Your Political Views

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Before I go on, I have a simple question:

Do you advocate similar prohibition for substances like alcohol?

That are already legal? Ideally, I wouldn't stand against it if it were proposed. I wouldn't propose it, myself, because that ban was ended constitutionally and I'm no policy maker. Does alcohol have a very negative effect on society? Hell yes. Do countries that have a zero-tolerance for alcohol benefit from such laws? Obviously. Look at Ireland's drunk driving statistics compared with Libya.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's only because of America's culture's own immaturity. Moderation isn't a common word around; something entirely societal.

Oh right, no one else abuses drugs anywhere else in the world.

At all.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Mir

It is abhorrent, the double standards of your country where alcohol and cigarettes are legal and pot is not.

So by that mentality it's completely ridiculous that some countries allow statutory räpe and prostitution but make it illegal for children to prostitute.

Hey if one bad thing is allowed, ALL bad things have to be allowed. That is the core of this debate, Mir. It would be just as abhorrent for your country to allow pot but not crack, meth, and heroin to be legal. And to my recollection, most countries that do tolerate marijuana only allow it in small quantities (5 grams or less). So it's equally ridiculous that you can have as much beer and tobacco as you want, but can only have 5 grams of marijuana.

[KontanKarite]

Some of you are downright terrifying.

I'm fairly moderate. I'm socially liberal and I'm economically conservative.

I'm of the mind of improving things. I don't like power struggles and I don't like the idea of people who think it's okay to abuse others because they think they are in a position to do so.

Socially, I see nothing wrong with people being who ever they want to be or what ever they want to be so long as it does not threaten public health and safety.

Job wise, I'm of the mind of cooperation and team work instead of a boss/subordinate relationship.

This is why one of those new ideas, such as anarcho-capitalism is scary as hell to me. Because if it isn't the government that's oppressing me and others, it will be the business owners.

Any of the extremes are down right sick and twisted. Anarchy is an insane idea and anything where people are telling others how to live in any way is also an insane idea.

Benevolent Anarchy can not and will not exist. That's too bad though.

[MollyMac]

Basically Green Communitarian. Big favor of Yeoman.

But in the real world, I am a conservative as it pertains my own life, and a liberal as it pertains to others. I am not one to meddle in others' lives. Their life, their karma... save for when I see my tax money go out to a half assed governmtn system of "help and welfare".

I'd rather pay more and taxes so that the help is complete than to pay less and shoot peopl ein the foot for trying to help themselves. I know many people stuck in the welfare trap. They got a second job to cover school, and then the government took away childcare and WIC...

I'd rather it be complete so we get those in need to self-sufficientcy sooner and so they can start paying taxes and keep it goin'...

In the real world, however....

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Binkie

That are already legal? Ideally, I wouldn't stand against it if it were proposed. I wouldn't propose it, myself, because that ban was ended constitutionally and I'm no policy maker. Does alcohol have a very negative effect on society? Hell yes. Do countries that have a zero-tolerance for alcohol benefit from such laws? Obviously. Look at Ireland's drunk driving statistics compared with Libya.

Alright, we can assume that they benefit from having laws that prohibit alcohol. We could argue there are many factors to this, from it simply being that it doesn't have alcohol being avaliable, to Libya not being one of the most developed countries in the world.

Yet, let's take a look at how it was prohibition actually has played out, in America. The ban ended because it had an even greater negative effect on society, then continuing with the prohibition. A black market for liquor emerged, and there were hikes in taxes to fight the war on alcohol.

We can draw the same parallels to modern society and the war on drugs. The war on drugs is making a viable black market for criminals to sell narcotics. Chances are in the United States, you will be incapable of getting drugs to disappear just as the government was incapable to do so with alcohol. Yet, alcohol has become a respected consumer item with brand names like Jack Daniels, Smirnov, and others. We could hope that the same event would happen with drugs.

Also, the war on drugs, this year, as of April 30th, 2007 9:20 PM, the war on drugs costs roughly $16,900,000,000. There are also roughly 520,000 people arrested for drug offenses this year, 263,000 for cannabis offenses, and 3,620 incarcerated. [http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm] If drugs were legalized, it would make sense that the war on drugs would decrease exponentially (Ideally, it would be reduced to zero), the incarceration and arrest rates would go down, and this would lower taxes.

Those are the benefits.

But that's not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue, in my mind, is rights.

Why does the government have a say in what I can put into my body? If I make my own ecstasy tablets, the U.S. government can legally incarcerate me for being in possession of them. If I grow my own marijuana, the United States can also legally incarcerate me. If I snort paint up my nose that I bought, the U.S. can also incarcerate me for abusing controlled substances.

Why should the government be given that kind of control over my own personal life? The extension of government power to such a level, in my mind, is almost as close to being able to dictate whether I can feed my future children chicken to dinner.

For the benefit of society the government could in theory, arrest me for having too much Mountain Dew in one session. Caffeine is a recognized, mind-altering substance. The cost of having diabetes from it's consumption, or the acts I may commit while under the influence of caffeine, could wreak havoc on society. I believe that if drug laws were allowed to be extended as to limit consumer choice, we would have to ban caffeine as well.

Remember, if the pro argument is "Hey if one bad thing is allowed, ALL bad things have to be allowed", then the responding argument must be, "Hey if one bad thing is banned, ALL bad things have to be banned".

[KontanKarite]

Let's see, who would I feel safer around? An alcoholic or a crack head?

Hmm...

Neither I feel entirely safe around, but going on my experiences, I can handle alcoholics.

There REALLY is a reason why there's laws against hard drugs. This coincides with my stance that anyone should be who ever they want and what ever they want so long as it doesn't threaten PUBLIC health and safety.

If someone wants to waste away on crack or hard ass drugs, that's on them. But please, spare me from your erratic nature and your potentially hazardous behavior by keeping it in your home.

[KontanKarite]

Here's something else to chew on:

Have any of you been around someone tripping on PCP?

I haven't, but from what I've seen, it turns people berserk. I watched a video of a guy on PCP take a huge shot of pepper spray to the face and I must say... that's not the kind of person I would want to be around. They took it like it was water being sprayed on them. It had no effect on them.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Mir

It is abhorrent, the double standards of your country where alcohol and cigarettes are legal and pot is not.

Originally Posted by Binkie

So by that mentality it's completely ridiculous that some countries allow statutory räpe and prostitution but make it illegal for children to prostitute.

Wow. I haven't seen an analogy that inapposite and disingenuous in years.

Drake

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I disagree with this.
The United States is in a war with Iraq right now, and the outcome doesn't look that good. Fundamentally, I think the execution was wrong, and now it has been becoming more and more by appearance that in the Post-9/11 chaos, George Bush took advantage of the people to do so.

With that said, I oppose the War in Iraq. Mandatory military service would mean that I would be forced to serve in Iraq, despite whether I agree with the causes of the war. In a system of voluntary military service, you can go by the excuse of "You signed the contract, therefore you are obligated to fight". However, being born, does not in my mind, qualify as signing a contract that I will agree to fight a war that I disagree with.

Now, three years may not seem like a long time, but realize that the entire Iraq war, has been going on since 2003. So, that's roughly 4 fours, and had I been 18 at the time, if I had chosen the Army or the Marine component of the military, I would only have been a year out of service so far.

No offense, but in a nation with a government as I described, with mandatory military service, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Remember, if the pro argument is "Hey if one bad thing is allowed, ALL bad things have to be allowed", then the responding argument must be, "Hey if one bad thing is banned, ALL bad things have to be banned".

Absolutely. Amen to that.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Splintered

We can draw the same parallels to modern society and the war on drugs. The war on drugs is making a viable black market for criminals to sell narcotics. Chances are in the United States, you will be incapable of getting drugs to disappear just as the government was incapable to do so with alcohol. Yet, alcohol has become a respected consumer item with brand names like Jack Daniels, Smirnov, and others. We could hope that the same event would happen with drugs.

Your on the right track there with your ideas, but you are missing out on a big component. The 'war on drugs' is not a war on drugs at all. Drugs aren't put in prison - American citizens are. The 'war on drugs' should be aptly renamed the 'war on the American people'.

Your stats are correct, and they show that the 'war' has not even stopped drugs coming into the country, but each year stats show usage going up, more coming in, and nothing they do changes this.

That is the way the American government wants it to be, contrary to their big speeches against drugs.

Why you ask? Well, it all comes down to one thing - money. Do you know what the largest industry in America is? I mentioned this in other threads, but of course the defense industry is the largest, most powerful in America. Did you know big oil has a big hand in that industry as well? For example, halliburton in Iraq, providing food, laundry services, etc - these are things they do already in prison systems across America.

With 1-5 Americans ending up incarcerated in their lifetimes (a large majority for drug related crime), Americans end up using such corporations services at some point in their lives.

Law enforcement boasts the largest number of employees in America today. The are more law enforcement officers in America than there are of any other type of worker.

To end the war on drugs is to take away Americas leading industry. If the war on drugs ended tomorrow, nearly 20% of the American workforces' jobs would be put in peril, since they would no longer be needed in the future.

Did you also know politicians love prisons? America has more people in prison than any other country in the world, due to the 'war on drugs'. You are more likely to go to prison in America than any other country in the world. Politicians love building more prisons in their districts to put people in.

Why? It's like this. First, they bring in hundreds of millions in building contracts for their district, which they flaunt during campaigns. They can say they brought in X number of jobs to the area and X number of millions. Those figures also then are reflected yearly, with more guards needed, and money needed to fund the prison. This makes them look good on paper.

It goes even further than that. If a town has 20,000 people living there, and builds a prison that holds 10,000, guess what? Those incarcerated there count in the census. That town now gets federal funding for the extra 10,000 people who 'live' there. Money that gets apporpriated for schools, roads, etc. all increases due to the new 'residents' who live in that district.

Best part it, those new 'residents' don't vote, so come election time they don't have to worry about them voting against them. They do however count towards the encumbant candiate for all funding, aid, and other requests made by that candidate to that area.

Any wonder why there still is a 'war on drugs'? With each year one would think they would change course, considering since the 80's when bush sr. coined the phrase and started the 'war on drugs' there has NEVER been a year where usage, or any other related statistic went down.

Why haven't they changed course or tried something new? Makes you wonder why after almost 30 years of fighting a losing fight they refuse to even look at making the smallest of changes, the federal government cringes at the idea of even legalising marijuana for terminally ill patients. To start down the road is the proverbial 'slippery slope' for them - to say marijuana has some medical use means it can't be used to imprison the hundreds of thousands of Americans who go to prison every year when caught with minuscule amounts.

So before looking at all the good reasons to legalise, one must first realise why those in power refuse to touch the subject.

[Lykaios]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Let's see, who would I feel safer around? An alcoholic or a crack head?

I would feel safer around a pothead.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

On a different train of thought, that new ruling on partial birth abortion frightens me. They didn't even add a clause providing for women whose health is threatened by the pregnancy.

To borrow a phrase from the gun-nuts, it's a slippery slope. Seems to me that, at this time, the religious zealots hold sway, and they're far more concerned with branding strangers with their own (in my opinion dangerous) morality than with maintaining the rapidly disappearing personal freedoms upon which our way of life is ostensibly built. It's a shame that so many in the United States are so very concerned with bringing new children into this world, and then don't give a damn about them once they're born.

Interestingly, all five judges in the majority that supported the ban were Catholic.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Remember, if the pro argument is "Hey if one bad thing is allowed, ALL bad things have to be allowed", then the responding argument must be, "Hey if one bad thing is banned, ALL bad things have to be banned".

My personal stance is that we have enough bad shit in circulation, why put in more out of sheer principle?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Lykaios

I would feel safer around a pothead.

Me too. But it seems there are some bringing up the idea of legalizing any drugs what so ever. There are some drugs that will literally leave you addicted and dependent with one try. A lot of those kinds of drugs can cause a person to be potentially hazardous to public safety.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Wow. I haven't seen an analogy that inapposite and disingenuous in years.

Drake

Disingenuous? Are you just randomly going through a thesaurus or are you actually paying attention to your wording? Obviously you aren't paying attention to the analogy's context, which is: A few bad things are alright, so all bad things should be alright in that same regard.

In that plug-and-chug equation, drugs are replaced with a sexual context. If suddenly it fucked with your moral compass, perhaps you can see where others are coming from. Most likely not, because you find marijuana to be perfectly acceptable and the horse blinders make it impossible for you to search for the underlying context. It's all good either way. Have fun on your 25 cent, motorized high horse.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Binkie

My personal stance is that we have enough bad shit in circulation, why put in more out of sheer principle?

I can understand that. I mean, the logic makes sense: Why make a problem bigger then it already is.

Yet, like I said, I think it is a matter of principle and a matter of rights. I believe that it should be the right of the citizen to destroy their body in any matter they choose to, regardless of the possible outcome of public health, unless it can be explicitly shown that the only purpose of the item would be to damage public health.

For instance, your argument on sexuality is missing one key element. One participant is unwilling. In drug usage, most likely all participants are willing to partake in the drug usage. If not, then we can prosecute it just like we would prosecute sexual assualt.

Yet, if people wish to smoke pot, snort cocaine, or take a tablet of MDMA, who are we to judge? When someone jumps into their basement, or a rave and does some kind of drug, who are we to judge? If someone wants to have a sip of alcohol in a ceremony at church, who are we to judge?

The possible outcome of anything can be deadly. By owning a toaster, I could endanger myself by sticking a fork into it. The piece of salmon I had at Red Lobster could be infected or undercooked, and while driving home I could black out from disease, crash into a light pole, and kill someone. The overcooked piece of meat could make me choke and die, and my big mac could clog my heart and make me die.

This is the "What if" thinking. Yet, I doubt you will promote that we ban toasters, salmon, meat, or a big mac. Why should public fear, and what if statements, be allowed to censor what the public can have in the context of drugs?

No offense, but in a nation with a government as I described, with mandatory military service, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

Which is exactly why I disagree with your system.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Yet, like I said, I think it is a matter of principle and a matter of rights. I believe that it should be the right of the citizen to destroy their body in any matter they choose to, regardless of the possible outcome of public health, unless it can be explicitly shown that the only purpose of the item would be to damage public health.

And I get where you're coming from on this. But when you legalize something for sale, it becomes the responsibility of the Federal government, especially today, to regulate those drugs and make sure they're safe to the general public. The FDA is required to pull any drug off the market that has the potential to kill people. Yes, yes, cigarettes and alcohol kill people obviously. Constitutionally they can't touch alcohol, but there are limits. Absinthe, for example, is not legally sold in the United States.

Cigarettes have been immortalized in the US long before the heath effects were discovered to be disasterous. Like alcohol, the government knew that banning it in this day and age wouldn't be tolerated by society simply because it caused lung cancer after years of use. Should cigarettes have been introduced for the first time tomorrow, they would never be legally sold in the United States.

Unfortunately for most folks who do wish to consume whatever they please can not because the government feels it has an obligation to protect citizens in health by federal regulations, and in society through law enforcement. That is not just the way it is in the United States. While some other countries will allow one or two items to get by legally (marijuana, etc.), most will not endorse the legalization of self-destructive drugs.

From an irrelevant stand-point, I wouldn't either. That is where I am coming from.

I understand your position fully and I agree to some extent, but I just don't endorse self-destruction in that regard. I personally think giving it a legal OK would give a lot of folks the thumbs up that that kind of behavior is A-OK. It's just my own position that it's not.

There is just nothing benefitial to using a drug that burns holes in your brain. If a person wants to do that, that is fine. Lord knows there are means, but governments will never fully endorse that route through legal means.

For instance, your argument on sexuality is missing one key element. One participant is unwilling.

Statutory räpe is simply a 25 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Both can be consenting, but because one is a minor and therefore does not meet the age of consent, it's not technically given. Some countries, however, do not recognize that age of consent and therefore as long as the 16 year old wants it, it's legal. In the field of prostituion, obviously it's consenual between both parties as long as one gets paid compensation for their services.

I'm not going to derail this discussion that you and I are having with that analogy, but it can be tied in with the idea that a person has an individual right to do with their body what they will - including solicitation.

This is the "What if" thinking. Yet, I doubt you will promote that we ban toasters, salmon, meat, or a big mac. Why should public fear, and what if statements, be allowed to censor what the public can have in the context of drugs?

Because in this day and age, we now know what the negative health effects are of some of these foods that have been around for some time. Hamburgers are bad for your health, but they don't impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle. No one has over dosed on toaster stroodles as of yet. Aside from alcohol, the drugs that do affect you to that extent have medicinal use. That medicinal use is why some folks have access to them.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point? :P

[Splintered]

Sure. I'll agree to disagree.

[Binkie]

It's just not a debate either of us can win. I respect your view point and the fact that you've backed it up with logical reasoning, but we just don't agree on the fundamentals.

[Vako]

Originally Posted by Lykaios

I would feel safer around a pothead.

All drugs are the same, the mentality is the same. There is no drug that is superior to another.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Binkie

It's just not a debate either of us can win. I respect your view point and the fact that you've backed it up with logical reasoning, but we just don't agree on the fundamentals.

Yep. So, to continue arguing it would be essentially mental masturbation.

[Vako]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Yep. So, to continue arguing it would be essentially mental masturbation.

That's exactly what it is.

[Lykaios]

Originally Posted by Vako

All drugs are the same, the mentality is the same. There is no drug that is superior to another.

The effects of some drugs are far more dangerous than those of others. Saying all drugs are the same is a very inaccurate, and overall stupid statement to make.