[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by series1811

Well "responsibly", would be the operative word, wouldn't it?

As for "responsible use" of illegal drugs, I would submit that any substance that thousands of people are having to be killed to get it to you would probably fail that test or definition of the word. Obviously, most illegal drug users don't see it that way.

Plug that in and see what you come up with with responsible alcohol use as you define it.

The "people killed to get it" is that a effect of the drugs or effects of the blackmarket created by the drug laws themselves?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[gwalchmai]

Originally Posted by series1811

Well "responsibly", would be the operative word, wouldn't it?

As for "responsible use" of illegal drugs, I would submit that any substance that thousands of people are having to be killed to get it to you would probably fail that test or definition of the word. Obviously, most illegal drug users don't see it that way.

Plug that in and see what you come up with with responsible alcohol use as you define it.

"Responsible use" is about what each user does, isn't it? Otherwise aren't all alcohol users responsible for drunk drivers?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by series1811

Well "responsibly", would be the operative word, wouldn't it?

As for "responsible use" of illegal drugs, I would submit that any substance that thousands of people are having to be killed to get it to you would probably fail that test or definition of the word. Obviously, most illegal drug users don't see it that way.

Plug that in and see what you come up with with responsible alcohol use as you define it.

How much violence and illegal activity was associated with alcohol during prohibition? Yet now that one can readily buy it we no longer have gangsters machine-gunning one another in the streets.

Did you know that laboratory grade ethanol is laced with methanol to prevent people from consuming it simply because it isn't taxed like consumption alcohol?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

So what about the massive societal costs dopers spread about - ER visits, low and high level crime, pain inflicted on relatives etc.

.264 - what are the societal costs of alcohol?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The only thing that has changed over time is shrewder and more sophisticated telecommunications to circulate these idiotic pictures.

This stuff is nothing new. Back in my day it was the idiots making fake acid, use of eyedroppers and cleaners to make fake PCP, and my dumbass neighbor who would huff my gas can after I cut the grass. Ooooooo, see I can be dramatic too.

Now, vary those incidents when I was a kid and add pitiful TV shows, the internet, and law enforcement who wants to justify their existence. What you get are soccer moms and grown men crying about how their daughter pawned big sister's class ring. Their solution is more laws and more big government law enforcement. I can't wipe my own ass, so let government help me do it.

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

So what about the massive societal costs dopers spread about - ER visits, low and high level crime, pain inflicted on relatives etc.

So Comrade, you think 'social cost' should dictate political policy.

How about we just end redistribution of wealth instead. You know, stop being commies.

Legalize drugs. Don't give anyone free medical care. Allow insurance companies to charge based on an individuals health and behaviors. If anyone steals to support a habit or hurts someone while high: lock them up tight for a long time.

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

.264 - what are the societal costs of alcohol?

They are significant. But nothing like the pro-rata costs of illegal drugs.

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

So Comrade, you think 'social cost' should dictate political policy.

How about we just end redistribution of wealth instead. You know, stop being commies.

Legalize drugs. Don't give anyone free medical care. Allow insurance companies to charge based on an individuals health and behaviors. If anyone steals to support a habit or hurts someone while high: lock them up tight for a long time.

That's a great speech but more or less none of that is ever going to happen.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

They are significant. But nothing like the pro-rata costs of illegal drugs.

What is factored into the pro rata numbers and how is the fact that one product is legal and another is black market?

[P99er]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Drugs are a wonderful thing

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but like drugs, you have to make proper choices.

[P99er]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

So what about the massive societal costs dopers spread about - ER visits, low and high level crime, pain inflicted on relatives etc.

The same can be said about guns. The government that decided to protect us from ourselves by banning drug use, is now trying to protect us from each other by banning guns.

Be care how much power you are willing to give the government. Remember what Washington said about government

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

That's a great speech but more or less none of that is ever going to happen.

Well in that case you might as well keep thinking like a communist.

[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

They are significant. But nothing like the pro-rata costs of illegal drugs.

However bad drugs are for society, the WoD is worse.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

One time my brother sold my Bay City Rollers album for two cans of Jolt Cola. My parents saw I was so heartbroken, so they went to city council to pass a law.

[wprebeck]

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

One time my brother sold my Bay City Rollers album for two cans of Jolt Cola. My parents saw I was so heartbroken, so they went to city council to pass a law.

And one time, someone told me "No!". And it hurt my feelings SO bad, that I've spent the rest of my life stomping my feet, and determined never to let anyone ever tell me "No!" again.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

And one time, someone told me "No!". And it hurt my feelings SO bad, that I've spent the rest of my life stomping my feet, and determined never to let anyone ever tell me "No!" again.

Telling people "No" keeps your job secure doesn't it?

[TBO]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Telling people "No" keeps your job secure doesn't it?

No.

Telling a rape victim you won't take their statement...

Telling a burglary suspect you won't take their statement...

Telling a person calling to report...

You get the picture.

[wprebeck]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Telling people "No" keeps your job secure doesn't it?

And what would you possibly know about MY job, from up there on your lofty perch?

Not to mention, there are plenty of people who get arrested for offenses that aren't drug related. Enough that my job would remain secure for at least the next century or so.

[wprebeck]

Personally, I would like to see this happen:

All the folks who clamor for legalization of drugs get their wish. Of course, I would then mandate that all who voted for it be moved to a specific area. it can be anywhere, just one big city where we move them. At the same time, we move all the drug USERS to the same area. Let's see what kind of paradise evolves from there, shall we?

Because one's wishful thinking always outweighs reality. And, the reality is, crime will not stop simply because drugs are legal. Many use alcohol as an example (ie - Prohibition), but then blantantly ignore how much crime is STILL associated with alcohol.

One last comment for our libertardian-in-chief (waiting for his alter ego to pop in...still not convinced they aren't the same people: Since you're cool with driving drunk, you won't mind giving me your address, right?

I'd like to get drunk, then spin around in circles, and pop off a few dozen rounds in the general direction of your house. And, you do NOT get to shoot back - not unless I hit you. Because as long as I miss, it's not a crime, right?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by P99er

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but like drugs, you have to make proper choices.

Where did I state your "freedom" should be eliminated? I noted that I don't believe this is an issue for the federal gov't. I do believe it ought to be left to the states (i.e., the people) to decide. I don't see where the constitution says you have a right to do cocaine (for example), nor do I see where it says you don't have a right do cocaine.

Now if the people in your state decide against your wishes, you are "free" to move to another state (e.g., Washington) that is more consistent with your desires or find another country that is more consistent with your desires.

Because I don't approve of drug use, it doesn't mean that I think you should not have that option. If I'm given a chance to vote on the issue in my state, I will vote against legalization of drugs for the personal reasons that I cited. If you happen to live in the same state, you have an equal & opposing voice on the issue.

With all that said, I have not seen anyone in my life (and I'm older than many here) who has yielded positive results from using pot, cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. However I have seen many lives ruined from them. That's my personal observations and why I would vote as I've indicated. Of course, YMMV

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Telling people "No" keeps your job secure doesn't it?

Do you honestly think that LEOs support laws against drugs as some perverse way of ensuring that they have a job? Really?

From those that I know, they have endured seeing the results from drug use over & over again. I'd be willing to bet that most times they go on a call, the reason is not because person A is using drugs. The majority of calls would that another crime was committed that generated the call...AND they find that person A was ALSO on drugs. Huh, seems like there might be some correlation there.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

And what would you possibly know about MY job, from up there on your lofty perch?

Not to mention, there are plenty of people who get arrested for offenses that aren't drug related. Enough that my job would remain secure for at least the next century or so.

Of course. Silly me.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Do you honestly think that LEOs support laws against drugs as some perverse way of ensuring that they have a job? Really?

From those that I know, they have endured seeing the results from drug use over & over again. I'd be willing to bet that most times they go on a call, the reason is not because person A is using drugs. The majority of calls would that another crime was committed that generated the call...AND they find that person A was ALSO on drugs. Huh, seems like there might be some correlation there.

If you follow the rabbit hole, most certainly they do. They have a financial incentive for it to continue. Fewer laws, fewer arrests, less funding, fewer cops, less overtime.

Your last point contradicts wpbteck's point above

[JLB768]

Pics like these have been floating around long enough for most to see, you'd think it would be enough to stop someone from trying meth the first time...Apparently not.

[certifiedfunds]

Grants, DARE, taxes, policing for profit, prisons as the largest employer in many small towns

Same as ATFE agents benefitting from gun laws, IRS agents benefitting from tax code complexity

Attorneys benefitting

Lots of people feed at the legislative trough