touchy subject.......

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

Here's a thought. In the United States, one in 35 children live with at least one parent who abuses illegal drugs. One in nine children live with a parent who abuses alcohol. Does anyone really believe legalizing drugs would make these statistics better?

Do you really believe they will make statistics worse?

I can't see any reasons to believe legalizing drugs would lead to a decrease in the abuse of them, but it seems obvious it would lead to an increase in use. An increase in use would seem likely to lead to an increase in abuse, as evidenced by alcohol being more popular and thus more abused.

So would making drugs more accessible increase the amount of drug use? I'd say yes.

It does not seem obvious there would be an increase in use based on availability. Again, remember Prohibition. Alcohol use went up when legalized, and abuse went down after repealment, thus indicating that Availability does not play a factor. I do not use this to support my claims, as I am not on the side of 'Use will go down" but rather on the side of of 'You don't know and can't know.'

Quote:

Matt Pniewski

Also, you forget why Prohibition fell apart- The crime that happened as a direct result of it. Who has nothing to gain from the legalization of illicit drugs? The criminals, the crooks, the pushers. No more gang members shooting the hell out of eachother of sales.

I haven't forgotten anything. The crime was a direct result of the lack of support for Prohibition. When people, including those running the government and police force, fail to support a legal policy, that legal policy tends to get broken. When the legal system stops being applied, the protections which come with it go away.

What would proper support be? You keep saying "Proper support." While the war on drugs has its critics, I don't know what type of support would be proper. The only support that would work is everyone in America saying "You know, I don't think I want to use drugs."

Quote:

Matt Pniewski

If we legalize Marijuana, but not harder substances, that's still a massive blow to crime in Chicago.

I have no interest in preserving the lifeblood of these criminal enterprises that even our Police Force is afraid of. But then again, the Chicago Police force IS a bunch of Cowards. Can beat a hippie to the ground, but won't even patrol in a high crime area.....

The problem you are talking about is similar to the problem with Prohibition. There are rules about drugs, but those rules aren't really being enforced (I'd also argue they are somewhat poorly crafted, but that's different issue). The crime levels come not from the fact the drug is banned, but from the fact the ban isn't being effective.

One option when a rule doesn't work is to discard the rule. Another option is to make changes to make the rule work. Both are viable options, but you can only do one. I much prefer the latter. I think the idea of legalizing something because society has failed to control it due to corruption, laziness and incompetence is ridiculous.

How about Legalization because the rule not only does not work, but is not something that should be an issue in general? Now, I do not support the legalization of illicit drugs, Cocaine can kill somebody their first time using, as can Heroin. Marijuana can do no such thing, and is not physically addictive. So it's psychologically addictive. So is Chocolate. And it can also kill you in large doses, but not in such hilarious means as you would expect from 'Death by chocolate".

If you want to wage a real war on drugs, you need to keep people from wanting drugs and wanting to sell drugs. You can't just throw cops and drug treatment programs on it. If people want it, they will get it. We are a society that tramples over eachother for a Tickle Me Elmo. Sorry for the dated Reference, I was watching X Files today so I'm in a nineties mood. You really think a couple extra mall cops outside of KB Toys would have done much good? You get a lot of people with an extreme need as such, not much can stop them.


Now, if assholes didn't produce them in small numbers, and the media didn't play the fiasco up, and the heartless advertisement agencies weren't as relentless, people wouldn't have flipped out over them the way they did.

Sit back and think- Why do people use or sell drugs? Solve that problem, and you're part of the way there.

Quote:

By the way, you can't simply say legalizing something will stop the crime associated with it. Things are far more complicated than that.

No, many people would venture into other territories like the Chicago Gangs did. And they pretty much disappeared a few years later, except for the largest families.  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

It does not seem obvious there would be an increase in use based on availability. Again, remember Prohibition. Alcohol use went up when legalized, and abuse went down after repealment, thus indicating that Availability does not play a factor. I do not use this to support my claims, as I am not on the side of 'Use will go down" but rather on the side of of 'You don't know and can't know.'

I don't believe the portion I made bold (I assumed "legalize" was supposed to be "criminalized"). On a national level, there is no actual indication alcohol consumption went up because of Prohibition. There are a handful of studies which claim such (primarily Tillitt), but there are others which claim otherwise.

And of course, using Prohibition to attempt to disprove the role of availability in usage rates is silly. If Prohibition wasn't effective at stopping the consumption of alcohol, then the availability of alcohol was still high. You are basically saying the availability of alcohol was still high, and the rate of alcohol consumption went up. In no way does that contradict the idea availability of a substance helps determine the extent to which it is consumed.

Matt Pniewski

What would proper support be? You keep saying "Proper support." While the war on drugs has its critics, I don't know what type of support would be proper. The only support that would work is everyone in America saying "You know, I don't think I want to use drugs."

That isn't true at all. You could practically eliminate drug use in the country if you just convinced those people who don't use drugs to "rat on" those who do use drugs. As it stands now, drug use is tolerated by pretty much everyone.

What "proper support" is depends on whose support you are talking about. If you are talking about the average citizen, "proper support" would be not supporting drug use, tacitly or otherwise. It would involve people working with law enforcement to stop drug use. It would involve them working together to not allow criminal elements in their community.

If you are talking about government leaders, it would involve things like crafting sensible laws and securing appropriate funding for the enforcement of the laws. Calling the current laws regarding drugs inept would be being generous. Reforming these laws would make them far more enforceable. Once you do that, you can ensure law enforcement agencies get enough funding. After that, you just need to ensure law enforcement officers do their jobs.

If you could get all that to happen, drug use in this country would plummet.

Matt Pniewski

How about Legalization because the rule not only does not work, but is not something that should be an issue in general? Now, I do not support the legalization of illicit drugs,

I don't like using "not only" in that argument. If the problem is the rule isn't effective, the rule should be modified, not thrown out. If the problem is there is no need for the rule, then it doesn't matter whether or not the rule has been effective. I get either position on its own, but trying to combine them just seems fallacious.

By the way, you need to find a different word than "illicit." It doesn't make the distinction you're trying to make.

Matt Pniewski

No, many people would venture into other territories like the Chicago Gangs did. And they pretty much disappeared a few years later, except for the largest families.

Or people would still deal with drugs illegally. Simply making something like marijuana legal doesn't mean it will be mass produced in quantities large enough to meet demands. Even if it were, there is no guarantee things like extortion wouldn't become the new modus operandi for the criminal element.

About the only criminal you can be sure would be eliminated by legalizing drugs is the penny-pusher.