Ron Paul Supporters in Wonderland

I take it this conversation could run in circles indefinitely. But why? We just disagree. I look forward to chatting with all of you in other threads. Take care.

 

What makes you think I don't? You made a comment and I responded. It really did not have anything to do with political fairness. My only encouragement to you is to remind you to look at what post I actually responded to (one you did not mention gluttony, but rather compared drugs to chocolate glazed donuts), and consider the absurdity of your analogy in that they are two very dissimilar things. I don't care what your politics are. I do think we should have good arguments, no matter what side we are one.

Drugs are physiollogically addicting; chocolate donuts are not.
Drugs increase crime; chocolate donuts do not.
Drugs do immediate and long term physical damage; chocolate donuts do not.
Drugs are virtually impossible to use in moderation; chocolate donuts are not.

They are two very different things and should be treated as such.

 

It does. Just review your posting history for the evidence.

Dr. Pepper and pizza causing a lot of crime these days? Causing a lot of murders? Perhaps you live in a fairly drug free area. I don't. There are drug dealers on my street, on virtually every street within two miles of me. There is crime and murder. Less than one mile from here there are two "memorials" for murdered people, both connected to drugs, one in retaliation for the other. And that's just recently, and close by.

Pizza and Dr. Pepper don't do that, and I imagine you know it. So why you pretend like they are the same kind of issue is mind-boggling. It undermines any confidence in your posts and your critical thinking.

Again, I don't care if we differ politically. I enjoy the exchange. But let's at least make good arguments. Is that too much to expect?

If you think drugs should be legalized, then that's fine. I think it's stupid and won't solve the problem (it will probably increase it). But it's fine for you to think so. But make an argument for it that does not involve a fallacious analogy. Let's at least deal with good arguments.

Here's my argument for drug legalization:
1. It will control the amount available. (Rebuttal: Probably not; Exhibit A: Prescription drugs which are legal yet still widely available through illegal means).
2. It can be taxed which will increase revenues to the government while providing a disincentive to drug use. (Rebuttal: probably not; See Exhibit A and note that the black market charges no taxes).
3. It is nobody's business what an adult decides to do with his body. (Rebuttal: True, but when that adult takes to the streets and starts driving or starts abusing his families, it does become someone else's business).

Now, I don't believe drugs should be legalized, but let's make some good arguments and have some good interactions. Start with my arguments (even though I don't believe them.) Refute, refine, or add your own.

 

1) The abuse of drugs increases crime. Making drugs illegal increases crime, also.

2) Not true. For example, tens of millions of people consume alcohol in moderation. For example, tens of millions of people in this country are vastly overweight or obese.

 

Neither do drugs. An inanimate object cannot commit a crime. People abusing drugs do. The abuse of substances such as Dr. Pepper and pizza lead to health problems and early deaths.

 

That was obviously the point, and the fact that drugs are addictive means that most users are abusers. Abuse results in a multitude of crimes.

Probably, but would making them legal decrease that crime rate? I doubt it would be significant. Furthermore, making it legal would not address the abuse rate, nor would it help the families and neighborhoods affected by it. Furthermore, legal drugs would not eradicate the blackmarket.

Alcohol is not really a part of this conversation since it is not an illegal drug. it probably should be, IMO, but it's not. Furthermore, alcohol is a substantively different type of drug addiction.

Yes ... So? What's the argument here?

Again, make arguments, or interact with mine. Don't make irrelevant statements (or at least statements that appear to be irrelevant).

It is interesting that when it comes to illegal immigration (something far less dangerous than drugs) your side typically doesn't want to make new laws; you just say to enforce the laws we have. (I agree. Let's enforce and send them home.) You think the government should interfere.

But when it comes to illegal drugs (something far more dangerous than illegal immigration), do want to "make new laws" (by changing the legal status from illegal to legal), rather than arguing for enforcing the laws that we currently have.

Many people argue that we should legalize drugs because the current laws are practically unenforcable, and are costing billions without much to show for it. The same is true with illegal immigration. To evict the illegal immigrants would involve current laws that are unenforcable and would costing billions with little to show for it.

To me, there has to be a better way.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. I won't buy your arguments and you won't buy mine.

Besides, you know as well as I do that drugs, other than perhaps medicinal marijuana, are not going to be re-legalized in these United States.

 

If the money that goes into the war on drugs was directed toward treatment and rehabilitation and drugs were legalized it would,
A) Free up space in our prison system by releasing non-violent drug offenders.
B) Free up our law enforcement to concentrate on crimes of a violent nature.
C) Suck the money aspect out of the drug trade thereby reducing murders and crimes associated with it.
D) Greatly increase funding for helping free people from the addiction of drugs.

Regardless of what you want to believe the war on drugs will never be won. There will always be drug addicts. The addictions are so strong that the addict will rob, steal, and kill to get what he needs, because he can't afford it. If all of a sudden he saw no need for this because drugs were legal, costing pennies on the dollar of what they cost now, there would be alot safer neighborhoods and residential areas to live in. Once the danger and monies gone, the temptation and crime wanes, as well.
Just look back at the days of prohibition and compare them to the current war on drugs.

 

This is tantamount to admitting that drug use is not fundamentally a crime against society. I disagree with that.

Why do we need to do this?

Drug crimes are most often connected with violence at some point.

Doubtful because drugs will still cost money, and being legalized will probably make it more lucrative since it won't have to be carried on in secret.

You have already spent all this money in concentrating on other crimes. Besides, the rehab offered by these programs have been shown to be mediocre at best.

Why not legalize other crimes as well? We could save a lot of money that way too.

This is exactly my point. Legalizing drugs wont' win the war.

This is a pipe dream I think.

This was exactly what I was going to say. Doing away with prohibition did not help solve the alcohol problem. It probably increased it is my guess. It may have cut crimes associated with the attaining of alcohol, but it did not cut crimes associated with the use of alcohol. So I think this point doesn't help you.

 

Fundamentally, drug use is a crime against one's own body, rather than against society.

Do you not accept the fact that our current prison population is extremely beyond the limit of what is acceptable or manageable?

Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

The secrecy and criminal activity of drug shipment and sales is what makes the cost of engaging in it so expensive. So I believe your statement is false.

What money on what crime? Probably the mediocrity matches the current funding level and lack of interest in treatment.

Laws that actually protect the citizenry are needful. The drug laws seek to dictate a person's choice to live their life as they choose. If one wishes to do drugs they are at liberty to do so and it doesn't matter if I or you desire they do not. Now if they choose to do drugs and get behind the wheel of an automobile then they have not only endangered their own life, but yours and mine, as well.

Naw! The pipe dream is thinking the gov't can legislate morality and choices people make.

No more bootleggers, no more stills, no more t-men, no more dead lawmen, and no more deaths on the highways caused by the traffickers.

 

No, not really. It is against society because it has societal effects.

No, not at all. I think we have too easily accepted that prison is a place of comfort. It isn't and should not be.

So you agree with me? But why are you arguing against me?

I don't think so. That is part of the reason. But once you legalize it and then charge taxes, the black market will still exist, prices may be lower but demand will probably be higher, so the money will still be there.

You said by taking them off drug patrol you could focus them on other crime.

There is certainly a lack of interest in treatment, but funding is at all time highs and it doesn't work. It is because the program is fundamentally flawed.

But drug laws protect the citizenry through trying to minimize the crime that stems from drug use.

Every law is by definition the legislation of morality. You believe it is moral to allow the use of drugs that destroy bodies and families. I don't.

But more abuse in homes of wives and children and husbands; more drunk driving, etc.

 

A view from the dark side.

 

Speaking for myself I have no problem with it as long as you are on private property.

 

Everything everyone of us does affects society in one way or another. It's that kind of attitude that has enabled government to reach further and further into each of our lives - for the "good of society".

 

The truth of the matter is that(although I do not use drugs) nor am I unfaithful to my wife(and never have been),that there is alot of money to be made by keeping drug use illegal,(I am not for legalizing or de- criminalizing)them either.
Belive it or not your Government has been involved in supplying drugs to the world as has organized crime ,they are one and the same.I'm sure that it will be adamantly denied feel free,but whats true is true,sin is sin,and yes we need laws that are based on the ten commandments,most of our laws are.
Nowhere in Gods word do I see that Jesus thought in his heart that the woman at the well was guilty of a crime,sin yes a criminal no.
He forgave her and gave to her new life,and when they wanted to stone her said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

We are told almost daily that we can't legislate morality but we do....
God tell us he is not a respecter of persons ,but we are....
God tells us he can save (and desires to)all that would come unto him,but we have castaways,(its no use)when the truth is anyone unless God has given them over is within his reach and it is our mission to tell them of Gods Love,and the redemptive power of Jesus"s blood,his saving work on the cross of Calvary.

 

You are right about that, as it concerns the primaries. My mind isn't what it once was.

 

I don't believe the interstate is private.