To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,101
#2,101
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,103
#2,103
Obsessed said:
So if pot was legal, they wouldn't smoke meth?

My point is, that it's not only the user who is affected by this. It's not just their body. An innocent child was eaten alive.
Click to expand...

What about it? People still die every day. It's tragic yes, but decisions do have ramifications. I agree, the mother in your story should be punished severely.

I think you're missing the point here. We are punishing people for a substance. Why do we discriminate against the substance, when it should be the actions of the individuals under control of this substance that should be "illegal" .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,104
#2,104
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Regardless of the political leanings of the people of a specific area, legalization has gone well.
Click to expand...

Wow there sure has been a long period of time to make that judgement. I doubt it's all sunshine & rainbows & I doubt you get unbiased data from Colorado. Wonder how the neighboring states feel?
 
#2,105
#2,105
Grand Vol said:
My point exactly. Small steps if that's what you want.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am not a drug user. I just believe people should be able to do as they wish, and suffer the consequences, good or bad.

Our prisons are filled to the brim with non violent drug offenders. We cannot keep drugs out of our own prisons, we have to do something.

I'm sure most of you in the Leo community here can attest that a lot of times people go to prison and become criminals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,106
#2,106
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
How the drug war created crystal meth « Adam Smith Institute

What Explains Crystal Meth? - Mark Thornton - Mises Daily

:hi:
Click to expand...

In both articles it cites that meth has been around since 1893. I'm confused, were you admitting you were wrong or are you now arguing that it's rise to popularity is because LE squeezed the market which paved the way for a cheaper drug. If your argument is the second then you obviously do not know that meth is generally more expensive than cocaine. Neither article mentions why meth is more prevalent in rural areas, nor do they mention the production of meth has gone from a lab taking up the space of a large garage to a 2 liter bottle. Also, the article fails to mention that people who use meth prefer meth for it's longevity versus cocaine. It's pretty simple to point a finger and make claims like this, but it's nothing like prohibition in that alcohol offers the same result in people whereas there are drugs that offer a multitude of effects on the CNS. The claim that the difficulty in obtaining marijuana is one reason why meth had a meteoric rise in use is just plain sloppy.
 
#2,109
#2,109
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What about it? People still die every day. It's tragic yes, but decisions do have ramifications. I agree, the mother in your story should be punished severely.

I think you're missing the point here. We are punishing people for a substance. Why do we discriminate against the substance, when it should be the actions of the individuals under control of this substance that should be "illegal" .
Click to expand...

Because their actions don't take place in a vacuum. It's for the greater good. Some drugs are just a blight on society.
 
#2,110
#2,110
tim said:
In both articles it cites that meth has been around since 1893. I'm confused, were you admitting you were wrong or are you now arguing that it's rise to popularity is because LE squeezed the market which paved the way for a cheaper drug. If your argument is the second then you obviously do not know that meth is generally more expensive than cocaine. Neither article mentions why meth is more prevalent in rural areas, nor do they mention the production of meth has gone from a lab taking up the space of a large garage to a 2 liter bottle. Also, the article fails to mention that people who use meth prefer meth for it's longevity versus cocaine. It's pretty simple to point a finger and make claims like this, but it's nothing like prohibition in that alcohol offers the same result in people whereas there are drugs that offer a multitude of effects on the CNS. The claim that the difficulty in obtaining marijuana is one reason why meth had a meteoric rise in use is just plain sloppy.
Click to expand...

From the article...

…crystal meth is a cheap date; it has been referred to as the poor man’s cocaine. Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, so it is reasonable to assume that they appeal to the same subset of drug users. During cocaine’s heyday, meth was nearly extinct on the illegal market.’

However, during the drug war this changed as it became cheaper and safer for those who traded in cocaine to switch to a cheaper product. And so was born the drug we know today as crystal meth.

This is a pattern in other prohibitions. The prohibition of a substance does not eliminate demand, it only changes the nature of the market. During the prohibition of alcohol in the United States moonshine became a substitute for previously legal alcohol. Although having the same desired effect of alcohol before prohibition moonshine contained higher levels of toxins and was regarded as more dangerous previously available alcohol. Like many government policies, the prohibition of illegal drugs is motivated by good intentions. However, the unintended consequences have been disastrous with more potent and dangerous drugs entering the market.

The government should move towards a policy that allows for the free trade of substances that are currently prohibited – however brutal those substances are to their users. Such a policy, which moves towards total legalisation, would be effective in reducing crime and breaking the monopoly criminals have on the drugs trade, and reduce the tendency toward ever-stronger substances. A more realistic policy decision would be to move towards a system of decriminalisation as currently used in Portugal. A more liberal policy would allow for a safer environment for those who use the drugs, remove many stigmas currently attached to drug use, and make it easier for addicts to seek treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,111
#2,111
Cocaine is a 15 min bump. Meth has you up for a week. A week. A week.

Then they want to drive a car.
 
#2,112
#2,112
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
From the article...

…crystal meth is a cheap date; it has been referred to as the poor man’s cocaine. Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, so it is reasonable to assume that they appeal to the same subset of drug users. During cocaine’s heyday, meth was nearly extinct on the illegal market.’

However, during the drug war this changed as it became cheaper and safer for those who traded in cocaine to switch to a cheaper product. And so was born the drug we know today as crystal meth.

This is a pattern in other prohibitions. The prohibition of a substance does not eliminate demand, it only changes the nature of the market. During the prohibition of alcohol in the United States moonshine became a substitute for previously legal alcohol. Although having the same desired effect of alcohol before prohibition moonshine contained higher levels of toxins and was regarded as more dangerous previously available alcohol. Like many government policies, the prohibition of illegal drugs is motivated by good intentions. However, the unintended consequences have been disastrous with more potent and dangerous drugs entering the market.

The government should move towards a policy that allows for the free trade of substances that are currently prohibited – however brutal those substances are to their users. Such a policy, which moves towards total legalisation, would be effective in reducing crime and breaking the monopoly criminals have on the drugs trade, and reduce the tendency toward ever-stronger substances. A more realistic policy decision would be to move towards a system of decriminalisation as currently used in Portugal. A more liberal policy would allow for a safer environment for those who use the drugs, remove many stigmas currently attached to drug use, and make it easier for addicts to seek treatment.
Click to expand...

Or maybe apply capital punishment for habitual offenders.
 
#2,116
#2,116
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
From the article...

…crystal meth is a cheap date; it has been referred to as the poor man’s cocaine. Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, so it is reasonable to assume that they appeal to the same subset of drug users. During cocaine’s heyday, meth was nearly extinct on the illegal market.’

However, during the drug war this changed as it became cheaper and safer for those who traded in cocaine to switch to a cheaper product. And so was born the drug we know today as crystal meth.

This is a pattern in other prohibitions. The prohibition of a substance does not eliminate demand, it only changes the nature of the market. During the prohibition of alcohol in the United States moonshine became a substitute for previously legal alcohol. Although having the same desired effect of alcohol before prohibition moonshine contained higher levels of toxins and was regarded as more dangerous previously available alcohol. Like many government policies, the prohibition of illegal drugs is motivated by good intentions. However, the unintended consequences have been disastrous with more potent and dangerous drugs entering the market.

The government should move towards a policy that allows for the free trade of substances that are currently prohibited – however brutal those substances are to their users. Such a policy, which moves towards total legalisation, would be effective in reducing crime and breaking the monopoly criminals have on the drugs trade, and reduce the tendency toward ever-stronger substances. A more realistic policy decision would be to move towards a system of decriminalisation as currently used in Portugal. A more liberal policy would allow for a safer environment for those who use the drugs, remove many stigmas currently attached to drug use, and make it easier for addicts to seek treatment.
Click to expand...

I read it. Pasting it does not make it right. I think it's an argument, but I think its a bad argument. Meth is not cheaper than cocaine nor is it easier to get. Yes it can be made, but it's popularity is preference and ease of production. Bubba is not going to drive to town when he can make it. My first lab would fill up two pick up trucks, labs today can be carried off in a kroger bag. Chemists used to be producers of meth and now it's as simple as 123.
 
#2,117
#2,117
tim said:
I read it. Pasting it does not make it right. I think it's an argument, but I think its a bad argument. Meth is not cheaper than cocaine nor is it easier to get. Yes it can be made, but it's popularity is preference and ease of production. Bubba is not going to drive to town when he can make it. My first lab would fill up two pick up trucks, labs today can be carried off in a kroger bag. Chemists used to be producers of meth and now it's as simple as 123.
Click to expand...

They busted a woman here cooking meth on isle 11 in Walmart. No joke. Chemicals and all. Making it in the store.
 
#2,121
#2,121
tim said:
No one in the business thinks that there will be a total eradication of drugs. Dink, do you honestly think that an open drug market would end the drug problem?
Click to expand...

Nothing will end the drug problem, but there are ways to put a dent in the prison problem.

Addicts either bottom out and clean up or they die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,122
#2,122
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What about it? People still die every day. It's tragic yes, but decisions do have ramifications. I agree, the mother in your story should be punished severely.

I think you're missing the point here. We are punishing people for a substance. Why do we discriminate against the substance, when it should be the actions of the individuals under control of this substance that should be "illegal" .
Click to expand...

Pot is different than all other drugs (illegal and illegal).

First, it is unique in having legitimate medical uses with no known lethal dosage. It is harmless if taken in the privacy of ones own home. As a comparison, roughly 700 people die per year from aspirin overdose and many prescription drugs are far worse. The addictive properties of tobacco and alcohol are well documented, as well as their relation to teen pregnancy, sirrosis of the liver, lung cancer, and drunk driving. The fact these are legal and pot isn't makes zero sense from a public health stand point. Cocaine, meth, etc have been all well documented on destructive addictions.

Second, it is in fact, a naturally occurring plant. No processing is necessary for its use, at least no more than would be needed to smoke or chew tobacco. One can grow it in their backyard, dry it out, and light it up, eat it, whatever.

So I think legalizing pot should be a no brainer. Other drugs should certainly be up for debate, at the least.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top