3 ms·

"Smoking cigarettes?" If it means you will be blowing smoke around and potentially having a negative effect on me or my family, lots. "Being HIV positive" If

by rick888 16y ago

"Smoking cigarettes?" If it means you will be blowing smoke around and potentially having a negative effect on me or my family, lots. "Being HIV positive" If you don't tell your partners and spread it around, it could have devastating effects on many peoples' lives. "The wrong way is to try to regulate what people can put into their own bodies, that road leads to addicts who can't seek help because of fear of jail, it leads to no-knock militarized police raids, it leads to a criminal justice system increasingly cut-off from the populace." I seriously doubt addicts have to worry about jail. Have you ever seen the show "Intervention"? If the laws were as bad as you say in the US, the police would be waiting outside the homes of those people. Many of them are illegal drug addicts (and the show explains exactly which drugs they are taking). The pro-marijuana movement is less about freedom and is more about trying to legitimize a mind-altering substance. "It leads to corruption, to gang violence, and to tragedy of epic proportions." Correlation != Causation. This seems to come up in every article except when it comes to drug related stats. It doesn't lead to corruption and gang violence. Those people would be just as corrupt and in gangs without drugs. Also, it's your freedom and choice to put substances into your body..with or without laws. The tragedy is only brought on by the user and is most likely a symptom (the reason they got into drugs in the first place) of other problems. Most of the drug users I know had messed up childhoods/family life. I also don't think we should make it any easier for an addict..because we will just end up with more people who won't really care about becoming addicted because there will be no consequences (IE: the government pays for your rehabilitation).

chc 16y ago
>If the laws were as bad as you say in the US, the police would be waiting outside the homes of those people. Nope. There are many other possibilities. The law could be that bad, but enforcement could be inconsistent. The law could be that bad, but certain classes might be relatively immune. And so on. And correlation is different from causation, but in this case, it's deductively provable that prohibition acts as fuel for these things. It's not merely correlated in some indirect way.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Nope. There are many other possibilities. The law could be that bad, but enforcement could be inconsistent. The law could be that bad, but certain classes might be relatively immune. And so on." Nope. Intervention is on national television. A cop somewhere has to be seeing it. If it was as bad as you say, those people would be arrested asap. and certain classes might be immune? Please. the people on the show are from different classes. "it's deductively provable that prohibition acts as fuel for these things." So you are making the argument that the prohibition of drugs causes someone to form a gang? Why do people decide to do drugs in the first place? Pot for example gets you high. It allows you to forget, for a short time, any of the bad things happening in your life and gives you a temporary happiness. Anyone that needs to do this has problems. It's those same bad problems at home that make gangs so enticing. Gangs provide family, a support network, and power.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Could you explain to me in what ways your argument differs from that of prohibition of alcohol? If you can't, do you support a return to the prohibition of alcohol? P.S. My comment about corruption was not meant to address the "corruption" of individuals who join gangs, rather it was meant to describe the corruption of the criminal justice system, society, and the political process that prohibitions causes.
- rick888 16y ago
  "P.S. My comment about corruption was not meant to address the "corruption" of individuals who join gangs, rather it was meant to describe the corruption of the criminal justice system, society, and the political process that prohibitions causes." Ahh, because if drugs were allowed, we would see virtually no gang activity in the US. We should check out Portugal and Amsterdam to see if all of the gangs just decided to disban because drugs are legalized.

by rick888 16y ago

chc 16y ago

>If the laws were as bad as you say in the US, the police would be waiting outside the homes of those people. Nope. There are many other possibilities. The law could be that bad, but enforcement could be inconsistent. The law could be that bad, but certain classes might be relatively immune. And so on. And correlation is different from causation, but in this case, it's deductively provable that prohibition acts as fuel for these things. It's not merely correlated in some indirect way.

rick888 16y ago
"Nope. There are many other possibilities. The law could be that bad, but enforcement could be inconsistent. The law could be that bad, but certain classes might be relatively immune. And so on." Nope. Intervention is on national television. A cop somewhere has to be seeing it. If it was as bad as you say, those people would be arrested asap. and certain classes might be immune? Please. the people on the show are from different classes. "it's deductively provable that prohibition acts as fuel for these things." So you are making the argument that the prohibition of drugs causes someone to form a gang? Why do people decide to do drugs in the first place? Pot for example gets you high. It allows you to forget, for a short time, any of the bad things happening in your life and gives you a temporary happiness. Anyone that needs to do this has problems. It's those same bad problems at home that make gangs so enticing. Gangs provide family, a support network, and power.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Could you explain to me in what ways your argument differs from that of prohibition of alcohol? If you can't, do you support a return to the prohibition of alcohol? P.S. My comment about corruption was not meant to address the "corruption" of individuals who join gangs, rather it was meant to describe the corruption of the criminal justice system, society, and the political process that prohibitions causes.

rick888 16y ago
"P.S. My comment about corruption was not meant to address the "corruption" of individuals who join gangs, rather it was meant to describe the corruption of the criminal justice system, society, and the political process that prohibitions causes." Ahh, because if drugs were allowed, we would see virtually no gang activity in the US. We should check out Portugal and Amsterdam to see if all of the gangs just decided to disban because drugs are legalized.