To Protect and to Serve II

#3,577
#3,577
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Just because they may move onto something else is no reason to keep up the failed war on drugs simply because it doesn't effect you. It actually does affect you because your tax money pays for all of it.

Let's say the cartel moves on to human trafficking (which they already do) guess what, that's an actual crime with a victim. If the cops aren't hindered with busting people for drugs, they can solve these problems.
Click to expand...

You'll need to point out where I said they need to continue the war on drugs before we continue.

You need to understand, which you're clearly not, that simply stopping the war on drugs won't make anything kumbayatic. You all act like allowing all drugs will end everything bad. It's hilarious and childishly simple minded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,583
#3,583
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The true fantasyland is believing the war on drugs can be won. You cannot save people from themselves.

Btw your argument is exactly the reason we've ended up with an unlimited state.
Click to expand...

No one believes the war on drugs can be won. What people believe is that absent the war on drugs, there would be far more damaging and unwinnable wars we would be forced to fight.

Legalizing drugs will do nothing to deter the illegal manufacturing of designer drugs. Is it your position that everyone should have the freedom to create and distribute any type of drug imaginable?

Suppose the drug is created that when once taken, it triggers a reaction in the body that requires the drug to be continually taken in order to avoid certain death.

Should this drug be allowed to legally be created in a double wide trailer and then be distributed to kids on the playground? Just trying to get an idea of when you feel the "state" should step in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,584
#3,584
luthervol said:
No one believes the war on drugs can be won. What people believe is that absent the war on drugs, there would be far more damaging and unwinnable wars we would be forced to fight.

Legalizing drugs will do nothing to deter the illegal manufacturing of designer drugs. Is it your position that everyone should have the freedom to create and distribute any type of drug imaginable?

Suppose the drug is created that when once taken, it triggers a reaction in the body that requires the drug to be continually taken in order to avoid certain death.

Should this drug be allowed to legally be created in a double wide trailer and then be distributed to kids on the playground? Just trying to get an idea of when you feel the "state" should step in.
Click to expand...

Gave you a like

:yuck:

But I agree.

Who gets to decide which drugs are good and which are bad and why.
 
#3,587
#3,587
tumscalcium said:
You'll need to point out where I said they need to continue the war on drugs before we continue.

You need to understand, which you're clearly not, that simply stopping the war on drugs won't make anything kumbayatic. You all act like allowing all drugs will end everything bad. It's hilarious and childishly simple minded.
Click to expand...

I took your post to mean that the cartels would move on to something else, so what's the point? Perhaps I misunderstood?

I never claimed anything would be kumbayatic. I'm the guy that sides with dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery, to quote T. Jefferson. I am of the opinion that the only true crime is when persons or property is harmed. Anything more is a cash grab by the state.

Stopping the war on drugs won't stop crime, that's always going to happen. The point is it would free up resources to be able to achieve the original supposed goal of the police, protect and serve persons and property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,590
#3,590
luthervol said:
No one believes the war on drugs can be won. What people believe is that absent the war on drugs, there would be far more damaging and unwinnable wars we would be forced to fight.

Legalizing drugs will do nothing to deter the illegal manufacturing of designer drugs. Is it your position that everyone should have the freedom to create and distribute any type of drug imaginable?

Suppose the drug is created that when once taken, it triggers a reaction in the body that requires the drug to be continually taken in order to avoid certain death.

Should this drug be allowed to legally be created in a double wide trailer and then be distributed to kids on the playground? Just trying to get an idea of when you feel the "state" should step in.
Click to expand...
Question. If all drugs are legalized, why would someone buy something from some guy in a double wide trailer that is untested and potentially dangerous, when they can go to a dispensary and get something that is much safer? I don't think ole boy in the trailer will find much of a market. Of course he will sell a few, so what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,594
#3,594
InVOLuntary said:
So, you think all these legal meth labs, poppy/heroin factories, narcotic pill manufacturers would just pop up?
Click to expand...

What would be the incentive? You would likely have competing dispensaries driving the price down for the consumers as well as increasing the overall quality.
Remember, legalization means heavy regulation, which means licensing of growers and manufacturers.

I would much prefer decriminalization of all drugs. As we've seen with the legalization of marijuana, the state steps in and puts a heavy tax on these items, that drives the price up and once again a black market emerges. In a nutshell there is the conundrum of government.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,595
#3,595
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What would be the incentive? You would likely have competing dispensaries driving the price down for the consumers as well as increasing the overall quality.
Remember, legalization means heavy regulation, which means licensing of growers and manufacturers.

I would much prefer decriminalization of all drugs. As we've seen with the legalization of marijuana, the state steps in and puts a heavy tax on these items, that drives the price up and once again a black market emerges. In a nutshell there is the conundrum of government.
Click to expand...

No, I am asking you where the dispensaries would get their inventory?

Also, where would these drug users get the money to purchase their meth, heroine, ect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,596
#3,596
InVOLuntary said:
No, I am asking you where the dispensaries would get their inventory?

Also, where would these drug users get the money to purchase their meth, heroine, ect?
Click to expand...

If it's legalized the state would license sellers and manufactures much as we've seen with the legalization of marijuana.

Where would they get the money? Where do they get it now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,598
#3,598
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If it's legalized the state would license sellers and manufactures much as we've seen with the legalization of marijuana.

Where would they get the money? Where do they get it now?
Click to expand...

Meth, heroin etc require a different level of expertise than growing pot.

Meth and heroine addicts currently are getting their money now by stealing and prostitution and other crimes. People everyday can smoke pot and keep a job and support their habit as well as themselves. People addicted to meth and heroine and many who abuse prescription drugs for the most part can't. They are forced into commiting crimes to support their habit. I am a victim of this crime. Cost me thousands of dollars. I agree, the government shouldn't be in the position of telling people what they can or can't o with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect other people but the truth is it does.
 
#3,599
#3,599
InVOLuntary said:
Meth, heroin etc require a different level of expertise than growing pot.

Meth and heroine addicts currently are getting their money now by stealing and prostitution and other crimes. People everyday can smoke pot and keep a job and support their habit as well as themselves. People addicted to meth and heroine and many who abuse prescription drugs for the most part can't. They are forced into commiting crimes to support their habit. I am a victim of this crime. Cost me thousands of dollars. I agree, the government shouldn't be in the position of telling people what they can or can't o with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect other people but the truth is it does.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you said but many times a criminal (rape, theft) is released to make room for drug user. I would eliminate the drug user non-crime and make the criminal serve full time for the real crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,600
#3,600
InVOLuntary said:
Meth, heroin etc require a different level of expertise than growing pot.

Meth and heroine addicts currently are getting their money now by stealing and prostitution and other crimes. People everyday can smoke pot and keep a job and support their habit as well as themselves. People addicted to meth and heroine and many who abuse prescription drugs for the most part can't. They are forced into commiting crimes to support their habit. I am a victim of this crime. Cost me thousands of dollars. I agree, the government shouldn't be in the position of telling people what they can or can't o with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect other people but the truth is it does.
Click to expand...

Then let's legalize drugs and get rid of most of the non-violent drug offenders in our prisons to make room for the truly violent that walk among us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top