I just looked up the number of deaths per year due to illicit drugs, about 46,000. Homocides using guns equal about 11,000.
What is more pressing on society right now? In fact, if the drug issues were done away with, I bet the number of homocides with gun use would drop dramatically.
What is perplexing is that a great number of those advocating legal illicit drug seem to also advocate gun restrictions.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeygood ideea. until you fix each and every problem "more pressing" than gun deaths, there is no point doing anything about it.
I just looked up the number of deaths per year due to illicit drugs, about 46,000. Homocides using guns equal about 11,000.
What is more pressing on society right now? In fact, if the drug issues were done away with, I bet the number of homocides with gun use would drop dramatically.
What is perplexing is that a great number of those advocating legal illicit drug seem to also advocate gun restrictions.
heart attacks also kill more people than guns. so no sensible legislation about guns until you bring heart attacks down, right?
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's not that easy.
good ideea. until you fix each and every problem "more pressing" than gun deaths, there is no point doing anything about it.
heart attacks also kill more people than guns. so no sensible legislation about guns until you bring heart attacks down, right?
Guns and drugs are related. Just ask Eric Holder.
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeyWhy is that perplexing? Are you suggesting someone has surveyed illicit drug users on their views on gun restrictions; - or could it be that you are mixing your data sources in order to support you point?
What is perplexing is that a great number of those advocating legal illicit drug seem to also advocate gun restrictions.
Originally posted by divegeesterLeft wingers only focus on issues that bother them.
Why is that perplexing? Are you suggesting someone has surveyed illicit drug users on their views on gun restrictions; - or could it be that you are mixing your data sources in order to support you point?
Take biggie sodas, for example. They outlaw biggie sodas cuz they are "bad" for you in New York. They are passing laws to help people live healthier lives, or so they say.
Meanwhile, in a San Fran bath house where AIDS is being passed around every minute of the day..........
The bottom line is, drinking soda's bother them for whatever reason even though they can't really pinpoint the number of deaths it causes. However, we pretty much have a body count regarding the numbers of people who die from AIDS, yet it is ignored because they don't want to judge them.
Left wingers deal out utilitarian concepts as if they were drunk or stupid.
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeyYes left wingers ignore AIDS.🙄🙄🙄
Left wingers only focus on issues that bother them.
Take biggie sodas, for example. They outlaw biggie sodas cuz they are "bad" for you in New York. They are passing laws to help people live healthier lives, or so they say.
Meanwhile, in a San Fran bath house where AIDS is being passed around every minute of the day..........
The bottom line is, dr ...[text shortened]... nt to judge them.
Left wingers deal out utilitarian concepts as if they were drunk or stupid.
Do you really believe such stupidity?
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by no1marauderThey don't ignore AIDS. If you notice all attention is paid to find a "cure", however, they ignore the behavior that causes it. In fact, they are obsessed with finding a cure. After all, if you are a left winger your whole life of promiscuous sex threatens your very existence.
Yes left wingers ignore AIDS.🙄🙄🙄
Do you really believe such stupidity?
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeyMaking illicit drugs legal would, in all probability, reduce the number of drug deaths, as well as deaths and crimes which result from the illegal drug trade.
I just looked up the number of deaths per year due to illicit drugs, about 46,000. Homocides using guns equal about 11,000.
What is more pressing on society right now? In fact, if the drug issues were done away with, I bet the number of homocides with gun use would drop dramatically.
What is perplexing is that a great number of those advocating legal illicit drug seem to also advocate gun restrictions.
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeyYes, how stupid it is to try to find a cure for a disease. What a sick "obsession" it is.
They don't ignore AIDS. If you notice all attention is paid to find a "cure", however, they ignore the behavior that causes it. In fact, they are obsessed with finding a cure. After all, if you are a left winger your whole life of promiscuous sex threatens your very existence.
Is that really your problem with "left wingers"; you're jealous that they are having a "whole life of promiscuous sex"?
05 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBecause it's true. It would obviously reduce the deaths involved in gang wars over illegal drug sales, but it would make the product safer as well:
What makes you say such a thing other than what you believe?
8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection issue.
Because "controlled substances" are illegal, the drug trade today lacks many of the consumer safety features common to other markets: instruction sheets, warning labels, product quality control, manufacturer accountability. Forcing products underground makes those products, including drugs, more dangerous than if the products were manufactured by reputable firms.
Nobody denies that currently illegal drugs can be dangerous. But so can aspirin, countless other over-the-counter drugs and common household items; yet the proven hazards of matches, modeling glue and lawn mowers are not used as reasons to make them all illegal.
Practically anything can kill if used in certain ways. Like heroin, salt can make you sick or dead if you take enough of it. The point is to learn what the threshold is, and to keep below it. That many things can kill is not a reason to prohibit them all--it is a reason to learn how to handle these products and provide the desired safety instructions. The same goes for drugs. Today, there are instructions for the use of virtually every product, and recourse through the courts for damages caused by any product including drugs.
Today's drug consumer literally doesn't know what he's buying. The stuff is so valuable that sellers have an incentive to "cut" (dilute) the product with foreign substances that look like the real thing. Most street heroin is only 3 to 6 percent pure; street cocaine, 10 to 15 percent. Since purity varies greatly, consumers can never be really sure how much to take to produce the desired effects. If one is accustomed to 3 percent heroin and takes a 5 percent dose, suddenly you've nearly doubled your intake. Reputable drug manufacturers offering drugs on the open market are driven by different incentives than pushers. They rely on name-brand recognition to build market share, and on customer loyalty to maintain it. There would be a powerful incentive to provide a product of uniform quality: killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. Today, dealers can make so much from a single sale that there is no incentive to cultivate a clientele. In fact, police make it imperative to make the sale fast and move on --- hell with the customers.
Pushers don't provide labels or instructions, let alone mailing addresses. The illegal nature of the business makes such things unnecessary or dangerous to the enterprise. After legalization, pharmaceutical companies could safely try to win each other's customers, and guard against liability suits with better information and more reliable products.
Even pure heroin on the open market would be safer than today's impure drugs. As long as customers know what they're getting and what it does, they can adjust their dosages to obtain the intended effect safely. INFORMATION is the best protection against the potential hazards of drugs or any other product. Legalizing drugs would promote consumer health and safety.
http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/
Originally posted by no1marauderSo essentially your argument is that drugs need to be regulated.
Because it's true. It would obviously reduce the deaths involved in gang wars over illegal drug sales, but it would make the product safer as well:
8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection issue.
Because "controlled substances" are illegal, the drug trade today lacks many of the consumer safety features common to other m ...[text shortened]... t. Legalizing drugs would promote consumer health and safety.
http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/
Translated, we need corporations to come in and produce these drugs to keep them "safe". Meanwhile, people who make it themselves will still be outlaws.
I can't wait to see the disclaimer on heroin being bought by consumers to help people stay "safe".
I also find it interesting that outlawing guns keeps down homocides while legalizing illicit drugs should help reduce deaths associated with them, especially when far more people die from illicit drugs than being gunned down
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by whodeyYour "translation" has no relationship to what was written. Regulation of products does not preclude individual sellers.
So essentially your argument is that drugs need to be regulated.
Translated, we need corporations to come in and produce these drugs to keep them "safe". Meanwhile, people who make it themselves will still be outlaws.
I can't wait to see the disclaimer on heroin being bought by consumers to help people stay "safe".
I also find it interesting that ou ...[text shortened]... ociated with them, especially when far more people die from illicit drugs than being gunned down
05 Oct 15
Originally posted by no1marauderIt depends on the regulations.
Your "translation" has no relationship to what was written. Regulation of products does not preclude individual sellers.
If the regulations are such that only large corporations can afford to accomodate the regulations then that's what will occur.