Legalize?, where do you stand? Options

This thread is kind of two pronged topic. For one I'm curious to see people's opinions about the legalization of drugs just in general. Then I want to know what readers think about the war on terror compared to the war on drugs.

Since I'm interested in what YOU guys think I'm going to just kinda step back for the moment and see if there are any takers.

I lost sight of this thread for awhile here

now then lets see

Of course acid 09 is right. With such poignant jingoism as "statistical voodoo" how can your objective point of view be questioned.

Not with statistics that have no backing, credibility or sitation. I hate it when people use numbers to try to push their objective point of view. Without any backing people can use numbers to say just about anything. And even then I try to avoid stats just because the ways they are conducted don't always produce reliable answers - hence statistical voodoo - a euphemism for fallacious statistics.

The reality is the relativly simple economic relationship between terrorism and the health, weapons, and illegal drug industries is a well observed phenomena that has recieved plenty of academic research and support from many of your own governments departments.

Sure but if you want to point the numbers to support your arguement you should site them.

Which brings me to your gung ho testosterone infused statement (to employ some jingoism of my own - its only fair that i resort to your own use of dime store psychology in order to garner the support of others for my obviously superior position on the topic),

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/baby.gif)
Your position seems to be that we should legalize and mass market ALL drugs. Your arguement is niether superior or infferior, but equaly valid to everybody elses, this is not a contest or battle of ego - at least not for me.

However I will say that what you claim lacks coheasion and in all honestly creates a lot of confusion. But what the hell lets continue.

in terms of what - what currency are you using to value these bullets?

Dollars bullets are payed for in dollars. Lets try not to confuse readers. Or at least me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

So the choice between two systems is clear to you. Both systems have risks but you would obviously prefer one risk to the other. What are these systems and their risks?

I think we should objectively consider that some drugs do not cause the social decention, that government propaganda would have us believe in, just because people use them. What causes the negative social impact is people who choose to use illegal drugs anyways become crimminals when if the drug(s) were perfectly legal the user would most likely be a regular member of society. If society can agree legal drugs like tobacco, caffine cold medicine, to name a few, are socially acceptable then why not marijuana as well? Or even halluciogenic mushrooms? I could conceed even ecstacy as well.

Drugs are manufactured by legitimate companies using current technologies and processing methods ensuring quality end products of the most safety and purity.

If this is the main premise of your first "system" it is unrealistic. I cannot imagine heroine or meth being "safe" in any level. Besides capitalist driven corperations have been notorious for using unnecessary additives that only worsen the long term affects of their products; all in the name of higher profits - think tobacco.

Now on the other hand I don't think the government should have the right to control the research done with any drug, aside from enforcing high codes of ethics of course. If science can't research certain drugs in America because the are schedual one, then science can not develope these drugs into ones that really are safe.

The tax of these products will bring in literally billions of dollars a year in the united states alone. The risk being a ballooning of drug related health problems and possibly drug related crime.

Perscription medicines already ring in billions. Most of which just goes right back into the pockets of coperations because they've managed to lobby in our government and buy off the system. Also these same perscription meds already do contribute to crimminal behavior. Many people become addicted to perscription drugs. People on the streets already steal or heckle these drugs to sell for their own profit too. I mean I'm sure I myself could get you just about any kind of painkiller out there (especially seraquil, percasette, and oxycotin) and probably at prices cheaper than what they're regularly sold for too.

Maybe it is safe to assume that you are right and people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions (they should be told what they can and cant do by the government). Just look at all the alcoholics out there. I cant walk down the street anymore without my alcoholic beating stick.

When did I say people can't be trusted to make their own choices? When did I say the government should be allowed to make choices for people? You should qoute me more often.

People can always be trusted to make their own choices. That doesn't mean they will be good ones. Nobody is perfect. Just because drugs like marijuana suddenly become legal doesn't mean we create this "happy day" society with no problems. Legalizing drugs can solve some problems but it can will create others as well. I believe if we legalize all drugs at once we then run the risk of creating more problems than if we just keep the scope narrowed down to a few drugs.

In fact the evidence of studies shows that with trial dercriminilisation and legalisation of drugs, drug use actually more often wanes then stays at the same rates, and never rises.

What studies? This is exactly what I mean by stastical "voodoo". You're claiming that studies support your arguement without presenting any real studies - voodoo - hokus pokus - bull shit - why should I believe anything you say? If you want to "get people on your side" my friend, seriously go find some sources to back your stance. I'm not going to believe you because you say so and I certainly hope other readers do not as well.

Billions of possible dollars could be flowing to our governments - and to deny that there would be some benefit to us even if only in the tokenistic sense of tax cuts and wage rises - would be to deny your own intelligence

I don't think more money for our government alone is what Americans would really want. They'd want that money spent in ways that benefit the people, not fund bigger more beauracratic government.

Involves the current methods. Drugs are illegal and huge amounts of money are being spent on policing, supporting the weapons industry

Look at the major premise of both of your "systems" - you can clearly see that the way I voted doesn't support either one. What you're arguing, imho, is extremes. You're trying to push your ideas based on an "either or" syllogism that is pretty much blind to any middle ground. The difference between you and me is I'm a moderate. Your a radical, or least you come off as one, my opinion.

yes you are right acid09, i would much prefer my money to go to people who make guns whose only intention is to harm people, than to a company that makes drugs whose effects can harm people (though it is not the intention and not the outcome when used in a safe and informed manner)

Quote me. Where did I say anything that supports putting my money into making guns? I did say that if we're going to seriously try to win this war on drugs we need to move the main front from our boarders and into the countries who harbor cartels. But we can't win a "war on drugs", its political move made be Regan to gain PR support because his favor was declining due to the recession he got us in the 80's. We were never meant to win this war. Regan was meant to win the publics favor and it worked - for Regan but not Americans.

If system one were involved it would put the cartels out of business. They would become the poor thirld world populations they most often used to be representative of. There would be no need to shoot these people anymore. They couldnt aford to get guns of their own.

Go to Mexico, the meth producing capitol of the Americas, and tell me its not a 3rd world nation. Go to Columbia and tell me the Cocaine and marijuana sold from there has made it anything but a 3rd world nation. The people who own these illegal businesses are not philanthropists. They are gangsters - murderers - con men - they get wealthy buy victimizing others and selling products on the black market. And not just drugs too mind you. These people also sell slaves, guns, even artillery and any number of illegal products.

One is a system that relies on personal choice and responibiity for its succcess, the other is one that seeks to have governments inflict choices on their people (and those of other countries).

Which if you can't even walk down the streets because of alcoholics, people who are addicted to legal drugs, what makes you think your system would work at all?

The cartels here are simply out to make a buck - a reality that would be strangled if roche and those guys got the ok to start making these drugs.

And they're not afraid to resort to terrorism to make their buck.

Where do you think the bad drug dealer guys get their guns. Guns dont just magically appear. Neither do bullets. The weapons industry is these days a pretty tight knit community worldwide.

Bullshit. Many of the guns that find their way into the US come from Columbia and China via trade routes established from southeast Asia. The southeast gets many of their guns from other organizations who've stock piled old soviet weaponry. The stuff you might see some well connected gangsters pack here in the US are government issued and aquired through corrupt officals. Some states also have laxed laws. But the majority of the heavy fire power that street thugs carry these days come from the same sources - Asia, Mexico and Columbia.

What you say about marijuana being less harmfull than ghb is obvious. But i would willingly bet you as much money as you can afford, and i suggest that we do this - i would be willing to bet you US$1000 through paypal that right now in western mental health facilities there are thousands of people suffering from the use of marijuana. I am talking about people who never used any other drug, and who have no history of mental illness in their families. If you are going to talk about making bets then i suggest you put your money where your mouth is friend. I will literally bet you US$1000.

Fact is if you're schizophrenic or histeronic marijuana can lead to psychotic episodes - its a halluncinogen that can cause paranoia in some users. I do think you'd have difficulty prooving that marijuana directly causes mental illness. Just because somebody smoked a lot of weed doesn;t mean thats what made them snap. it could have contributed, but now we're hitting so much grey water we could never really proove beyond a doubt. Not only I'd bet many of those same people probably used more drugs than just pot. Not only that But if you're trying to say that I don't think marijuana has any danger to it you're wrong. It is a drug and there is no absolutely safe drug. Besides I wouldn't bet you a beer unless I could see some sources - which you notoriously lack in just about every claim you make.

Illegal drugs support the weapons industry - the weapons industry supports death in a twofold manner - it supports killing people, and it is one of the biggest supports for the mining industry - the richest industry o the planet. If you can not see how interrelated these things are, and that a ground up approach is the only method available to the masses to change any of these sad realities - then you are being controlled. The bullshit you have swallowed has intergrated with your system so completely that not even Tony Robins can save you now. Do you really think "yeah they should go and kill those people"? Is that good for you? History teaches us about colonialism and the third world. Our governmets created the third world through their pillaging, the only way for them to recover is from selling us drugs and then we want to kill them for it (i am not going to start alluding to the possibility that race may have now or at some stage in this cotastrophe had something to do with it - it is too big a topic for now).

This paragraph perfectly demonstrates what I mean when I say your arguements lack any coheasion. You're scaling up the level of intrigues involved when the discussion is simply about what people think. The only reason I even argue with you is because I'm sadistic enough to pick apart your claims.

Edited to add that i just realised that acid09 you started this thread and poll. I am most sorry. It appears I have been duped by my own impatience again. It is usually the case that a humans ask others what they think about a topic so that she/he can have a sounding board and a platform to tell others what they really think is right. I am not condemming this practice, it is an innocent one - i just didnt realise at first that this was what was going on here.

Let me simplify this for you:

I'm interested in other people's opinions. I don't think I've told anybody they should believe what I believe. You on the other hand I think its plain for all to see you have your own agenda.