 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Drake - quote:
Define "actual crime". |
Some people claim an "actual crime" means violating a law. But this puts these people in the position of defending the behavior of Nazis by claiming their intraGermanic behavior was not criminal as well as defending legal slavery. Others (like me) claim an "actual crime" requires a victim (or intended victim). I've never heard anyone show a logical fallacy to this second definition.
quote:
Of course. Unless you believe in terrorism. If a company is known to use shady practices, like having 5 year old kids work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop to creat huge profits, and you don't believe with this practice, and yet you still buy from them, you are a hypocrite. |
Does this mean you don't buy any products made with petroleum or does it mean you are a hypocrite? 
quote:
But in buying drugs, the line is a little clearer. The buyer knows the dealer is a criminal right off the bat. They know that they have a disregard for the law. The chances of an oil provider being linked to terrorism are probably not as good as the chances that a drug dealer are. |
The Saudis sell oil. The Saudis gave money to the Taliban and OBL was a fundraiser for the Taliban who got money from Saudis. Why is it now impossible to know if the oil you bought from the Saudis was used to fund the Taliban? If I bought opium, I have about as much knowledge as you about your oil purchases as to where the money ended up.
MacTBone - quote:
I would like to point out that drugs *gasp* have harmful effects. I know, I know, you just can't believe it, but it's true. As such the government tries to protect it's citizens. |
The US government doesn't have the authority to protect us from ourselves. Your logic would have "government" deciding on our diets, exercise routines, careers, and everything else in life. Would you want this? If not, don't start picking and choosing when government (you) can protect me from myself.
quote:
Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high? |
The ones who become violent. Or are you suggesting you should be put in prison if I become violent?
quote:
Personally, I think that alcohol should be regulated. |
It is. But your logic concerning other drugs requires you to support banning alcohol, not regulate it.
quote:
WRT to tobaccoo, I have never heard of a person harming another person while smoking. Not that I'm gleeful about it, but I figure smoker's are just killing themselves (I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason). |
You obviously did not grow up with a parent who smoked.
quote:
Yes, harming someone is illegal. So shouldn't we prevent it? If you take drugs, the probability that you will harm someone is multiplied many times over. |
Can you prove this? I've used a wide variety of drugs and never hurt others. Your argument is unsupported and immoral! You are saying that if you determine someone is more likely to hurt others then we can hurt them before they hurt anyone. That turns "innocent till proven guilty" on it's head.
quote:
What if prices dropped dramatically for what are now illegal drugs? Right now, maybe I can buy a pound of heroine or whatever, but then the price drops. Now, I can buy 17 pounds or whatever for the same amount of money. So, what does that mean? Well, it'll be that much easier to OD. Instead of making one pound last a week, or however long, I have 17 pounds for a week. Yeah, if I never became addicted, I probably wouldn't OD, but the nature of drugs, is that you become addicted. |
You need more than a pound of heroin to OD? If the heroin was legal and sold by a legitimate business, the user would have information about the quality/purity of the heroin making an OD less likely. If you use heroin and don't know the purity from one batch to the next, the chance of OD increases. And dealers often "cut" the heroin with impurities that are more harmful than the heroin just as alcohol dealers did during prohibition.
Dissident - quote:
whether it is legal or illegal in the U.S. doesn't change the fact that opium is a major resource of Afghanistant. |
And what would happen if the price supports for opium, price supports caused by prohibition, fell thru the floor? Other crops would become competitive. Banning opium makes it much more profitable and pushes it's production into the hands of people outside of the law.
quote:
So terrorists will profit from it if it is legal or illegal in the U.S. Just not as much. |
We have been giving millions to the Taliban to fight our drug war. When a government stops protecting drug producers and starts attacking them, the producers have to seek out other non-governmental organizations for protection which they pay for. If government was protecting the producers instead of attacking them, they wouldn't need to associate with terrorists. It isn't terrorists who grow the drugs...
quote:
The same can be said for Columbia. The fact that it is illegal doesn't change the fact that these countries have ideal environmental conditions for producing these drugs. |
But the fact drugs are illegal means producers need protection from the very government that should be protecting them.
quote:
So the way to correct that would be to fix Columbia's and Afghanistan's goverments. The drug would have to be legal to produce in those countries. And corruption that spill money to terrorists would have to be virtually eliminated. |
And just why do you think Colombia has been fighting our drug war? Because the US has threatened them with boycotts, blockades, CIA attempts at subterfuge and corruption (assassinations?). Colombia can not only avoid all this and more, but we give them lots of money to wage our drug war.
Ramo - quote:
Indeed. There're half a million non-violent drug offenders are locked up in the US prison system, and people like you don't seem to give a damn. |
I don't understand John T's reaction either. Would he really have no one making a fuss about this situation? Someone takes a stand against this immorality and he gets mad, not at the immorality, but at the people taking the stand! 
JohnT - quote:
I like how you misread my post. Can you PM me your secrets? Thanks!
(In case you missed it, my post was about the LP, not the drug war. Go back and reread it and tell me where I talked about the drug war.) |
Let's see:
quote:
Once again the LP aggressively campaigns on a non-winning issue. Why don't they do this for things that matter to people other than the young - like Social Security reform/privatization, tax reform, hell, even zoning law reform would get them more votes. But no, they waste time, effort, and press to try to convince America's parents that it is ok for little Johnny and Jane to legally buy heroin.
Gah! It's enough to make me retch! |
You didn't mention the drug war? What "non-winning issue" were you talking about? And what about parents and little Johnny? Ramo is right...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Berzerker, even a cursory reading of my post makes it clear that I'm pissed about the LP once again making political waves on an issue that WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL garner them anywhere near enough votes to make them an effective and viable third party.
Yes, drug legalization (or "decriminalization") is ideologically pure, but I hate to tell you:
Parents vote. And they aren't going to vote for somebody who wants to make hard drugs legal.
You know something? It doesn't matter if the Libertarians actually want to make heroin available to minors - it is the perception that matters, not the reality.
You see, here is how it will play out in the debates:
LP Candidate: My plan to reform and privatize Social Security... (s/he then lays out a brilliant plan that will ensure that every American can retire with a 7 figure asset base).
Demopub Candidate: Sounds good, but can you really trust somebody who wants your children to pick up their LSD fix at the convenience store on their way to school?
BOOM! GAME OVER, BOYS!!!!
Politics is about winning and as long as the LP can get labelled as "the wackos who want to legalize cocaine," well, they ain't goint to win. And this ad, while making a bunch of LPers feel all ideologically sound and righteous, is also killing them in the polls - as their national election results show.
*JohnT waits for the list (or maybe just a tally) of local LPers who've won elections.* 
Oh, and before you ask, I was a big Libertarian back in my college days - even voted for Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord back in '92 and Harry back in '96, not to mention all the LP candidates that happened to make the ticket. But their focus on this drug issue irritates me for the above reason, so I can't really support them now. When they actually decide to get serious about winning nationally, then I'll be glad to give them my $1,000. Until then, no.
Last edited by JohnT on 27-02-2002 at 10:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Why hasn't anyone responded to the post I made about "if drugs were legal, what do we regulate, etc."?
Oh, BTW, the US government already protects us in many ways, include the FDA. Are you suggesting that since we have an established body, that covers all drug issues, and safety concerns, that they don't know what they're talking about when they ban the drugs that are considered illegal? So, every single drug should be legal, no matter what? That's obviously not what you want, unless you're willing to buy 80 different drugs that claim to cure you of whatever ails you, and have none of them produce the desired result, or have severe side effects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Know what John? **** ideological purity. I couldn't care less about it.
Drug legalization is about justice, not some inconsequential philosophical nit-picking.
The public doesn't like it? So what? That's why the LP is putting so much energy into the pro-legalization campaign. Hopefully these campaigns are changing minds.
The moment that the LP forsakes its committment to political liberty for the sake of votes and campaign contributions is the moment that the LP loses all the support it has from me.
Last edited by Ramo on 27-02-2002 at 10:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture. |
John... I, too, find this an unacceptable injustice. However, I am by no stretch of the imagination a Libertarian, and neither am I scared of being busted--I have never, and will never use any illegal drug, nor alcohol, nor tobacco. Imprisoning people for putting something into their own bodies is simply abhorrent, and contradictory to the supposed principles of our nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
|
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
So, what? You want the FDA to be like the SGs warning on a pack of cigarettes? "If you ingest this drug you run the risk of losing all your hair"
I guess I don't understand how the FDA could help keep drugs safe to use, if we took all their power away. Every pharmaceutical company in the world would have a field day.
Someone also said that if drugs were legal they would be more pure. Well, if they were more pure, you're right that they wouldn't have a very good chance of having harmful materials (although you have to wonder whether people would just stop diluting the product because it's legal...). You have also have an easier chance of becoming addicted, and ODing.
BTW, I would like you to look at these stats http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm#to
Some highlights -
Among probationers, 49% of the mentally ill and 46% of others reported alcohol or drug use at the time of the offense.
Source: BJS, Mental Health and Treatment and Inmates and Probationers, NCJ 174463, July 1999.
About 60% of mentally ill and 51% of other inmates in State prison were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their current offense.
Source: BJS, Mental Health and Treatment and Inmates and Probationers, NCJ 174463, July 1999.
In 1996, those jail inmates convicted of drug trafficking (60%), drug possession (57%), fraud (45%), or robbery (44%) were most likely to have reported to be using drugs at the time of the offense.
Source: BJS, Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996, NCJ 164620, April 1998.
Drug use at arrest
In 1999 the Arrestees Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program collected data from more than 30,000 adult male arrestees in 34 sites and from more than 10,000 adult female arrestees in 32 sites. Data were collected from more than 2,500 juvenile male detainees in 9 sites, and more than 400 juvenile females detainees in 6 sites.
In most sites, about two-thirds of the adult arrestees and more than half of the juvenile arrestees tested positive for at least one drug.
For adult males --
Marijuana was the drug most frequently detected in 24 of the 34 reporting sites.
Cocaine was the drug most likely to be detected in the remaining 10 sites.
For adult females --
Cocaine was the drug most frequently detected in 25 of 32 sites.
Marijuana was the most frequently detected in 4 of the remaining sites.
Methamphetamine was the most frequently detected in the 3 remaining sites.
For juveniles --
Drug test positive rates for juveniles were essentially stable in 1999 compared to 1997 across all 9 sites.
Juvenile arrestees who currently attended school were less likely to test positive for at least one drug than those juveniles who were not in school. This also held true when drug-positive results were compared for each drug individually.
Marijuana was the most commonly used drug for both juvenile males and females, with cocaine use a distant second. On average more than half of the juvenile males tested positive for marijuana.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture. |
Jon, usally I respect you... but thanks for making up lies to discredit your enemies.
I've smoked pot once, and have no intention of doing it again. I will never do heroin, ecstacy, cocaine, but I want them ALL legalized. This is ideology not self-preservation (or, for drake's sake, self-interest  ).
Btw, the Libertarians are more in power than the Greens or Reform or any other 3rd party, which, by their nature won't win much in this system.
And Mac, studies also show that blacks get convicted of most crimes, does that mean racial profiling is good?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
And let me place a disclaimer: philosophically and ideologically, I agree with the decriminalization crowd. But, in the real world, the issue is a loser and I am left with the growing belief that the Libertarian Party really doesn't want to win and, subconsciously or not, pushes this issue to help ensure that they won't win. |
I'm not so sure it will always be a loser, though. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for them, but recent polls have indicated growing sympathy for legalization/decriminalization. I don't know if now is the time to let up on the issue; we may be gaining momentum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
|
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
I would very much like to hear how drugs would be if at all regulated if we made the now "illegal recreational drugs", legal. That's kind of the funny thing about it, you guys keep saying pot, cocaine, or whatever, ignoring the millions of drugs that pharmaceutical companies have invented. You concentraate on the "recreational" drugs, giving you less of a leg to stand on. If you were really gun-ho about it, you would be demanding that the FDA allow all substances equal legality. Them the question becomes, whose fault is it, if there's a prooduct out there with severe effects. Do we just chalk it up to stupid people, or do we wonder whether everyone in the country should now have a pharmaceutical license, or are there no pharmaceutical licenses, since the proffesion is obsolete, and everyone needs a strong chemistry background to figure out the effects of every drug they decide to take?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that this is BS. Do you have a source for the U.S. government funding al Quaida? |
How many millions did we give to the Taliban, because they were "on our side" in the Drug War? How much of that money do you supposed ended up with Osama bin Laden's Happy Fun Time Brigade?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"Hell, any half-baked third party (Reform, Green) gets far more notice than the "true" third party, and that is just a fact."
This has nothing to do with the issues we're pushing. Social Security reform was one of Harry Browne's main planks. He had(has) a detailed plan to totally privatize SS in five years, while using sales of federally held land (nearly half of the land in the US is government owned) to finance private accounts for people who are dependent on it.
He got almost no media coverage. It certainly wasn't because he was also calling for an end to the War on Drugs. Nader was calling for legalization of marijuana and he still got coverage.
Sorry, but the lack of media attention is a whole nother issue. It has nothing to do with WoD and everything to do with a disturbingly statist mainstream media. John Stossel is about the only mainstream reporter you could name that doesn't seem to think that government is the first, best, and only solution to the majority of problems in this country.
As far as the ads go, I think they're a good parody of the government ads (which is what they were meant to be). Their point is at least as valid as the government's, which is the purpose of the ad. To try and get people to think about it a bit.
The WoD is a major problem in the US. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in jail on non-violent drug charges. They and their families present a pretty large demographic...
Wraith
How can they call it tourist season when we're not allowed to shoot them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
I would very much like to hear how drugs would be if at all regulated if we made the now "illegal recreational drugs", legal. That's kind of the funny thing about it, you guys keep saying pot, cocaine, or whatever, ignoring the millions of drugs that pharmaceutical companies have invented. You concentraate on the "recreational" drugs, giving you less of a leg to stand on. If you were really gun-ho about it, you would be demanding that the FDA allow all substances equal legality. Them the question becomes, whose fault is it, if there's a prooduct out there with severe effects. Do we just chalk it up to stupid people, or do we wonder whether everyone in the country should now have a pharmaceutical license, or are there no pharmaceutical licenses, since the proffesion is obsolete, and everyone needs a strong chemistry background to figure out the effects of every drug they decide to take? |
It's very simple, the FDA takes on an advisory role. Even as a libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the government requiring people to tell the truth about their products. It is the government's role to protect us from force and fraud, and if a drug company was selling cyanide as a cold remedy, they should be penalized. As long as the company makes it very clear that cyanide's primary role is to kill people however, it should be legal to sell.
The real question that this debate is about, is whether people should be deprived of their rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness just because statists want to impose their will on others. And the obvious American answer, the one Thomas Jefferson and all the signatories to the Declaration of Independence would have given, is no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
 |
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty?  
And fda warnings? What good are they? People who use drugs don't normally care that much about their bodies to start. Look at cig smokers. Thousands start every day even though they know what it will do to them.
Being in-different to citizens health doesnt sound like a good idea to me. Maybe it does to you guys.
Lets say one of you has a brother whos hooked on crack. He steals money because he cant afford his habit otherwise. He sucks old perverts cocks to make extra money. His been fired 5 times in the last 3 weeks for being stoned on the job and his kidneys are rotting away on a daily basis. One way or another, he'll probably end up dead by 25. Do you
A)respect his right to choose in the name of liberty(!!!hoorah!!!)
or
B)try to help the poor schmuck by putting him in a program and getting him off the streets? (!!!boo!!!)
I'd hope some of you would choose B since a person should be more important than an ideal. In the end of this game we call life, people are all that should matter.
You start allowing your kids access to drugs, and make no doubts, being stupid teenagers, they will try them if they can. People can become addicts on some drugs first use. What happens when you realise in the name of liberty (!!!), that your kid has just become an addict, to a drug that can kill people if used improperly? Do you get mad at the kid? Or do you get mad at yourself for being a retard and voting to legalize the smack?
The children of tommorow deserve better than to be raised in a world where a kid can go to the store and buy a needle and some heroin, in contrast to his grandfathers gummy bears.
If this american society of ours was a responsible one, I would consider being open to these ideas....but since it is one of the most irresponsible in the history of the world, I fail to see the good in enabling society to **** itself up even more than it already is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty? |
So you are willing to make alcohol illegal?
quote:
Lets say one of you has a brother whos hooked on crack. He steals money because he cant afford his habit otherwise. He sucks old perverts cocks to make extra money. His been fired 5 times in the last 3 weeks for being stoned on the job and his kidneys are rotting away on a daily basis. One way or another, he'll probably end up dead by 25. Do you
A)respect his right to choose in the name of liberty(!!!hoorah!!!)
or
B)try to help the poor schmuck by putting him in a program and getting him off the streets? (!!!boo!!!) |
Well obviously, you'd try to help him. Just because alcohol is legal and people support its legality doesn't mean that they turn a blind eye when someone is consuming way too much of it.
You've been putting words into the mouths of the pro-drug legalization posters on this thread, and that is one more example of it.
quote:
You start allowing your kids access to drugs, and make no doubts, being stupid teenagers, they will try them if they can. People can become addicts on some drugs first use. What happens when you realise in the name of liberty (!!!), that your kid has just become an addict, to a drug that can kill people if used improperly? Do you get mad at the kid? Or do you get mad at yourself for being a retard and voting to legalize the smack? |
There is a 21 age limit on alcohol, and an 18 for cigarettes. Does that mean we are allowing kids access to them?
If my kid has become an addict, then it is his fault for not realizing the dangers and perhaps some of my fault for not educating him fully. I'd attempt to get him some help.
Or do you think that parents of kids that because addicted to alcohol and kicking themselves for being retards for being against Prohibition? I don't think so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2002 09:41
|