came first, crime or government? If you say government, then you put yourself in the position of arguing that slavery and genocide are not crimes because governments have committed both.
quote:
To illustrate the difficulty of solving the problem of self destructive behaviour, look at the family of John Adams. He had three sons- presumably raised under similar circumstance. One became President and was considered among the most brilliant men of his time, John Quincy Adams. Another son was quite ordinary, he stayed home on the family farm. A third son became a drunk, and was so self destructive it eventually killed him. |
They all chose their respective paths, I'd rather we each choose our paths rather than a king decide for us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drago Sinio
|
|
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Hmm...are drug "abusers" immoral? If so, why? Please answer without making a generalization... |
Yes, they are being immoral. First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others" which is the simplest definition I can think of at the moment. You must agree that drug abuse is harmful to yourself and or to others. Its just a question of degree. It can take the extremely harmful form of a drunk driver causing a fatal accident, or the relatively benign form of damaging your own health. I would even argue that since you are not at your best while under the influence, you are harming yourself in that instead of lying on the couch in a drug induced stupor, you could be doing something productive. Its just a question of degree.
quote:
I didn't say otherwise, I said government is not the arbiter of what is or is not criminal. |
Yes, in fact it is. If you define crime as breaking the law, and government writes the law, then clearly you are absolutely wrong.
If you are defining "crime" in some other way, you need to be more specific as to your definition in order for your argument to be understood.
quote:
If we could ask the millions of victims of Hitler and Stalin if they could have lived in "chaos" rather than under those governments, I'd bet they choose "chaos". |
Yes, I agree. I forget the exact phrase, but in either the Declaration or the Consititution it says somehting similar to
" A just government draws its power from the consent of the governed".
quote:
I have, and no where in that document does it say Congress can decide what we ingest. The Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses were meant to create a free trade zone within the US while blocking the states from making their own trade treaties with other nations. But even if we ignore the Framer's intent, neither power touches intrastate commerce and non-commerce which makes up much of the drug use in this country. |
I agree that there is no specific prohibition of drug abuse, nor is there any specific protection of it.
quote:
Which came first, crime or government? If you say government, then you put yourself in the position of arguing that slavery and genocide are not crimes because governments have committed both. |
No, not at all. Governments often break or suspend their own laws. And I don't believe that either slavery or genocide are currently legal in the US.
quote:
They all chose their respective paths, I'd rather we each choose our paths rather than a king decide for us |
Yes, I believe the American Revolution addressed that particular issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Berserker, I highly doubt O'Reilly's statistic. First off, it seems to me that the majority of all crimes are probably traffic violations. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Second, O'Reilly is likely only considering non-traffic convictions, and not accounting for crimes that go unreported and unsolved. Finally, as Rufus T. Firefly previously mentioned, there is a vast amount of corporate crime that goes on that is ignored by O'Reilly and his ilk. You are correct about possession. Approximately half of all people in prison are there on possession charges, but as Wraith mentions, that may well have something to do with plea bargining.
As much I may dislike O'Reilly, I have to give him props for something. On Sep 22, he invited an Arab American university professor on his show, and then proceeded to do his O'Reilly thing (take quotes of of context, etc. etc.). End result, the tenured professor gets fired from his University of South Florida position. O'Reilly has public criticized the University for doing this, whether this is because O'Reilly actually stands for the right of everyone to have his own opinions or because O'Reilly won't have any guests if they are in danger of losing their jobs, it doesn't matter. At least he's taking the University to task (and opposing Jeb Bush who supports the firing) for this violation of the 1st Amendment. Props Bill. 
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2002 06:22
|