Originally posted by telerionWhat fraction of that would break the law under the influence of drugs or in order to fund a habit?
What fraction of those currently incarcerated on drug charges are addicted to drugs or would be addicted if permitted to consume them without fear of punishment? What fraction of that would break the law under the influence of drugs or in order to fund a habit? Given that they've already been busted for drugs, I would guess that the fraction would be pret ...[text shortened]... y (everywhere, not just in one district), or we'll need better economic models of addiction.
Fewer than now. Drugs would be cheaper because there would be fewer expenses for the seller.
Damn, is history doomed to repeat itself again, thankfully prohibition is such a ridiculous idea it's only held by a few nutcases and islamists (ahhh, but I repeat myself).
Message for EV: It's been tried and it was an abject failure, for the same reason that the current druglaws actually do more harm than good.
Party pills (contain BZP) have just been banned in NZ, most likely by the same people who cry, cry, cry about gangs. Well the banning of party pills has just driven them underground and given organised crime a new income stream.
Thank you, control freaks. (Should apologise for the dripping sarcasm but won't)
Originally posted by Wajomait seems as if everyone has agreed that the reason we cannot outlaw alcohol is because we can not enforce the law
Damn, is history doomed to repeat itself again, thankfully prohibition is such a ridiculous idea it's only held by a few nutcases and islamists (ahhh, but I repeat myself).
Message for EV: It's been tried and it was an abject failure, for the same reason that the current druglaws actually do more harm than good.
Party pills (contain BZP) have just be ...[text shortened]... stream.
Thank you, control freaks. (Should apologise for the dripping sarcasm but won't)
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomThat's the reason we cannot, but there are reasons why we should not too, a subtle but important difference. Mainly, it's a part of culture the majority of people enjoy and cherish. Beer was invented before the wheel and has stayed pretty much the same. I value its presence while lamenting its disadvantages. I want to see laws in place which limit its damages without actually removing it.
it seems as if everyone has agreed that the reason we cannot outlaw alcohol is because we can not enforce the law
Originally posted by agrysonthere are laws like that, and they are not working
That's the reason we cannot, but there are reasons why we should not too, a subtle but important difference. Mainly, it's a part of culture the majority of people enjoy and cherish. Beer was invented before the wheel and has stayed pretty much the same. I value its presence while lamenting its disadvantages. I want to see laws in place which limit its damages without actually removing it.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI do not doubt that that it would be fewer since it would be unreasonable to think that everyone who is in prison now on drug charges would be there if drugs were legal and cheaper. On the otherhand, the proposed policy demands that the gov't "tax the hell" out of the drugs. While I still think the price of many drugs would fall, the price may remain prohibitively high for addicts increasing the incentive to undertake illegal behavior.
[b]What fraction of that would break the law under the influence of drugs or in order to fund a habit?
Fewer than now. Drugs would be cheaper because there would be fewer expenses for the seller.[/b]
Of course, my argument here only points out that the policy may not be fiscally reasonable. There are a multitude of social arguments against it. They all generally fall under the heading of "negative externalities" and capture the idea that one person's "personal freedoms" may limit the freedoms of others or may directly reduce the economic welfare of others. I've touched on this a little already when I mentioned the labor scarcity problem. Another big one would be the effect on households, especially the children of addicts. It may be fine to impose harsh sanctions on addicts who lose their job, but if those sanctions hurt the children of that addict through immediate suffering as well as a reduction in opportunities for human capital accumulation (e.g. education) which may condemn them to poverty in later life, then this should be considered before lifting the ban on drugs.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomPrimarily my position rests on the fact: You are the owner of your own body, those are your lungs, bones, hair and privates, I want no part of them. As a corollary my body is my own, it's mine, hands off, invitations only. What this ownership means is that I can put whatever I like into this body, alcohol, coffee or any kind of witch doctor herbal remedy I desire with out inteference from you.
it seems as if everyone has agreed that the reason we cannot outlaw alcohol is because we can not enforce the law
The whole prohibition experiment is an example of the abhorations that occur when the state makes ever greater claims on peoples lives.
Live free Ecstreme, and leave others to live their lives free.
Originally posted by Wajomayeah but sometimes what you put in your body makes others suffer like everyone who is dying in car wrecks because of drunk drivers
Primarily my position rests on the fact: You are the owner of your own body, those are your lungs, bones, hair and privates, I want no part of them. As a corollary my body is my own, it's mine, hands off, invitations only. What this ownership means is that I can put whatever I like into this body, alcohol, coffee or any kind of witch doctor herbal remedy I ...[text shortened]... ater claims on peoples lives.
Live free Ecstreme, and leave others to live their lives free.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhere do you draw the line? I agree with you for the most part, but as EV said, you must begin drawing a line when "my choice" affects other people.
Primarily my position rests on the fact: You are the owner of your own body, those are your lungs, bones, hair and privates, I want no part of them. As a corollary my body is my own, it's mine, hands off, invitations only. What this ownership means is that I can put whatever I like into this body, alcohol, coffee or any kind of witch doctor herbal remedy I ...[text shortened]... ater claims on peoples lives.
Live free Ecstreme, and leave others to live their lives free.
Out of curiousity, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'm pro-choice. abortion is bad, but it will take place no matter what. It should be legal, and safe.
Where do you draw the line? I agree with you for the most part, but as EV said, you must begin drawing a line when "my choice" affects other people.
Out of curiousity, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI think they need to illegalize kids that want to keep me away from my booze. 😠😛
alcohol kills more people than any other drug; even people who never drink alcohol. it destroys your liver and your brain, and you can die from consuming too much of it; just like any other drug but it is downplayed for some reason; "it is only alcohol, its not a drug". if alcohol kills more people than any other drug, in my eyes it is the worst. so wh ...[text shortened]... are irresponsible and had a chance with alcohol and people are still dying; so take it away.
Originally posted by WajomaAs someone raised to respect the law, I have never tried even marijuana. Nonetheless I see recreational drug use as a lesser evil than any attempt to restrict the freedom of others without cause.
Primarily my position rests on the fact: You are the owner of your own body, those are your lungs, bones, hair and privates, I want no part of them. As a corollary my body is my own, it's mine, hands off, invitations only. What this ownership means is that I can put whatever I like into this body, alcohol, coffee or any kind of witch doctor herbal remedy I desire with out inteference from you.
.
I believe strongly in harm minimisation, such as prohibitive penalties for drink-driving or alcohol-fuelled violence; voluntary use of a mind-interfering drug should never be permitted as a defence. If your "misdeed" has no victim apart from yourself, it is not fitting that governments be empowered to punish it. That also goes for contraception, abortion, suicide (assisted or not). Violence against other sentient beings should never be tolerated.
Perhaps we are fighting the wrong enemies when we consider prohibition of anything which does not harm others. If we valued ourselves, we would treat ourselves, and hence others, with respect and consideration.
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhat effects are you refering to?
Where do you draw the line? I agree with you for the most part, but as EV said, you must begin drawing a line when "my choice" affects other people.
Out of curiousity, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Someone stealing to support their habit? They should be punished for the crime not the reason they choose to commit the crime.
Effects on family and friends? You either choose to help them or cut em loose. Hypothetically: Because my sister has a gambling problem I do not advocate the total ban on gambling. Because I know someone that sits at their computer all day playing counter strike I do not advocate a ban on computers, the internet, counterstrike.
Your last question: A womans body is her own, I have no right to force her through pregnancy and all that is involved - her choice.