Ferguson, MO

I'm not sure how the burden to prove how the legalization of drugs will increase usage - shouldn't you be telling me how it won't?

Or is this that Bugs Bunny trick where he rapidly repeats a position, and then subtly changes his answer to the opposite, so as to gain a confused agreement?

I don't live in a fantasy world where my only options to address the nation's drug epidemic are to accept only punishing the poor and weakest amongst us, or simply legalizing all drugs. Aren't there any thousands of stop-gaps between the two, for you, IP?

And, before I miss the chance, is this your agreeing with the assertion that the legalization of drugs will disproportionately affect and harm the poor and uneducated, or not?

The logic in my argument is air-tight and easily understandable. It is:

1. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure for many reasons, but most predominantly, because it hasn't been fought as a war, of any kind, at all (see OE's recent post about whole tractor trailers full of drugs freely driving our interstate, and convenience stores being used as fronts, etc.). But this is neither proof that the war isn't worth fighting, nor that we should now simply surrender to it.

2. Putting more holes in an already leaking ship - no matter the size, location, frequency, wishful thinking or how controlled the process of drilling may be - will not, in fact, make for a more stable and sea-worthy vessel. At absolute best, it won't help, and at worst, it will only further exacerbate an already dangerous condition, and which could only further risk the sinking of the entire ship.

I also do not believe that the best method of drying clothes is to pour more water onto them.

I reject the notion that the answer to our childhood obesity epidemic is to allow McDonald's to provide school lunches.

I don't think that more unprotected sex will cure herpes.

I don't think that less lift will make airplanes safer.

Just in case we go those routes, next, my being unable to predict the path of any other and additional red herrings which may emerge.

 

Though my sister used to live in santa cruz where they basically decriminalized drugs and she literally used to see people shooting up in public in downtown santa cruz. I doubt usage went up though. It just got more in your face and the local druggies flocked there.

 

What do you think would happen if we punished the person / casual user who bought / possessed / used drugs, essentially as we do the people who sold it to them?

Incarceration rates would spike for sure, initially...but then what do you think would happen, going forward?

Sincere question, trusting your experienced views?

 

Well, that's not so bad.

I really hope Alabama legalizes everything, in that case.

 

Seize more.

 

Oh, they are?

But why would anyone who wanted to help the poor advocate for the legalization of drugs? That seems, well, both counter-intuitive and counter-productive, doesn't it?

 

Oh, it went down in Portugal.

It always rains on Tuesday, I've been told.

Yes, let's get this shit off the books.

 

But, liberals have built a decades-long policy - and quite successfully - on a wide-planked platform of not only telling people to do whatever they want, whatever feels good, no matter how obvious and ultimately destructive it may be, but further, to even incentivize and finance their doing it.

So, you can't mess with that, because you know, votes man. Votes.

 

All problems are the liberals' fault. What was that about rain on Tuesday?

 

1. I think you are confusing evidence of defeat of a failed policy as evidence against a war having been fought. By this logic, Napoleon didn't go to war since he ultimately lost. The war on drugs was tried and it failed.

2. How will more holes in the Titanic make it sink any further? Drugs are freely available. You, or me, or anyone else could find most any illegal substance within 24 to 48 hours.

You are advocating drying clothes by punching the lake you're standing in.

You are championing the notion that the answer to our childhood obesity epidemic is to keep serving kids the same school lunches.

You think herpes is caused by unprotected sex, and not a communicable virus.

You think landing a plane is more dangerous than flying until you run out of fuel.

If you want to get into logical fallacies, I'm game. I think you'll find your entire position is a series of them.

 

surely you can see the difference between something that takes 24 hours of effort compared to driving down to your local 711 and buying it in 5 minutes? there virtually isn't any product on earth where easy of purchase doesn't increase demand. and don't also tell me that there isn't a reasonable percentage of the population that doesn't buy drugs because it's illegal. your example is one of a motivated current drug user. well not everyone in America is a motivated current drug user.

 

I don't think there are many people who are interested in drug use that haven't tried it. I also think treating addiction for what it is, a mental disorder, rather than what it isn't, a a deliberate attack on society, would help more people.

 

:hi:

 

there are plenty of people who have tried drugs that aren't currently using drugs and would occasionally say smoke a joint if it was legal and easily accessible. i'd probably be one of them. eh. I've always believed being an addict is a symptom of being a selfish ******* rather than the cause.

 

I guess out of sight out of mind.

 

You think that the legally ready availability of more drugs will result in less drug use.

Is that correct?

If not, please clarify.

I want to check off my fallacious beliefs, one at a time.

 

I think it would remain about the same with the majority of the violence removed from the market. I think pot and coke use would increase while harder drug use would decrease over all.

 

I can't believe any would really decrease, but I agree the "softer" drugs would be the greatest increase. Portugal, ip's example, did a lot more than just decriminalizing it's use. they took a drastically different approach to addiction. hard to see us doing the same.

 

I don't think much would change, honestly, except perhaps some tax revenues. I don't see the cartels fiving up that easy. Could borderline see a war on legal places to buy it in all honesty.

 

That so many can use drugs and it have no lasting addiction consequences only demonstrates that there is more going on here than just the substance itself. I think there is a lot more to it than being a "selfish ... whatever is in the asterisks." Or maybe there is more going on than someone just being selfish.

Have you read this editorial: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html? Some interesting links and references used in supporting a claim that addiction isn't quite what most of us think it is.