|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2007 : 06:11:33
|
Figured I would repost this here for discussion.
Let's Win the Drug War by Giving Up
Does anyone out there seriously believe that we can stamp out illicit drug use? I do, and it's simple - we change our laws so that drugs are no longer illicit. Because this so called 'War On Drugs' has caused more misery, suffering and death than the drugs themselves ever have. The problems are not caused by the drugs, but by the drug trade.
Let's start with the most basic argument; in an ostensibly free society does the government have a right to tell you what you can do with your own body, as long as you're not directly endangering others? Your family and friends have a moral right to look out for you, and we can certainly discourage people from harming themselves, but in the end it is their body, your body, my body. If you are under the influence of drugs and flying a plane or driving a car I expect, endorse, and encourage the authorities to take swift and decisive action to prevent you from endangering me, but if you're sitting at home in front of the TV and decide to smoke a joint while watching a ball game where is the harm? If you're watching Maple Leaf's hockey I would suggest heroin, but I digress.
"But we'll wind up with drug addicts everywhere!" some will scream. Well, some drug use will go up, probably things like marijuana and cocaine, but I doubt the hard stuff will increase much if at all. I've known some crazy people in my time, but I can't say that I've known anyone who, if heroin was legalised tomorrow, would say "Cool, heroin's legal! Let's go stick needles in our arms and become junkies!" And the few people in the alleys now weren't dissuaded by our present laws, if your life is so miserable and depressing that you will do something like that then there isn't much that the legal process can do to stop you. Better to provide a quality product at a decent price, with reliable availability, and cut down on the number of seniors getting whacked over the head for their pension money. If addicts are no longer forced to live on the margins of society maybe it will be easier to reintegrate them back into the community and get them the help they need, and in many cases want.
"But then the bad guys win!" No, they lose. The reason they are in the drug trade is to make a load of tax-free money. If drugs are no longer illegal their business goes down the drain. Maybe a few enterprising individuals will be able to turn their presently illegal corporation into a legitimate tax-paying one, and so what? Isn't it better to collect tax dollars from them instead of spending billions in a futile unwinnable attempt to try to shut them down?
Not only do they lose, we win! We no longer have to pay exorbitant taxes to enforce unenforceable laws. We no longer have children gunned down in the crossfire of competing gangs. We no longer see overcrowded prisons full of people who simply wanted to live their lives as they see fit. We no longer ruin families by persecuting members for having a simple joint during their backyard barbecue. And we regain control over our own bodies, something which should never have been taken away in the first place.
Is there any precedent for this? Yes. Anyone hear of the era of prohibition? Some of you might even remember it. When alcohol was illegal it suddenly became a substance that was produced and traded in secret. Organised crime syndicates grew rich while shooting and bombing competitors or those who bought from them. When that ridiculous social experiment was finally ended they needed a new source of revenue, and the drug trade was born.
Let's end this madness. |
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2007 : 06:45:03 [Permalink]
|
I agree with everything except smoking a joint during a ball game...if the game is baseball, then smoking a joint while watching could lead to a coma. Besides, there is no other way to fully appreciate MST3K or The Film Crew, and for this reason alone recreational use should be allowed.
Also, it should very illegal to use drugs and watch any religious programming; the damage could be irreparable. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2007 : 03:45:08 [Permalink]
|
| Well it's not going to convince anyone that's not already convinced. Although I broadly agree with your points I think your arguments are overly simplistic and biased. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 15:13:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Well it's not going to convince anyone that's not already convinced. Although I broadly agree with your points I think your arguments are overly simplistic and biased.
|
Please explain. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 18:56:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Let's Win the Drug War by Giving Up
Does anyone out there seriously believe that we can stamp out illicit drug use? I do, and it's simple - we change our laws so that drugs are no longer illicit. |
We could do that with anything illegal. I realize that this just a rhetorical device but it's still pretty weak.
For example, "Does anyone out there seriously believe that we can stamp out illicit killings? I do, and it's simple - we change our laws so that killings are no longer illicit." is not a serious argument or even a valid premise.
| Because this so called 'War On Drugs' has caused more misery, suffering and death than the drugs themselves ever have. The problems are not caused by the drugs, but by the drug trade. |
Statements like this need to be backed up with evidence.
| Let's start with the most basic argument; in an ostensibly free society does the government have a right to tell you what you can do with your own body, as long as you're not directly endangering others? |
Helmet and seatbelt laws are a counterexample. Also what does "directly endangering" mean? I assume you put "directly" in there because you tacitly acknowledge that drug use can indirectly endanger others.
| Your family and friends have a moral right to look out for you, and we can certainly discourage people from harming themselves, but in the end it is their body, your body, my body. If you are under the influence of drugs and flying a plane or driving a car I expect, endorse, and encourage the authorities to take swift and decisive action to prevent you from endangering me, but if you're sitting at home in front of the TV and decide to smoke a joint while watching a ball game where is the harm? If you're watching Maple Leaf's hockey I would suggest heroin, but I digress. |
Well this is fine but it doesn't deal at all with the extremes of drug addiction.
| "But we'll wind up with drug addicts everywhere!" some will scream. |
OK so this is the position you are opposing. As an aside, note the shrill and panicked characterisation you burden it with.
| Well, some drug use will go up, probably things like marijuana and cocaine, but I doubt the hard stuff will increase much if at all. I've known some crazy people in my time, but I can't say that I've known anyone who, if heroin was legalised tomorrow, would say "Cool, heroin's legal! Let's go stick needles in our arms and become junkies!" |
This is just a light-hearted dismissal not a reasoned argument.
| And the few people in the alleys now weren't dissuaded by our present laws, if your life is so miserable and depressing that you will do something like that then there isn't much that the legal process can do to stop you. |
This just loses the train of the argument entirely. I really don't see how it relates to the point you are supposedly refuting.
Hell even as a seperate point it doesn't make sense it's analogous to: "If you're so late for work that you are willing to go over the speed limit then there isn't much the legal process can do to stop you. Therefore we should abolish speed limits."
| Better to provide a quality product at a decent price, with reliable availability, and cut down on the number of seniors getting whacked over the head for their pension money. If addicts are no longer forced to live on the margins of society maybe it will be easier to reintegrate them back into the community and get them the help they need, and in many cases want. |
Maybe maybe maybe. You haven't provided any reasons to believe any of this. Also it fails to address the argument you are refuting.
| "But then the bad guys win!" |
Okay new argument.
| No, they lose. The reason they are in the drug trade is to make a load of tax-free money. If drugs are no longer illegal their business goes down the drain. Maybe a few enterprising individuals will be able to turn their presently illegal corporation into a legitimate tax-paying one, and so what? |
Okay this is fine.
| Isn't it better to collect tax dollars from them instead of spending billions in a futile unwinnable attempt to try to shut them down? |
I don't know. Do you have an argument to present or is this supposed to be a rhetorical question?
| Not only do they lose, we win! We no longer have to pay exorbitant taxes to enforce unenforceable laws. We no longer have children gunned down in the crossfire of competing gangs. We no longer see overcrowded prisons full of people who simply wanted to live their lives as they see fit. We no longer ruin families by persecuting members for having a simple joint during their backyard barbecue. And we regain control over our own bodies, something which should never have been taken away in the first place. |
This is just a series of emotional appeals. Would taxes really go down if we legalized all drugs? Would fewer children be murdered? Would prisons be less crowded? Would fewer families be ruined? I don't see that you've provided an argument for any of that.
Legalizing drugs doesn't magically mitigate all of their negative effects. If more people wind up addicted to hard drugs then it could make many things, including some of the things you've listed, worse.
| Is there any precedent for this? Yes. Anyone hear of the era of prohibition? Some of you might even remember it. When alcohol was illegal it suddenly became a substance that was produced and traded in secret. Organised crime syndicates grew rich while shooting and bombing competitors or those who bought from them. When that ridiculous social experiment was finally ended they needed a new source of revenue, and the drug trade was born. |
What point are you trying to make by bringing up the Prohibition? Is it something like this, "The War on Drugs is like the Prohibition. The Prohibition was bad therefore the War on Drugs is also bad."? If so then that's just a bit too simplistic for me to swallow.
Yeah. And I do agree that the War on Drugs is bad policy. I'm just saying that if I didn't this wouldn't have convinced me. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 19:25:59 [Permalink]
|
| Hrmmm... Let's also not forget that there is still illegal trade in cigarettes and alcohol despite them being legal. Legalization doesn't eliminate the black market, it simply changes it. If a widely-used product can be stolen in volume near the point-of-production and sold, tax-free, for even half its usual in-the-store price, it will be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 21:32:33 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt, I think you're missing and misinterpreting a lot of my points. The reference to legalizing murder is so far off-base as to be laughable. I am not proposing a blanket approach to lessening crime in general, just drug crimes.
The second statement that you want evidence for is empirical to anyone who has lived for more than about twenty years. Is it personal opinion? Certainly, but as it would be extremely difficult to get exact figures either way I'll stand by it.
| ...you tacitly acknowledge that drug use can indirectly endanger others. |
Guess you didn't read it in detail, because there was nothing tacit about it. I specifically said "If you are under the influence of drugs and flying a plane or driving a car I expect, endorse, and encourage the authorities to take swift and decisive action to prevent you from endangering me..."
| Well this is fine but it doesn't deal at all with the extremes of drug addiction. |
Kind of a throwaway statement. What do you mean by extremes? And so what if a person's use is extreme? It's still their business. It's sad, but true.
| This is just a light-hearted dismissal not a reasoned argument. |
You've got to learn to read in detail. It seems quite clear that this was an opinion.
| This just loses the train of the argument entirely. I really don't see how it relates to the point you are supposedly refuting. |
?! The point is obvious - those who want the most self-destroying crap are getting it anyway.
| Hell even as a seperate point it doesn't make sense it's analogous to: "If you're so late for work that you are willing to go over the speed limit then there isn't much the legal process can do to stop you. Therefore we should abolish speed limits." |
Please see my first reply in this block. And please refrain from such non-sequiturs in future. I am NOT saying anything like that, you're reading it into my statement.
At the moment I'm off to bed, but I'll return to some of this later. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 21:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
dv82matt, I think you're missing and misinterpreting a lot of my points. The reference to legalizing murder is so far off-base as to be laughable. I am not proposing a blanket approach to lessening crime in general, just drug crimes. |
That's the point Matt was making: what is it that makes drug crimes different from other crimes? We can make anything legal by repealing laws against it, so why should we repeal drug laws but not murder laws?| The second statement that you want evidence for is empirical to anyone who has lived for more than about twenty years. |
You're playing the "it's common knowledge so I don't have to support my assertion with data" card?!  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 23:34:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
dv82matt, I think you're missing and misinterpreting a lot of my points. |
If so then I apologize and I assure you that it is not intentional.
| The reference to legalizing murder is so far off-base as to be laughable. I am not proposing a blanket approach to lessening crime in general, just drug crimes. |
The point is that the rhetorical device you used is an invalid argument. "Killing" was just substituted for "drug use" in order to highlight that.
| The second statement that you want evidence for is empirical to anyone who has lived for more than about twenty years. Is it personal opinion? Certainly, but as it would be extremely difficult to get exact figures either way I'll stand by it. |
I've lived more than twenty years and it's not obvious to me that the "War on Drugs" has caused more misery, suffering, and death than the drugs themselves ever have.
| ...you tacitly acknowledge that drug use can indirectly endanger others. |
Guess you didn't read it in detail, because there was nothing tacit about it. I specifically said "If you are under the influence of drugs and flying a plane or driving a car I expect, endorse, and encourage the authorities to take swift and decisive action to prevent you from endangering me..." |
I did read that. I guess I misunderstood. I got the impression that that would fall under your definition of "directly endangering" others but I wasn't sure, which is why I asked you to clarify that.
| Well this is fine but it doesn't deal at all with the extremes of drug addiction. |
Kind of a throwaway statement. What do you mean by extremes? And so what if a person's use is extreme? It's still their business. It's sad, but true. |
What I mean is that you shrink from the extreme cases that are likely to provide the best rational for forced government intervention. Instead it's Joe Blow smoking a joint during the ball game.
| This is just a light-hearted dismissal not a reasoned argument. |
You've got to learn to read in detail. It seems quite clear that this was an opinion. |
Well yes it is obviously also an opinion.
| ?! The point is obvious - those who want the most self-destroying crap are getting it anyway. |
Right but how does that address the worry that we will end up with more addicts if hard drug use is legalized? You're not saying that everyone who would use hard drugs if they were legal would also use those same drugs if they were illegal are you?
Consider the following argument where X is something that is currently illegal. We shouldn't worry about X increasing if we make it legal because everybody who wants to do X already does it anyway. Does this seem like a template for a valid argument to you?
| Please see my first reply in this block. And please refrain from such non-sequiturs in future. I am NOT saying anything like that, you're reading it into my statement. |
The point is to test the veracity of the argument by removing it from a context where our biases tend to affect our perception of it. Now I may have misread or misunderstood you or there may be a reason why the substituted context was not analogous but were not going to get anywhere if you simply disallow challenges to your arguments.
Maybe you could restate this argument in different terms. If I have misunderstood it that may help me to see it.
| At the moment I'm off to bed, but I'll return to some of this later. |
Yeah have a good one. I hope this isn't coming off as too personal I know criticism is hard to take sometimes. I look forward to your replies. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2007 : 18:55:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by The Rat
dv82matt, I think you're missing and misinterpreting a lot of my points. The reference to legalizing murder is so far off-base as to be laughable. I am not proposing a blanket approach to lessening crime in general, just drug crimes. |
[quote]That's the point Matt was making: what is it that makes drug crimes different from other crimes? We can make anything legal by repealing laws against it, so why should we repeal drug laws but not murder laws? |
If I sit on my deck smoking a joint I'm not harming anyone. If I kill someone then I probably am harming someone.
Or am I missing something? |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
| Edited by - The Rat on 10/09/2007 18:57:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 02:52:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
If I sit on my deck smoking a joint I'm not harming anyone. If I kill someone then I probably am harming someone.
Or am I missing something?
|
That's more or less true. The point I was making didn't have anything directly to do with murder though. That was just an example to show the rhetorical device you used for what it was. As in:
"I have the solution to copyright infringement. We just repeal all copyright laws." Note that the woman sitting on her deck listening to a pirated mp3 is not hurting anyone.
or,
"We can easily solve the problem of rampant theft and tresspassing. We simply abolish all property laws." The homeless guy squatting under her deck to keep warm isn't hurting anyone and shoplifting clothing from walmart doesn't physically hurt anyone either.
I realize that you are not advocating making all drugs free of any restrictions whatsoever but this (the first two sentences of the first paragraph) is a purely retorical argument and an opponent of your views would be justified in dismissing it out of hand. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 17:17:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| The second statement that you want evidence for is empirical to anyone who has lived for more than about twenty years. |
You're playing the "it's common knowledge so I don't have to support my assertion with data" card?!
|
C'mon Dave, do you seriously think that there will be as much crime? The problems we face right now are mostly caused by the drug trade, not the drugs themselves. I'm also asking for a little slack here for the simple reason that we have lived with the current situation of illegality since the early twentieth century, and society has changed greatly since that time. I could perhaps find data from 1910 that would show how much crime was associated with legal drug use, but would it be relevant? Okay, I'll meet you halfway, and make it more clear that this is an opinion piece - "I feel certain that this so called 'War On Drugs' has caused more misery, suffering and death than the drugs themselves ever have."
Better? |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 19:26:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
C'mon Dave, do you seriously think that there will be as much crime? |
It's not for me to say. You asked for discussion of your claims. You've read my shocked response to your defense of that one point of Matt's critique. You should understand that I'm shocked because you seem to have your head screwed on pretty good, but then you used this "common knowledge" argument for something that is hardly self-evident or you wouldn't be asking for "slack" for lack of current, relevant data. This doesn't have anything to do with whether what you claimed is correct or not, just how you chose to defend it.| The problems we face right now are mostly caused by the drug trade, not the drugs themselves. |
And the trade won't go away with legalization, it will just change so that the government is officially involved in it (taxes and regulations). And as I already mentioned, there is still illegal trade in legal drugs. Hell, there is illegal trade in Gucci handbags.| I'm also asking for a little slack here for the simple reason that we have lived with the current situation of illegality since the early twentieth century, and society has changed greatly since that time. I could perhaps find data from 1910 that would show how much crime was associated with legal drug use, but would it be relevant? |
I won't give you any slack I wouldn't give myself, and I don't think I'd give myself leeway to make the statements you have without data in hand.Okay, I'll meet you halfway, and make it more clear that this is an opinion piece - "I feel certain that this so called 'War On Drugs' has caused more misery, suffering and death than the drugs themselves ever have."
Better? |
Hmmmm... I think you missed out on the many pages (across several threads) earlier this year of the folks here (myself included) having rather heated discussions regarding "opinion vs. fact." My position is that an opinion (as used colloquially) is anything that a person believes is true but for which the supporting data and argument either are highly subjective or are relatively lacking. More importantly, though, there is no good reason to not challenge an assertion simply because it begins with "in my opinion..." At the very least, challenging an opinion allows us all to follow along down the trail of premises and logic, and maybe learn something.
So, with that in mind, if you're going to say,I feel certain that this so called 'War On Drugs' has caused more misery, suffering and death than the drugs themselves ever have, then I'd have to ask how you reached that certainty. My own gut feeling would be in agreement, but I want to see how you get from observation to conclusion. Maybe how you got there will reinforce my opinion, or maybe it'll accidentally show me why we're both wrong. Either way, "...[this] is empirical to anyone who has lived for more than about twenty years" doesn't tell me anything more than it's your gut feeling, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2007 : 08:03:47 [Permalink]
|
This discussion is one of the reasons I really love this place.
I'm still on the fence on this one. I work in law enforcement. I have children. I have my own experiences. My opinion is not made up on this matter, but I really enjoy watching (and maybe, should I feel I can contribute something worthwhile to) this exchange of ideas.
I'm pretty sure, that even when this discussion has run it's current course on SFN, there will be no true consensus. I still predict I will have learned stuff, and been forced to think about things in ways I may not have previously. While that's not the stated charter of the SFN, Deep down, I know that's it's true purpose, so keep it up people!
Disclaimer: This post was made after an evening involving the consumption of perhaps excessive amount of certain liquids. Any worthwhile sentnces are therefore to be attributed to my own genius, and any shortcomings written off as strictly SEP. Eventually I'll sober up, or, better yet, sleep and then sober up, and then drive home.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2007 : 09:12:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
This discussion is one of the reasons I really love this place. |
Ah, the old,I love you guys, and datsh not the alcohol talkin', eider! Drunk-talk... beautiful drunk-talk.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reprint from my blog
