|
Thews about: Food for Thought
wes about: food for thought
Well seeing as we've solved porhibition, is this an answer for
wes about: food for thought
gotcha. I was hoping you weren't advocating fed over state's rights and more gov't regulation on your behavior. It would've made future rant board pissing matches far less exciting.
Thews about: food for thought
Wes- obviously prohibition didn't work, I wasn't including that in my analysis. Yes all those points are valid, I guess I was comparing the control of booze to the control of illict drugs, which is the real bang up job. I think if you were to compare booze to cigs/ tobacco you'd find on a comparative basis, I'm somewhat correct. Obviously I'm not for extra taxes on vice, the silly age restrictions or the fed twisting the states' arms, but that what you get when then gov't runs stuff.
derek about: food for thought
well, it beats the mob in this case, no? although the speak-easy thing was pretty cool. i'm out to watch some music in the park and drink some government booze.
wes about: food for thought
"I don't think the gov't does a bad job of controlling booze..."
Seriously? Maybe from an adminstrative standpoint (I have no clue how efficient the ATF is or isn't). But from a "gov't dictating my life" or "high taxes" point of view I have to disagree. I would think you would too. Archaic blue laws, ridiculously high taxation, hypocritical age limit (rammed down states' throats by the fed), that whole prohibition fail...yeah I'd say they do a bang-up job.| I can't believe you of all people Thews wrote that.
derek about: food for thought
now if only we could get beer sales at PA gas stations!
Thews about: food for thought
I don't think the gov't does a bad job of controlling booze, it's mostly handled by the states, but it's also been part of business as usual for 80 some years.
derek about: food for thought
i read that article and came to this conclusion: when it comes to controlling drugs, you can either have your government do it or armed cartels. clearly, in this country we don't trust our government with much of anything so we let the cartels do it. that is the wisdom of our morally founded country. i say present it like this: legalize drugs to support small business owners! you gotta use a catch-phrase to get anywhere in the US.
Thews about: food for thought
I do agree with the pro arguement points too. I recall 20+ years of law enforcement and all I've seen as a concrete result is the left coast making it legal. You guys have to watch the Wire.
bub about: food for thought
the argument for legalization is that fewer people will get hurt/use/etc. personally, i couldn't give two sh!ts. if you want to take meth whether it's legal or not, you're a dolt...have at it.
Thews about: food for thought
Newsflash! I don't care if the stupid people with no willpower overdo the smack or meth and wither up and die, more for us responsibles!!
bub about: food for thought
from an article relating to the studies...."I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.
Aaron about: food for thought
Lindsay's hometown of Louisville, OH can't fund their annual Constitution Parade because usually they rely on local business contributions which are slim right now because of the economy. So the inovative Constitution Parade committee decided to raise funds with a beer garden during the annual car show. Good idea right? Well there was enough complaining (probably by a vocal minority) that the committee quit and the Constitution Parade was going to be cancelled. Another group decided they would pick up the pieces because the C.P. must go on!... but then they realized there was no money duh. Bottom line is: Is a beer garden fund raiser at the local car show so immoral? I've either read in the bible or heard in a pew that alcohal is not immoral. Immoral things you MIGHT be more apt to do are the problem.
wes about: food for thought
the article argues that legalization does not equal increased use (and cites studies). i think that's what you don't beleive and are basing your opinion on.
wes about: food for thought
Did you read the whole article? Legalization does equal greater responsible use. It's a fact asproven by the studies it references. In your example, the outliers who would always chase the stronger, unregulated version of drugs are the same who chase moonshine now (ie - few who will always be abusers regardless). If meth can be used responsibly (not the point of the article, but we all use it responsibly now in small dosages - cough medicine, diet suppliments, etc) their would be far less "abusers". Some people constantly chase the the "high" of alcohol yet it's legal. You're arguing facts w/ morality. Not the point of the article. It discusses facts and data and argues that the problems will never go away unless we eliminate morality (which, as the article points out is historically misplaced anyways) from the discussion.
bub about: food for thought
legalization doesn't necessarily equal responsible use. look at booze. in america, it's rarely used responsibly. and when it comes to the harder drugs, is it possible to use meth responsibly? also food for thought...if you're regulating it, will people not try to get the unregulated stuff? considering the nature of a lot of the harder drugs, they'll constantly be chasing that high. i'm not ignorant of the fact that prohibition causes more dangerous versions of drugs, etc. it's a very tricky issue. pot, whatever...not as tricky. i just think "legalize it and people won't do it as much" is a bit too simplistic.
wes about: food for thought
The article cited studies that show the legalization produces less overuse. If you don't want people addicted to smack, you should legalize and regulate it.
Thews about: food for thought
But that's the thing, Bub, I don't think it necessary would. I don't know if a giant segment of the populace would become junkies just because spank was "legal". Furthermore, I think our resources are better spent on helping junkies than funding anti-narco-terrorists or an endless stream of urban youth peddling crack. Plus, I could get bent more.
bub about: food for thought
i think the "war on drugs" label is a bit too broad. legalizing pot is a far different story than legalizing meth or heroin. i think that's pretty obvious. i honestly don't care one way or the other if they legalize pot or not. i'd prefer heroin not become commonplace.
wes about: food for thought
legalize?
|
