4 ms·

If one could walk into a store and purchase pharmaceutical-grade recreational drugs (manufactured by a company), as one might purchase alcohol or cigarettes, th

by rpearl 13y ago

If one could walk into a store and purchase pharmaceutical-grade recreational drugs (manufactured by a company), as one might purchase alcohol or cigarettes, then there wouldn't be drug-related organized crime or human trafficking.

sukuriant 13y ago
"then there wouldn't be drug-related organized crime or human trafficking." Citation needed. I'm sorry, I cannot believe without a lot of proof that human trafficking and drugs are so intimately related that the latter would not exist without the former.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  It's legal to sell alcohol. Do you see a lot of human trafficking related to alcohol sales?
ceejayoz 13y ago
Bullshit. There aren't a bunch of pedophiles out there going "gee, if I could just get my hands on some heroin I'd stop raping three year olds"...
- SpaceRaccoon 13y ago
  The point is that drugs are a primary income for criminals- that is, people who are criminals for a living.
- rpearl 13y ago
  You have failed to parse my sentence. Of course there would still be human trafficking. There would not be (drug-related human trafficking.) There would not be (drug-related organized crime.)
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    In that case, bullshit again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling
    - rpearl 13y ago
      This no long has anything to do with drugs. The same could be said for fireworks smuggling, or smuggling anything that is taxed differently in different jurisdictions. The fact that the thing being smuggled is a psychoactive substance has no bearing on the issue at hand. The whole point I was trying to make is that drug related crimes happen because drugs are illegal. You apparently don't have a point, but are looking to nitpick your way through any statement I make. This is tiresome, so this is my last response. Feel free to sneak in a last word, but I do not feel like continuing this conversation. I am writing the following for the sake of clarity; not that anyone will read it. My argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and the justifications for keeping drugs illegal are flimsy--essentially non-existent. One can use drugs responsibly, or fail to; one can use alcohol responsibly, or fail to. One can consume cigarettes responsibly, or fail to; one can set off fireworks responsibly, or fail to. It is totally unjustified why drugs are illegal--"they fund organized crime and human trafficking" which is the argument put forth above, is circular reasoning. If drugs weren't illegal, they wouldn't fund such things to any extent, because drug users could obtain drugs without shady internet sites or on-the-street deals. This is not a reasonable justification. The claim, just to reiterate, is that drug use, in and of itself, is victimless. It harms nobody but the user; the user can take on that risk if they so choose, just as those who drive, or go rock climbing, or ski, or fly, accept the risks of those activities. The argument to the contrary that I am saying is fallacious is that drug use, in and of itself, generates organized crime and human trafficking. It does not. It is only the fact that one cannot sell such drugs legally that generates these crimes.
      - ceejayoz 13y ago
        > The whole point I was trying to make is that drug related crimes happen because drugs are illegal. And the counterpoint is that cigarette smuggling is a drug-related crime for a drug that's entirely legal.

by rpearl 13y ago

sukuriant 13y ago

"then there wouldn't be drug-related organized crime or human trafficking." Citation needed. I'm sorry, I cannot believe without a lot of proof that human trafficking and drugs are so intimately related that the latter would not exist without the former.

CamperBob2 13y ago
It's legal to sell alcohol. Do you see a lot of human trafficking related to alcohol sales?

ceejayoz 13y ago

Bullshit. There aren't a bunch of pedophiles out there going "gee, if I could just get my hands on some heroin I'd stop raping three year olds"...

SpaceRaccoon 13y ago
The point is that drugs are a primary income for criminals- that is, people who are criminals for a living.
rpearl 13y ago
You have failed to parse my sentence. Of course there would still be human trafficking. There would not be (drug-related human trafficking.) There would not be (drug-related organized crime.)
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  In that case, bullshit again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling
  - rpearl 13y ago
    This no long has anything to do with drugs. The same could be said for fireworks smuggling, or smuggling anything that is taxed differently in different jurisdictions. The fact that the thing being smuggled is a psychoactive substance has no bearing on the issue at hand. The whole point I was trying to make is that drug related crimes happen because drugs are illegal. You apparently don't have a point, but are looking to nitpick your way through any statement I make. This is tiresome, so this is my last response. Feel free to sneak in a last word, but I do not feel like continuing this conversation. I am writing the following for the sake of clarity; not that anyone will read it. My argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and the justifications for keeping drugs illegal are flimsy--essentially non-existent. One can use drugs responsibly, or fail to; one can use alcohol responsibly, or fail to. One can consume cigarettes responsibly, or fail to; one can set off fireworks responsibly, or fail to. It is totally unjustified why drugs are illegal--"they fund organized crime and human trafficking" which is the argument put forth above, is circular reasoning. If drugs weren't illegal, they wouldn't fund such things to any extent, because drug users could obtain drugs without shady internet sites or on-the-street deals. This is not a reasonable justification. The claim, just to reiterate, is that drug use, in and of itself, is victimless. It harms nobody but the user; the user can take on that risk if they so choose, just as those who drive, or go rock climbing, or ski, or fly, accept the risks of those activities. The argument to the contrary that I am saying is fallacious is that drug use, in and of itself, generates organized crime and human trafficking. It does not. It is only the fact that one cannot sell such drugs legally that generates these crimes.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      > The whole point I was trying to make is that drug related crimes happen because drugs are illegal. And the counterpoint is that cigarette smuggling is a drug-related crime for a drug that's entirely legal.