Baltimore getting "progressive"

[panamaican]

That's potentially true, I don't know. Personally I don't use any illegal drugs and the only legal drug I consume is alcohol. I also don't own any guns but don't support most gun control positions.

The basis for my opinion is what I perceive as logical disconnect between pro-legalization and anti-dealer rhetoric. I frequently see proponents of legalization also being people who attack the character traits of the dealers.

To wit, You'll get these 2 opinions from the same person:

1) Legalization is important because the government shouldn't be telling us what plant we can put into our bodies. Freedom, privacy, etc. Plus, the state can just tax it and make some money too. Yay freedom.

2) Damn drug dealers. Low brow, uneducated, lazy pos. They hurt our great nation. They're destroying their communities. I don't feel so bad when the law comes down hard on them...they deserve it for breaking the law in the first place.

So, my conclusion is that the speaker isn't genuine about the issue itself. The issue meaning what causes the drug market, how it's actually affecting people, what we can do to help those people who see drugs as a legitimate economic choice, etc.

So, once it's legalized they'll continue their same pre-legalization behavior while continuing to shit on the guy who used to be their dealer but still has to find a way to eat post legalization.

 

[Denter]

Have you ever met a person who wants to do crack, but doesnt because he doesnt wants to break the law?

I've known many people who want to buy various drugs again, for a vacation or party or something, but are dissuaded because they would have to call people they haven't spoken to in along time or talk to old friends they don't hang out with much anymore, all under the threat of being busted. These friends of mine normally decide buying drugs again just isn't worth the hassle, and don't. Drugs wouldn't be a hassle to get if they were sold legally, and those friends of mine would just go buy it so they could trip on their beach vacation or whatever. That also goes for cocaine- I know tons of people who would do it if it were legal.

Why can't pro-legalization people admit that legalization will increase use?

 

[The Diplomat]

BTW...what I said was an abstract of the article...

No, what you said was a fallacy in regarding the article you yourself posted. You say they are getting progressive and "more gun control, that's the answer" but there is no mention of gun control in the article, only the amount of killings in Baltimore being the most they've seen in 43 years.

What's the point of this thread?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I've known many people who want to buy various drugs again, for a vacation or party or something, but are dissuaded because they would have to call people they haven't spoken to in along time or talk to old friends they don't hang out with much anymore, all under the threat of being busted. These friends of mine normally decide buying drugs again just isn't worth the hassle, and don't. Drugs wouldn't be a hassle to get if they were sold legally, and those friends of mine would just go buy it so they could trip on their beach vacation or whatever. That also goes for cocaine- I know tons of people who would do it if it were legal.

Why can't pro-legalization people admit that legalization will increase use?

Because it isn't quite that simple. Growing up it was a lot easier to get illegal drugs than legal drugs (booze and tobacco). Thus I don't think it unlikely that use by those underage would stay the same or even decrease (I think this has actually been observed in those states that have legalized weed).

Would recreational use by adults increase? Yeah, quite likely. Frankly I don't view that as a compelling reason to maintain prohibition though. Prohibition in the 20's worked. There was a decrease in alcohol consumption during the period of illegality and there was an increase in consumption after repeal. The problems with prohibition were that you were restricting the informed behavior of adults and the crime associated with prohibition--same as today.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Edit: you just said alcohol does that too... So your answer is to legalize more drugs that are more addictive. You don't see the flaw in that.

What's the flaw? Why are you trying to legislate your morality?

 

[UpaLoompa]

So, once it's legalized they'll continue their same pre-legalization behavior while continuing to shit on the guy who used to be their dealer but still has to find a way to eat post legalization.

Sadly you'd likely be right. I do find it irritating that so many people argue not from underlying precepts and ideals but rather from emotion.

This thread is a fantastic example of that.

 

[UpaLoompa]

What's odd to me is that so many on the right freak out when there are pushes to regulate currently legal substances that have a far more profound public health impact (alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, sugar (soda), even guns). Here, those same folks are aghast at the thought that other substances with far smaller public health impacts might be made legal. Intellectually inconsistent.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

What's the flaw? Why are you trying to legislate your morality?

Smh. Ok bud. I hope your kids never enjoy the "freedom" of heorin.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

What's odd to me is that so many on the right freak out when there are pushes to regulate currently legal substances that have a far more profound public health impact (alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, sugar (soda), even guns). Here, those same folks are aghast at the thought that other substances with far smaller public health impacts might be made legal. Intellectually inconsistent.

Trans fat is the same as heorin? When's the last time someone murdered an innocent person to get the money to score trans fat? You're so full of shit I can smell you from here.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Trans fat is the same as heorin? When's the last time someone murdered an innocent person to get the money to score trans fat? You're so full of shit I can smell you from here.

Which is a bigger public health concern, heart disease or heroin overdoses? If you say heroin you're an idiot.

You're so full of self-righteousness and hypocrisy I can smell you, no I can't, we're typing. If your argument for keeping these drugs illegal are health and crime based, you do not have a coherent argument unless you also think that a hell of a lot of other things should be made illegal too.

 

[Denter]

Because it isn't quite that simple. Growing up it was a lot easier to get illegal drugs than legal drugs (booze and tobacco). Thus I don't think it unlikely that use by those underage would stay the same or even decrease (I think this has actually been observed in those states that have legalized weed).

Would recreational use by adults increase? Yeah, quite likely. Frankly I don't view that as a compelling reason to maintain prohibition though. Prohibition in the 20's worked. There was a decrease in alcohol consumption during the period of illegality and there was an increase in consumption after repeal. The problems with prohibition were that you were restricting the informed behavior of adults and the crime associated with prohibition--same as today.

I agree, but I don't think that use would increase. The desire to do drugs is a social one, something I'm not an expert on, but youth use levels might stay roughly the same- but there would definitely be an increase in use among adults. The debate about whether its worth the damage or not is legitimate, but let's not pretend that the law doesn't dissuade a significant amount of people. Who would smoke if it was illegal?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I agree, but I don't think that use would increase. The desire to do drugs is a social one, something I'm not an expert on, but youth use levels might stay roughly the same- but there would definitely be an increase in use among adults. The debate about whether its worth the damage or not is legitimate, but let's not pretend that the law doesn't dissuade a significant amount of people. Who would smoke if it was illegal?

Lots of people, clearly.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I've known many people who want to buy various drugs again, for a vacation or party or something, but are dissuaded because they would have to call people they haven't spoken to in along time or talk to old friends they don't hang out with much anymore, all under the threat of being busted. These friends of mine normally decide buying drugs again just isn't worth the hassle, and don't. Drugs wouldn't be a hassle to get if they were sold legally, and those friends of mine would just go buy it so they could trip on their beach vacation or whatever. That also goes for cocaine- I know tons of people who would do it if it were legal.

Why can't pro-legalization people admit that legalization will increase use?

Yes, it would. And in the case of marijuana, it's probably a perfectly fine trade off. I'm less sold on heroin.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

More junkies are not the answer.

That result might not be a fact. Even so, a slight uptick in use would be far superior to the fallout from having approximately the same amount of drug use AND the costs of prohibition.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal

 

[panamaican]

How high-horsey of you.

The better to look down on "you people". :icon_chee

God forbid people not want to be criminalized for behavior that isn't directly harming anyone else. I'd disagree the legalization efforts are inspired by users rather than growers, media, political groups. The truth is most users don't get busted and don't fear getting busted. To say they are devoid of concern for the penalties befalling others involved with the industry is awful presumptuous.

My point is that while I agree that people don't want to be criminalized for behavior that isn't harming others, there's a segment, and I won't put numbers to it, that has no problem demeaning the very people who provide them with the tools of their behavior.

I find it disingenuous when people insult the character of drug dealers while implying that they, the actual users of those drugs, are above reproach for their role in the drug market. That they are somehow victims while their dealers remain scum.

For an example of what that hypocrisy might look like. Someone is pro legalization. They mention that our prisons are overfilled because of stupid drug arrests and how the sentencing destroys people's lives. Then they comment on the low breeding and poor decisions of inner city drug dealers.

when I speak to or read from someone holding those positions simultaneously, I know that their interest in the legalization conversation is superficial. And I suspect (obviously, don't know) that they have no idea what role drugs and drug dealing are actually playing in our society so I don't take their opinion seriously. I assume that these people don't really care about the impact on society beyond the fact that they, the consumer, would no longer be engaged in something that's technically illegal.

Of course, there are plenty of well-reasoned supporters of legalization whose arguments seem to come from a more complete analysis of the issue and I gladly listen to or read their opinions.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Of course, there are plenty of well-reasoned supporters of legalization whose arguments seem to come from a more complete analysis of the issue and I gladly listen to or read their opinions.

What I find interesting is that the majority of arguments put out against legalization usually come from social conservatives and can be better applied to alcohol, tobacco, a variety of food additive and processing techniques etc. However if someone, stupidly, limits the size of a soda those same people shriek.
Horribly inconsistent.

 

[Rod1]

I've known many people who want to buy various drugs again, for a vacation or party or something, but are dissuaded because they would have to call people they haven't spoken to in along time or talk to old friends they don't hang out with much anymore, all under the threat of being busted. These friends of mine normally decide buying drugs again just isn't worth the hassle, and don't. Drugs wouldn't be a hassle to get if they were sold legally, and those friends of mine would just go buy it so they could trip on their beach vacation or whatever. That also goes for cocaine- I know tons of people who would do it if it were legal.

Why can't pro-legalization people admit that legalization will increase use?

I said crack, not various drugs.

 

[panamaican]

What I find interesting is that the majority of arguments put out against legalization usually come from social conservatives and can be better applied to alcohol, tobacco, a variety of food additive and processing techniques etc. However if someone, stupidly, limits the size of a soda those same people shriek.
Horribly inconsistent.

I'm sure part of it is just anti-liberal, anti-tree hugger, anti-Woodstock, anti-those people who do the selling rhetoric.

I doubt they're really thought about it either. For me, I can't listen to conservatives on the subject whenever they happen to be NASCAR fans or supporters. NASCAR was built on the illegal rum running of Prohibition. I need a great reason from a NASCAR fan for why some other substance should remain illegal beyond the supposed "negative effects on society."

 

[Rod1]

Trans fat is the same as heorin? When's the last time someone murdered an innocent person to get the money to score trans fat? You're so full of shit I can smell you from here.

Thats another big fucking issue right there.

illegal drugs costing more than they should cause people to commit crimes to fuck up, if the government created crackhouses for junkies to go and do what they are already doing in abandoned homes, crime would drop quite substantially. Prohibition just makes a personal problem, a public one.

Funny, because its the same people that think everyone should be entitled to buy and sell guns to anyone, guns that can be used to kill you, some idiot becoming a junkie only hurt you because of the prohibition.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My point is that while I agree that people don't want to be criminalized for behavior that isn't harming others, there's a segment, and I won't put numbers to it, that has no problem demeaning the very people who provide them with the tools of their behavior.

I find it disingenuous when people insult the character of drug dealers while implying that they, the actual users of those drugs, are above reproach for their role in the drug market. That they are somehow victims while their dealers remain scum.

For an example of what that hypocrisy might look like. Someone is pro legalization. They mention that our prisons are overfilled because of stupid drug arrests and how the sentencing destroys people's lives. Then they comment on the low breeding and poor decisions of inner city drug dealers.

when I speak to or read from someone holding those positions simultaneously, I know that their interest in the legalization conversation is superficial. And I suspect (obviously, don't know) that they have no idea what role drugs and drug dealing are actually playing in our society so I don't take their opinion seriously. I assume that these people don't really care about the impact on society beyond the fact that they, the consumer, would no longer be engaged in something that's technically illegal.

Of course, there are plenty of well-reasoned supporters of legalization whose arguments seem to come from a more complete analysis of the issue and I gladly listen to or read their opinions.

I'm sure there's plenty of that out there. I also think there's a ton of sensible people who realize the benefits of prohibition or sketchy and feel it's time to try something different and marijuana is the perfect place to put the efficacy of past policies to the test. So I get a little froggy over the thought of painting with that brush too broadly.