Make all drugs legal; stop the myths~

The question had been one of deaths increasing due to increased drug use vs due to increased violent crimes, which it being asked if it would not be better to have violent crime be the one increased. It is far better, freedom wise, if you cause harm to yourself than if it is caused to you by others.

 

So you believe the opinions of those that serve the public are trivial? I place more weight on the opinions of those looking at things with their own eyes and not through a computer screen.

 

Again, is part of your friend's job enforcing drug sniffing?

 

How can someone harm themselves with drugs without the actions of the people who manufacture them?

 

No, but two people have been engaged in the killing. You simply cannot equate two people killing someone to one person stealing something, and then another person receiving the stolen item. It just doesn't work.

 

Well it's tough to equate tobacco and alcohol to any drug other than weed. As for weed, hell, even I support the legalisation of that! It truly is a JOKE that weed is illegal but alcohol is not, when alcohol can kill people but weed can't. TOTALLY inconsistent. You have to admit that there are gradations of lethality with drugs, and as such you cannot equate weed to say ICE! Also, in areas where weed is legal, are criminals no longer involved in it?

Already do what?

Interesting. What regulations would you propose, other than the obvious not selling to kids.

With no accompanying support.

Which would only mean that the money stolen would get them more weed, which they will promptly smoke in the same period of time to if it was a lesser amount of weed! At which point, they need to steal more money.

What's the answer?

You know that I'm talking about black market guns, right?

 

Make ALL drugs legal??

Wold that include narcotics used for pain.......( Morphine, Demerol...etc

How about general anesthetics used in surgery???

 

Come on, you know what people mean when they talk about whether drugs should be legal!

 

That was tongue n cheek. But I would not have used to he word ALL.........

 

How can someone harm themselves with a kitchen knife without the actions of the people who manufacture them?

Then by what sense is the question of:

have anything to do with the issue? You were the one that brought up the idea of harm level increase. I answered and countered that concept. Maybe you need to reword the concept you are trying to get across.

You asked:

It can legitimately be said that both alcohol and tobacco are highly dangerous and do destroy lives and even communities. Tobacco causes cancers and people will spend money they don't really have to make sure they have their cigs. And alcoholism! How can you not say that alcohol is not highly dangerous, is not potentially lethal, or does not destroy lives and communities?

That has nothing to do with whether you are providing good arguments for such. You and I agree with that goal. But if you put forth a bad argument for it, I will call you out on it. For example, and I know this is not an argument that you would actually use, if you made the argument that weed should be legal because God said so, I would call you out on that argument, because it is a bad argument in the context of any government that is a theocracy.

Weed can kill you. You can overdose on weed just like you can on anything, including something like vitamin K. It can also be responsible for your death and the death of others if you are driving or operating machinery while under the influence, just as with alcohol.

Of course there are gradations of lethality of drugs. That is true whether the drug is legal or illegal. Look at opiate based drugs. Still legal despite being at a much higher lethality than weed, and depending on the form even ICE.

That's like asking if criminals are still involved in alcohol now that prohibition is over. If the drug is legal, then it is not a crime to sell it unless it is a regulated drug. As a general rule of thumb though, their status as criminals would not be due to the weed, as it is not a regulated drug in those areas.

They already "manufacture highly dangerous and potentially lethal drugs which destroy lives and communities"

Ones similar to alcohol should suffice.

Pot kettle achromatic. I haven't seen a lot of support coming from you either.

That said:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...n-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

You are basing this on what data? Again, don't call for others to support unless you will support.

Alcoholics more often end up begging for money, if they don't have regular income, to feed their addiction than they steal it. That's not to say that there are not those who steal to get alcohol, but they are by far a minority.

Yes, but that black market already exists, and either they are already involved, or are more likely to not be able to start up since someone else will be running that racket in their area.

 

Is any additional harm caused by the person accepting the stolen goods?

 

Is there any additional harm caused by a second person killing you?

 

Your question makes no sense. Please educate yourself on the duties of law enforcement and come back when you are at least as informed as someone that watched an episode of Cops.

 

Your question makes no sense. Please educate yourself on the duties of law enforcement and come back when you are at least as informed as someone that watched an episode of Cops.

 

It makes perfect sense. Either drug sniffing is part of your friend's job or it's not! What made no sense was your inclusion of "drug sniffing" in the first place, which is not even a drug. Obviously drug sniffing has nothing to do with your friend's job and you inserted it into the conversation in attempt to trivialise! Good job!

 

No. So then what do you mean by "participating in the harm?"

 

Are you actually equating a kitchen knife with lethal drugs?

Actually, I thought that YOU were making the argument for harm level increase in the case of someone receiving stolen goods!

Sure, but the point is that the destruction associated with tobacco and alcohol is simply not comparable. Even though tobacco and alcohol have resulted in more death than drugs. However, drugs have resulted in more YOUNG deaths than tobacco and alcohol. Anyway, I'm sure that you're not making the argument that just because tobacco and alcohol are legal, this means that all illegal drugs should be legal too.

I'm not.

One in a million though, right? Either way, not equatable to something like ice.

Yes, just another reason why it's totally inconsistent for it to be illegal but alcohol is legal.

As in, medicinal drugs?

Are they?

Well, I was operating under the reasonable assumption that if they are involved in one illegal thing, they're probably criminals for other reasons too. Perhaps a better question would have been: In areas where weed is legal, are violent thug gangs no longer involved in it? Given that 'violence' is what you argue is a byproduct of drugs being illegal, and that you are arguing would no longer be an issue if drugs were legal .

This doesn't give the pre-Roe v Wade data! Abortion only had the 'forbidden fruit' status when it was illegal, right?

Are you actually asking for data which shows that more money will get someone more of a product?

Well, then they can become MORE involved

Criminals will always find a market.

Since when are pharmaceuticals handed out without a prescription?

 

But the 2nd person who is also killing you, but is adding no additional or increased harm, is also guilty of causing harm to you?

 

Absolutely.

 

I made no such assertion. I said:

"A friend of mine is a police officer working in a gang unit. He agrees that drug laws cause more harm than good. If someone wants to smoke crack, sniff glue, etc, they should be left alone as long as they are not hurting anyone. The money we save on incarcerating drug users can be used to secure our border and provide treatment for those that want it."

Care to address what I said?

 

Why did you mention glue sniffing if glue isn't a drug?

 

Huffing is a crime in many states. You seem to be stuck on the glue example.

 

Once again, you show that you don't seem to understand how a parallel works. You are the one who brought up the concept of the actions of the manufacture of the item of harm being part of the blame. If you are going to hold to that principle then it applies to other items that cause harm as well.

Nothing I have said has pointed to an increase of harm to the victim from the knowing participation of additional people in the action that causes them harm. That was you who inserted that idea. I have held to the point that a person who knowingly participates in a crime, even indirectly, is as guilty of the harm to the victim as the actual perpetrator. This is the same principle which makes it a crime to knowingly possess stolen goods, but applies no crime if the status of the good was unknown.

I am pointing out that most if not all the same arguments that are made to make other drugs illegal, apply equally to tobacco and alcohol and even pharmaceutical drugs. Basically it becomes a cherry picking issue, where one says, "Oh I like these things, so I'll just down play how they do the same things that these I don't like do". Yes we can objectively show where this drug has greater effect than that, or causes more body damage than this. But in the end they all do the same thing. And it doesn't matter whether it is affecting young lives or old lives or all lives. Are you seriously saying that if ice harmed more senior lives than young adult lives that it would be OK?

You're not what? You're not saying it is, or you're not saying it isn't?

Which speaks to a need for different levels of regulation, sure, but is not an automatic argument to make illegal. You made the argument that weed can't hurt you and I showed that it can. I am pointing out the invalidity of that argument as it is unequally applied.

I agree. Any drug (weed, alcohol, opiates, even an excessive amount of tobacco) can impair function while under the influence. So obviously that is not a sufficient argument for making any drug illegal.

Reread that line then come back. You either did not comprehend what I said, or you are not asking a clear question towards the point you have.

Involved in taking it maybe, but rarely in distribution. When you can get weed legally from a licensed dealer with known regulations to ensure that it is safe and not tampered with as drug dealers usually do, then why would you get it from a drug dealer? Thus why would the druge dealers bother because they can no longer compete with the legitimate businesses?

Prior to RvW, there was no hard tracked data on abortions save maybe by the states where it was legal at the time.

No. I am asking for data that they will purchase and use more in the same time period.

The market demand didn't change, just the number of people dealing.

Sure. Look at bootleg DVD's. And yet more people will go and buy the legal copy than the illegal one.

You asked:

Are you claiming that some of the prescription drugs out there can't do this? If so then why is prescription drug abuse a thing now?

 

Then why would it be any different when the crime is theft/known stolen good or child porn?

 

Well all should be illegal. Again, your parallel of the receiving of stolen goods is valid. You've given yet another reason why an 'only that which harms others' standard for what should be illegal, is insufficient, which seems to be @modernpaladin's standard. This all goes back to him saying: "legalize everything that isn't violence, murder, theft or fraud."