Happy 100th Anniversary, War on Drugs!

[BigBoxaJunk]

I can think of no other possible reason why alcohol and cigarettes would be legal while other drugs were made to be illegal..........

other than the fact that those two were the "drugs of choice" of the folks who made the rules.

I'm not sure if any of the illegal drugs can claim to have caused more death and suffering.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is not an answer to my question, but I think you know that.

Should all other behaviors, when engaged, that have the propensity to cost taxpayers money (like drunk driving-- i.e. emergency room visits by those unable to pay, destroyed public property, among others) be decriminalized?

If you say yes, then there will be no intersection of agreement between us.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Should all other behaviors, when engaged, that have the propensity to cost taxpayers money (like drunk driving-- i.e. emergency room visits by those unable to pay, destroyed public property, among others) be decriminalized?

If you say yes, then there will be no intersection of agreement between us.

I didn't know it was currently illegal for poor people to go to the emergency room.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I can think of no other possible reason why alcohol and cigarettes would be legal while other drugs were made to be illegal..........

other than the fact that those two were the "drugs of choice" of the folks who made the rules.

I'm not sure if any of the illegal drugs can claim to have caused more death and suffering.

No doubt history and widespread usage has a bearing. If everybody and their brother were given heroin and coke in the packs back during world war 1 and 2 rather than cigarettes, things might well be different.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I didn't know it was currently illegal for poor people to go to the emergency room.

You missed my point. Please re-read.

 

[rambone]

I don't know. As you guys like to cite the growing prison populations, there is also a reduction in violent crime. Maybe the two are connected?

This is dangerous, collectivist logic. How many millions of harmless people must be imprisoned to achieve a drop in the crime rate? Don't you see the inherent injustice in that?

What other freedoms might be sacrificed because it is statistically favorable? Privacy? Guns? Curfew?

I'll not answer this as I would surely transgress several on INGO's cardinal sins.

We can discuss morality, can't we? Is it moral to break apart families because you disagree with their personal choices?

 

[Destro]

I don't understand this comment. Care to elaborate?

Certainty, I submit that if the "government stalwarts" we have here at INGO were the British Crown, and had performed a cost-benefit analysis into forming the colonies, we would not have the United States of America. It wouldn't "jive" with "responsible government"

Or Westward Expansion, The Louisiana Purchase, space travel, GPS....

Not every tax dollar spent can be "FDIC Insured" that it's not going to be wasted. Sure, we **** away a TON of money on REALLY stupid stuff. But it's a lot easier to criticize decisions than it is to make decisions. We have fire departments, police, public works, libraries, schools....not of these things MAKE any money per say.

You could perform a cost-benefit analysis into your local fire department..."based on previous fires and potential future damage, is it worth having a fire department"? But we don't. Maybe we're pissing money away on fire trucks and we'll never break even? I don't really give a damn because I like the idea.

Public Schools....quality and anecdotal stories aside, the country would be third world without our public school system. I don't expect a "dollar return" on public schools, I expect 6th graders to know the difference between a noun and verb.

Many things in life don't make dollar sense

 

[rambone]

Should all other behaviors, when engaged, that have the propensity to cost taxpayers money (like drunk driving-- i.e. emergency room visits by those unable to pay, destroyed public property, among others) be decriminalized?

If you say yes, then there will be no intersection of agreement between us.

Using your logic the government should make it illegal to have children that you cannot pay for.

Its a risk to the "tax investment."

No freedom is safe under this kind of rationale.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is dangerous, collectivist logic. How many millions of harmless people must be imprisoned to achieve a drop in the crime rate? Don't you see the inherent injustice in that?

What other freedoms might be sacrificed because it is statistically favorable? Privacy? Guns? Curfew?



We can discuss morality, can't we? Is it moral to break apart families because you disagree with their personal choices?

We can probably reach an agreement on users. I'm not a big fan of making "everything" a felony. But it should be no secret engaging in the drug trade is illegal. I have no problems with those people being removed from their families.

That first thing was just a bit of chain yanking.

 

[Destro]

This is dangerous, collectivist logic.

You don't get do define what freedom is for the rest of us. Your opinions are just that. Nobody is more right or wrong than you. Freedom is what we as a society deem it to be...your logic that someone who doesn't agree with you is some how "dangerous" is just as disturbing.

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Using your logic the government should make it illegal to have children that you cannot pay for.

Its a risk to the "tax investment."

No freedom is safe under this kind of rationale.

No. By my logic, if you do not want the government involving itself in your life, don't insist them get involved in your life. When you have children you can't pay for, we already have seen many news stories on what they do because we've invited them (by law) to involve themselves in the lives of families that are rearing their kids the way "they" think they should.

I really don't know how to make this any clearer. Collectivist thinking? I don't see it that way.

 

[rambone]

Collectivist thinking? I don't see it that way.

If collective crime rates and collective tax investments matter more than individual families and individual cases of injustice then it is precisely that.

 

[John Galt]

I'd like to see it end. I'm not so gullible as to believe it would come without a new set of problems but I'd prefer to see problems for those who choose to have them rather than problems created for everyone. We're 100 years into it and arguably much worse off as far as drugs are concerned than when we started. It is not working.

I'd like to see it ended but not before individual responsibility becomes a priority in this country once again. Stop making excuses for everyone and everything and searching for reasons to hold me financially or emotionally responsible for the actions of others and I'll stand in line to cast my vote for legalizing everything.

Very well said!

 

[ziggy]

Prohibition did not work with alcohol. It did create many large, organized, very profitable, powerful, and influential criminal enterprizes. Prohibition of pot, cocaine and other drugs has done the same thing. I think the legalization of pot in Colorado should give us some lessons on the upside and downside of legalization within a few years.
I tend to think the drugs that are now illegal were less of a problem before we illegalized them. But, that was a different time in terms of the structure of the typical family and the economic resources available to average people. Criminalization makes drugs more attractive to some people and less so to others.
This is a complex problem that has no easy answer. However, I think we can say for sure that the current system is not working very well at all.

 

[Henry]

if all civil institutions were based on a cost/benefit analysis, doubtful we would have the United States of America.

Hell, I am good with the States withdrawing from that money pit and economic enslaver of current and future generations, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

 

[steveh_131]

Certainty, I submit that if the "government stalwarts" we have here at INGO were the British Crown, and had performed a cost-benefit analysis into forming the colonies, we would not have the United States of America. It wouldn't "jive" with "responsible government"

Or Westward Expansion, The Louisiana Purchase, space travel, GPS....

Not every tax dollar spent can be "FDIC Insured" that it's not going to be wasted. Sure, we **** away a TON of money on REALLY stupid stuff. But it's a lot easier to criticize decisions than it is to make decisions. We have fire departments, police, public works, libraries, schools....not of these things MAKE any money per say.

You could perform a cost-benefit analysis into your local fire department..."based on previous fires and potential future damage, is it worth having a fire department"? But we don't. Maybe we're pissing money away on fire trucks and we'll never break even? I don't really give a damn because I like the idea.

Public Schools....quality and anecdotal stories aside, the country would be third world without our public school system. I don't expect a "dollar return" on public schools, I expect 6th graders to know the difference between a noun and verb.

Many things in life don't make dollar sense

I think you're missing the point, Destro. I'm not the one here advocating throwing people in prison based on that cost-benefit analysis.

 

[steveh_131]

You don't get do define what freedom is for the rest of us. Your opinions are just that. Nobody is more right or wrong than you. Freedom is what we as a society deem it to be...your logic that someone who doesn't agree with you is some how "dangerous" is just as disturbing.

Uhh... 'Freedom' is a word. It has a definition. He has every right to point out that your political opinions are the polar opposite of this definition.

No. By my logic, if you do not want the government involving itself in your life, don't insist them get involved in your life. When you have children you can't pay for, we already have seen many news stories on what they do because we've invited them (by law) to involve themselves in the lives of families that are rearing their kids the way "they" think they should.

I really don't know how to make this any clearer. Collectivist thinking? I don't see it that way.

Your logic is extremely messy. You are arguing that drug use should be prohibited because it could potentially cost you tax dollars.

As Rambone just pointed out, having children out of wedlock is even more potentially expensive in terms of tax dollars. Why shouldn't that be prohibited?

This is what happens when policy is decided based on emotion.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Uhh... 'Freedom' is a word. It has a definition. He has every right to point out that your political opinions are the polar opposite of this definition.



Your logic is extremely messy. You are arguing that drug use should be prohibited because it could potentially cost you tax dollars.

As Rambone just pointed out, having children out of wedlock is even more potentially expensive in terms of tax dollars. Why shouldn't that be prohibited?

This is what happens when policy is decided based on emotion.

I know you want to suck me into one of your never ending arguments and I don't really have much interest in that tonight. I'm sorry I am not expressing my self well enough but stated one more time, this whole problem will go away (to a large degree anyway) if people are meant to feel the full brunt of their own choices. The taxpayer will not have much say if they don't have to clean up after you.

Your "what about" argument of illegitimate children -- there is no law forbidding it and women are having them anyway--and we're still paying for all of the issues surrounding it. Maybe if they and their fathers had to face those consequences instead of leaving it up to the states, that probable would go away too.

 

[Destro]

Uhh... 'Freedom' is a word. It has a definition. He has every right to point out that your political opinions are the polar opposite of this definition.

My opinions vs. statements on interwebs are, from time to time, vastly different. I'm simply anti collective thinking. I do believe, as an opinion, to not be accepting that others have opinions that differ than your own and, as long as those opinions are OWNED by that individual, it is "anti-freedom" to not be respectful to those opinions. If you are simply regurgitating talking points than you can get bent.

If you draw an imaginary line and say that "my opinions about things are the most supportive of freedom" and accuse others who, by virtue of morals, values, life experience, education, simply hold a different belief, then you become the person you say your against in the first place.