Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Legalization of drugs


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Debate-Bot

UM-Debate-Bot

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:59 PM

churchanddestroy vs behaviour???

This is a formal 1 vs 1 debate, full details on how the debate system works can be found in our Debates FAQ. The debate will begin with an introductory opening post from each participant followed by 4 body posts and finally a conclusion.

The computer has randomly chosen churchanddestroy to post first.

churchanddestroy is arguing in favour of All drugs should be legalized

behaviour??? is arguing in favour of Not all drugs should be legalized

Once the debate is complete the thread will be open to member comments.

This is an automated posting or private message.

If you have a question about the debates please visit the Debates Board FAQ.

#2    churchanddestroy

churchanddestroy

    Secretary of No State

  • Member
  • 3,088 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:18 PM

Thank you for the floor.

Introduction

For my part in this debate, I will be arguing that all drugs should be made legal. I believe it to be a grave error on the part of the United States government to continue the "War on Drugs", as our "war" costs billions of dollars every year, with no discernible successes besides the incarceration of many United States citizens.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what I mean when I say that all drugs should be legalized:
1. First and foremost, I do not advocate the use of any drugs what so ever. That said, I believe it to be an individuals right to decide what they do or do not put into their body. If you want to inject heroin into your bloodstream, well, that's your decision, not mine.
2. Second, when I say legalized, I do not mean that drugs should be freely and readily available to whoever wishes to purchase them. Illicit drugs, just like their legal counterparts (alcohol and tobacco), should be regulated, such that there would be a legal age when you may acquire them, that there would be safe places to buy clean drugs, and that there would be very harsh penalties for distribution to minors, much in the way that we have penalties for selling alcohol to the under-aged.

Points I will be arguing
1. First, that prohibition is a gigantic failure, that no matter how much money we throw at solving this problems through narcotics agencies and the like, we never seem to get anywhere. We apparently have forgotten the lessons we should have learned from the Temperance movement in the 1920s: That when you make something illegal, and there is still a demand for it, it creates a black market in which criminals are given the opportunity to thrive. It happened in the 20s and it is obviously happening now. If you remove the currency by which crime thrives, then crime will subside.
2. Second, continuing on with prohibition, making drugs illegal has actually made them more dangerous. If you purchase illicit substances from a dealer you really have no assurance of quality. Drug dealers are not concerned about the law, and there is nothing to stop them from spiking whatever it is you are buying. Drug dealers may not even know that their product is defective or harmful (more harmful than usual, I should say). Basically, in a drug deal, you really have no idea what you are buying. Even when you are buying something as harmless as a dime baggy of weed, you have no idea if the weed you've purchased has been tampered with in any way shape or form. Legalizing drugs, and thus regulating them, will allow clean drugs to be manufactured and distributed. I believe this point to be more important towards the more dangerous drugs, such as heroin, as tampered heroin is more likely to result in an overdose than tampered marijuana. Legalization and regulation would inhibit any tampering, thus reducing the amount of over-doses substantially.
3. Incarceration v. Rehabilitation: America only has 5% of the total world population, yet we have 25% of the total known incarcerated population, most of which is a result of our archaic drug laws. The focus needs to be shifted away from incarceration for doing something 'bad', and moved towards rehabilitation of individuals with a substance problem. Incarceration does little to solve an individuals substance issue, where rehabilitation gives an individual a greater chance of succeeding in battling their demons.
4. Education. Education is a must. The legalization of all controlled substances does not take away from the fact that these substances ARE dangerous. By properly educating ourselves on the effects of certain substances, individuals will be much less likely to partake in the consumption of particularly dangerous substances. If you know the dangerous side effects of smoking crack or meth, shooting heroin, etc. etc. wouldn't you be less likely to actually do those drugs? I personally would be no more likely to actually do heroin if it was legal, knowing the adverse side effects it can have.
5. Personal choice. Ultimately, all of my points come down to personal choice and individual rights. A person's body is their own, and who are we to say what they can or cannot do with it, so long as their choice does not inhibit the lives of others?

I will include any other points as I see fit.

Thank you.

B???, the floor is yours.

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

#3    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE

  • Its is when aspirations come in toe with destiny, are great men manifested

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:28 PM

Thankyou churchanddestroy
Hope you will have a pleasant time

Two things that I would like to make clear is that:-
1-I am standing for the option that not all drugs should be legalised by which I mean that drugs legalised for medical action is not a problem but for private consumption is something that must be illegal
2-I dont by any means inspire any individual to take drugs or something like that through any of the post made here


In today’s world, illegal drugs seem to be everywhere.
Illegal drugs are prominent among adults, youth, the poor, and the rich.
The United States spends billions of dollars each year trying to keep drugs
from entering the country. Several politicians and
other individuals question the way in which our country handles the problem
of illegal drugs. Some believe that we should keep fighting the drug war
by keeping drugs illegal which includes sending people to prison for
buying, selling, transporting and being in possession of drugs.
.According to the U.S. government's system of classification, marijuana
and crack cocaine are both schedule one
drugs; however, no one can pretend that these two present the same level of danger to one's health or community. Thus
the question arises: should all drugs be legalized or decriminalized?
The legalization of drugs will only create
new problems, and create more chaos among the criminals who buy, sell, transport,
and use drugs. Cases such as this come up often in our country, and it is important
to look at all of the effects of each opinion before making the correct decision or law.

Points I would be arguing :-

1-It is not the time for us to stop the war on drugs because we have made considerable success on it and leaving it half way will be loss of economy and  resources
2-Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.It is with high care they decide which drugs are illegal or not with the criteria of effects of consumption.
3-Alcohol has already caused significant problem in our country and again with legalisation of all drugs it is sure to cause problems more than what we face now
4-The American government has already tried legalization of drugs and failed miserably.Recent studies also shows us that more than 90% of the legalization programmes failed worldwide
5-We in all means set an example for the future generations and again legalising this would have severe impact on teens and the generation to follow on the long run

More points will follow with the oncoming posts....

Thankyou for reading
The floor is yours churchanddestroy
B???



Edit-Addition of points



Edited by behaviour???, 03 June 2009 - 06:39 PM.

Posted Image


#4    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 17,715 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 12 June 2009 - 02:15 PM

Please refrain from posting until this debate is closed...the comments have been removed until the debate is opened to outside discussion. Thank you.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#5    churchanddestroy

churchanddestroy

    Secretary of No State

  • Member
  • 3,088 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 24 June 2009 - 11:39 AM

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this, I had to reformat my computer and then I was up in the Boundary Waters for a fishing trip. But I'm back, so lets continue.

In response to your points, B???

Quote

The legalization of drugs will only create
new problems, and create more chaos among the criminals who buy, sell, transport,
and use drugs. Cases such as this come up often in our country, and it is important
to look at all of the effects of each opinion before making the correct decision or law.


Legalizing drugs will not create these 'new' problems. These problems already exist, and legalizing drugs will actually remove much of this problem. Here is how: When you make something illegal when there is high demand for it, unscrupulous people can take advantage of the ban on X (whatever X is) because demand will allow a black market to form for X. Take alcohol during the Prohibition era, for instance. In a well meaning, but ultimately foolhardy, attempt to solve domestic and criminal issues, the Temperance movement succeeded in banning the sale, manufacture, and consumption of alcohol. Demand for liquor, however, remained high even in the face of Federal retribution for breaking the law. That demand, as such, allowed for mob-esque characters such as Capone and Luciano to reign in the demand for illicit liquor, creating criminal empires that were steeped in blood and violence. So, illegalizing alcohol only served to allow criminally minded people to thrive on the black market illegalization creates for high demand product. The same goes for drugs. We've made many high demand substances (specifically marijuana) illegal, creating a black market for them, and have allowed criminals to thrive. Much of the gang violence we hear about has to do with drugs, whether its possession or sale or distribution, what have you. Legalizing drugs, therefore, will eliminate the black market demand for drugs, removing the currency (illegal drugs) by which many large criminal organizations operate. Follow me?

Quote

1-It is not the time for us to stop the war on drugs because we have made considerable success on it and leaving it half way will be loss of economy and  resources

I'm going to have to disagree with you B???

No matter how much money we seem to throw at the narcotics agencies designed to stop the flow and trafficking of drugs, more and more flow through our borders and streets.

Quote

2-Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.It is with high care they decide which drugs are illegal or not with the criteria of effects of consumption.

Many legal things are harmful: Alcohol, gambling, tobacco products etc. etc. Legalization of drugs comes down to, among other things, freedom of choice, that individuals have the right to privacy specifically towards their own bodies.

Quote

3-Alcohol has already caused significant problem in our country and again with legalisation of all drugs it is sure to cause problems more than what we face now


Alcohol has caused significant problems, no time more blatantly obvious than when we banned the sale, manufacture, and consumption of it, thereby creating an environment for criminal enterprises to thrive.

Quote

4-The American government has already tried legalization of drugs and failed miserably.Recent studies also shows us that more than 90% of the legalization programmes failed worldwide


Legalization and proper regulation should not be an issue, especially when you consider the violence that we have caused (and are struggling to stop) concerning the trafficking of illicit substances. Also, I have not heard that statistic before.

QUOTE
5-We in all means set an example for the future generations and again legalising this would have severe impact on teens and the generation to follow on the long run


Of course, which is why we must set high priority on education. If someone is educated about drugs they will know which substances are relatively harmless and which substances are dangerous. Because I am educated about the nature of many drugs, I could never, not in a million years, be persuaded to try heroin, cocaine or any methamphetamines. Clearly, given the abysmal performance by narcotics agencies in stopping the trafficking of drugs (which they haven't even put a dent in) the solution lies elsewhere, not in banning the substances.

If drugs were legalized, here is what we SHOULD do:
1. Put a heavy emphasis on education - kids should know and understand the consequences of choices concerning substances they put in their bodies, much like an emphasis is placed on the negative side effects of smoking tobacco.
2. Put a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation - rehabilitation would have a higher success rate than the current method: incarceration.
3. Put very strict regulations on the sale and distribution of drugs - stores that, for instance, sell marijuana would have to have a license provided by the state, would have to renew that license, would be subject to government scrutiny. Institute a minimum age for sale/or possession of drugs (which may vary from drug to drug). Also, mandate strict laws concerning the sale of substances to the underaged, much as we have done with tobacco and alcohol, lowering the incentive for distributors to sell to the underaged when the consequences would be hefty fines/or lengthy prison time.

When I was 16 it was nigh impossible for me to go to a convenience store and buy a pack of smokes or beer or liquor. Why? Because the massive, strict regulations we place on the sale/distribution of these two substances. I wasn't able to buy my first pack of cigarettes on my own until I was 18, the legal age, because no store would sell to me if I could not provide proof that I was of age. Same went for alcohol (and believe you me, I tried).

When it came to pot, however, all I had to do was make a few calls, hand over some money, and was well on my way to doobie land. Why? Because there are no strict regulations concerning  the sale/distribution of marijuana and other substances. Dealers don't ask for an ID. They don't care how old you are. And making something illegal doesn't mean that people won't do it. The 'War on Drugs' is an abyssmal failure, costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars every year, throwing over a million people in jail per year for non-violent drug offenses (you know... getting high in your living room), and for what? The flow of drugs into this country hasn't stopped at all, nearly 1/3 of Americans admit to smoking pot, gang violence is rampant...

It is obviously time for a new solution to our problem. As LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) would say: Alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition: Same problem, same solution.

B???, the floor is yours.

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

#6    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE

  • Its is when aspirations come in toe with destiny, are great men manifested

Posted 24 June 2009 - 04:50 PM

Quote

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this, I had to reformat my computer and then I was up in the Boundary Waters for a fishing trip. But I'm back, so lets continue
.
I was already aware of this

Quote

Legalizing drugs will not create these 'new' problems. These problems already exist, and legalizing drugs will actually remove much of this problem. Here is how: When you make something illegal when there is high demand for it, unscrupulous people can take advantage of the ban on X (whatever X is) because demand will allow a black market to form for X. Take alcohol during the Prohibition era, for instance. In a well meaning, but ultimately foolhardy, attempt to solve domestic and criminal issues, the Temperance movement succeeded in banning the sale, manufacture, and consumption of alcohol. Demand for liquor, however, remained high even in the face of Federal retribution for breaking the law. That demand, as such, allowed for mob-esque characters such as Capone and Luciano to reign in the demand for illicit liquor, creating criminal empires that were steeped in blood and violence. So, illegalizing alcohol only served to allow criminally minded people to thrive on the black market illegalization creates for high demand product. The same goes for drugs. We've made many high demand substances (specifically marijuana) illegal, creating a black market for them, and have allowed criminals to thrive. Much of the gang violence we hear about has to do with drugs, whether its possession or sale or distribution, what have you. Legalizing drugs, therefore, will eliminate the black market demand for drugs, removing the currency (illegal drugs) by which many large criminal organizations operate. Follow me?


It is for this reason that War on Drugs have now made significant progress and running.....Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug
trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available
to all ages in unlimited quantity.

Quote

No matter how much money we seem to throw at the narcotics agencies designed to stop the flow and trafficking of drugs, more and more flow through our borders and streets.

But they seem to do their best and at this point I like to quote a person "Something is better than nothing"...I assure you the US government know the problems of drugs being consumed and soi they legaly try to restrict it...It seems very reasonable

Quote

Many legal things are harmful: Alcohol, gambling, tobacco products etc. etc. Legalization of drugs comes down to, among other things, freedom of choice, that individuals have the right to privacy specifically towards their own bodies.

They will not cause sunch drastic effects that when drugs is allowed to get into peoples body at their will.And that drugs is very addicting that de-addicting programmes fails to make any results whatsoever

Quote

Alcohol has caused significant problems, no time more blatantly obvious than when we banned the sale, manufacture, and consumption of it, thereby creating an environment for criminal enterprises to thrive.

So you too agree that it has caused significant problems then just think the problems when we legalise drugs?...Sure it will cause more atkeast more and more pocketpickers or thiefs who steal drugs from medical shops
QUOTE
Legalization and proper regulation should not be an issue, especially when you consider the violence that we have caused (and are struggling to stop) concerning the trafficking of illicit substances. Also, I have not heard that statistic before.

You want to know the satict where it failed before?
Here comes....
=The British have also had their own failed experiments with liberalizing drug laws. England’s experience shows that use and addiction increase with “harm reduction” policy. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year.

= The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.

= Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.


QUOTE
Of course, which is why we must set high priority on education. If someone is educated about drugs they will know which substances are relatively harmless and which substances are dangerous. Because I am educated about the nature of many drugs, I could never, not in a million years, be persuaded to try heroin, cocaine or any methamphetamines. Clearly, given the abysmal performance by narcotics agencies in stopping the trafficking of drugs (which they haven't even put a dent in) the solution lies elsewhere, not in banning the substances.


I am going to disagree with you ...The US government tried to legalize abortion and giving them education about that and still did we make any progress in decreasing the number of abortion cases?We legalised alcohol and gave the teens education and did we have any progress?The same case goes with cigarettes and now drugs

SUCESS OF WAR ON DRUGS
On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine.





Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with
increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure,
statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under
the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs,
but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers
of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug
trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available
to all ages in unlimited quantity.


Churchanddestroy, the floor is yours.

Thanks
B???

Edited by behaviour???, 24 June 2009 - 04:57 PM.

Posted Image


#7    churchanddestroy

churchanddestroy

    Secretary of No State

  • Member
  • 3,088 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 29 June 2009 - 07:18 PM

Thank you B???

Continuing on:

1. The legalization of drugs will actually make our streets and homes safer.

Those opposed to the legalization of drugs often claim that drugs turn people into criminals. Well... they're right. In part. We're told that drugs lead otherwise normal people to do things that they normally wouldn't. This often leads us to the assumption that drug users are criminals by default, that people commit crimes because they are on drugs. But thats not the whole story. It is true that drug use often leads to criminal acts, but not because people are on drugs (necessarily) at the time. Drug users commit crimes to finance their drug habits. One Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, did a 2 1/2 year study on crime rates in Detroit. This is what he found: with a 10% increase in the price of heroin, "[there was] an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." The rate of armed robbery rose 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent. When law enforcement cracks down hard on a certain drug, the price of that drug on the street also rises - basic supply and demand. To finance their addictions, drug users must resort to outside methods (i.e. robbery, burglary, assaults etc.) when their current level of income won't allow them to acquire whatever drug it is that they need.

"When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." Statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged in direct relation to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine are not available. The obvious point is that black markets for any desirable illegal products cannot be stopped.

For heroin, the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a 500% markup.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

   1. Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
   2. At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
   3. Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
   4. The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.

Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. Drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known drugstore retailers."


Courtesy of http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/legaldrugs.htm


So being on drugs doesn't necessarily mean that you will commit a crime, but a rise in prices likely will (if you are an addict. And trust me, addicts will go to great lengths to get what they want). We can solve this by (surprise) legalizing drugs. With safe, cheap, and legal outlets with which an individual can acquire their drugs there will be less an incentive to commit a crime to finance said addiction.

Interesting statistics: U.S. crime rates (drugs are illegal) v. Netherlands crime rates (many drugs are legal)
Netherlands

Assaults 44,129 [14th of 58]
Car thefts (per capita) 2.33559 per 1,000 people [15th of 55]
Drug offences 47 per 100,000 people [20th of 36]
Murders 183 [40th of 63]
Murders (per capita) 0.0111538 per 1,000 people [51st of 62]
Rapes 1,648 [20th of 66]
Rapes (per capita) 0.100445 per 1,000 people [22nd of 65]
Total crimes 1,305,640 [14th of 61]

USA

Assaults 2,238,480 [1st of 58]
Car thefts (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people [9th of 55]
Murders 12,658 [6th of 63]
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Murders with firearms 8,259 [4th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]
Rapes 89,110 [1st of 66]
Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people [9th of 65]
Total crimes 23,677,800 [1st of 61]

Interesting... there are 20 times as many crimes committed in the USA, where drugs are illegal, than in the Netherlands, where many drugs are legalized and regulated...


2. Legalization would put a huge financial strain on organized crime.

Legalizing drugs would put many organized criminals out of business. Many illicit drugs are widely distributed by organized crime. For instance, the Mafia is associated with heroin, Jamaican gangs distribute crack, the Mendellin Cartel sells vast quantities of cocaine, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Legalizing and regulating these drugs in the same way that we have done with alcohol and tobacco would force these organizations to either begin running legitimate operations or go out of business. The same thing happened during the Prohibition era. There was no legal market for alcohol, so the criminal empires had a choke hold on selling illicit liquor for the entire period. However, when alcohol was re-legalized, the Mob could not compete with legitimate, legal operations that sold alcohol, namely plain old businesses. Why? Well, for one, the danger of illicit substances largely lies in the fact that they are unregulated. Those who (in the past) sold illicit alcohol were not concerned with the actual quality of what they sold. Many people died during the prohibition era because they had been sold poorly made bootlegged booze. When alcohol was re-legalized and heavily regulated, quality control returned and nobody sold tainted alcohol. The same would apply to illicit drugs. One of the huge problems with illicit drugs is that... well... they're dangerous. But not necessarily because they're drugs, though certainly few drugs are what we would consider beneficial (but then again, neither is alcohol nor tobacco, so there you go). The danger lies in the fact that because there is no regulation concerning the quality of illegal drugs, you really never know what it is you are buying when you purchase illicit drugs from a dealer. It make look like weed, it may smell like weed, but you really have no idea if it has been tainted in some way or not. There is no way to regulate the quality of something when it is illegal. As such, criminals who distribute drugs are not concerned with the quality of the drugs they sell so much as they are concerned with getting the money and moving on. In an environment of legalization and regulation, consumers would be able to hold distributors accountable for their product. If a store sold bunk drugs that seriously hurt someone, they could potentially face a lawsuit, in addition to very stiff regulatory fines from the Feds. Once drugs are legalized, regulated, and sold cheaply at drug stores the incentive to go out of your way to find a 'dealer' who supports a vast drug cartel will virtually vanish. Prohibition era alcohol markets have shown us that this is the case. Contrary to your claims B???, legalizing something does remove the black market for it. Just look at alcohol. No criminal empires fight street wars over alcohol. Nobody tries smuggling alcohol into the United States. Why? Because there is no market for illegal alcohol. Why? Because alcohol is legal, and as such legitimate operations can provide clean, cheap, regulated booze to the American public, something that criminal empires cannot do.


3. Legalizing drugs will reduce the strain on our already overcrowded prison system.


The United States has a total 5% of the world's population. The United States also has 25% of the world's known incarcerated population. That's a hell of a discrepancy. A huge portion of the inmates in our prisons are incarcerated due to drug related offenses.

Again, the article I cited before provides a compelling case for legalization, concerning the overcrowded situation of our prisons:

Prison overcrowding is a serious and persistent problem. Studies show that the prison environment has become increasingly violent and faceless which exacerbates an already dangerous and dehumanizing environment. Prison is intended to punish "real" criminals for their crimes, however, as you will see, the overcrowding is due mostly to drug offenders.

According to the 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, between 1979 and 1985 the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by 57.8 %, nine times faster than the general population. Governments at all levels keep building more prisons (spending our money), but the number of new prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 1985 Statistical Report, as of September 30, 1985, federal institutions held 35,959 prisoners --- 41% over the rated prison capacity of 25,638. State prisons were 114% of capacity in 1986.

Of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, drug law violators were the largest single category, 9487. A total of 4613 were in prison but not yet sentenced under various charges. Since 1985, the courts have released drug-related criminals to the street as quickly as possible to free prison space for real criminals. We get a vicious cycle of repeated drug offenses followed by release to alleviate overcrowding. Burglaries and theft would decrease by 50% if drugs were legalized because the price would decrease.

Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the strain and burden on the prison system, since drug offenders would no longer be incarcerated. Also, since drug users would no longer commit violent/property crimes to pay artificially high prices for their habits, there would be fewer future drug-related criminals to incarcerate. Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the savings and still be safer.

Removing the 9487 drug inmates would leave 26,472. Of those, 7200 were in for assault, burglary, larceny-theft, or robbery. If the proportion of such crimes that is related to drugs is 40 percent, without drug laws another 2900 persons would never have made it to federal prison. The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison's rated capacity.


So there are another three good reasons to legalize drugs.

Moving on.

Quote

It is for this reason that War on Drugs have now made significant progress and running.....Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug
trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available
to all ages in unlimited quantity.


The War on Drugs hasn't made much progress. According to LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the statistic amount of Americans classified as 'addicts' has not changed from 1913 (when drugs were legal) until the present time (when drugs are illegal). That statistic is 1.3%. Over the course of most of this century, the percentage of Americans who are addicted to drugs has not changed. It has remained a solid 1.3%

In that aspect, the war on drugs has failed.

Also, I already showed you that a black market would not exist once drugs are legalized. There is no black market for alcohol and cigarettes. The black market for alcohol died with the Prohibition. Why would drugs be any different?

Quote

So you too agree that it has caused significant problems then just think the problems when we legalise drugs?...Sure it will cause more atkeast more and more pocketpickers or thiefs who steal drugs from medical shops

Again, with point one, I showed why this is not the case. When drugs are legalized and regulated there will not be an incentive to commit crimes to support drug habits. Why? Because the ridiculous markup on drug value will diminish with legalization. Like I said earlier, the markup on illegal drugs, in comparison to what they cost where they are made, is ridiculous. Without a vast criminal cartel to support drugs would be relatively cheap.

Also, you don't hear about many people who manage to 'pickpocket' cigarettes from convenience stores. Its not like in the world of legalized drugs the drugs would just be sitting there for you to stuff in your pockets. You would need to provide a license to prove that you are of legal age, the drugs would most likely be locked behind the counter, etc. etc.

Quote

I am going to disagree with you ...The US government tried to legalize abortion and giving them education about that and still did we make any progress in decreasing the number of abortion cases?We legalised alcohol and gave the teens education and did we have any progress?The same case goes with cigarettes and now drugs


Fewer teens than ever use tobacco products. Thats a statistical fact. Why? Because they know what the ramifications are for becoming addicted to tobacco: a cancerous death.

Quote

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with
increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure,
statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

It seems like a sort of shallow argument to say that someone would do drugs because they are legal. There are plenty of people who abstain from alcohol even though it is legal. 3/4 of Americans do not smoke, even though access to tobacco is relatively easy (if you are of age). Why don't most American's smoke? Because they know the health consequences. Americans should know the consequences of doing drugs, from a health point of view.

Quote

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under
the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs,
but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers
of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.


This argument was used by the Prohibition movement to get alcohol banned. Alcohol also plays a large part in child and spouse abuse and other violent crimes, but alcohol is legal. We tried banning alcohol but it failed miserably. The point is that we're failing miserably in our 'War on Drugs' so we need to find some other method to address the drug problem in America. Making drugs illegal has only created a black market for them, a black market run by criminal organizations, so we have in essence given criminals currency with which they can finance their criminal empires. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There has to be a better way.
B??? the floor is yours.

Like I have said before, legalizing drugs does not mean that America will become a drug free-for-all. Legalization implies regulation and the responsibilities that come with it. If we regulate drugs in the same way that we have regulated tobacco and alcohol many of the problems will fade away. Drugs will be cheap, because there won't be the ridiculous markup in price, thus lowering the incentive for a drug user to commit crimes to finance their habits. Kids won't be able to acquire drugs as easily: It is, at this moment, far easier for teens to get their hands on drugs than cigarettes or alcohol, courtesy of regulation.

Legalization, regulation, and education is the only way we can 'win' the war we are fighting on drugs. The only thing we have done with our current method is to provide criminals with an easy method to finance their organizations. The time has come for America to wake up, realize what we have done, and solve our problem responsibly. Overcrowding prisons, allowing teens easy access to drugs, and financing criminal empires is NOT responsible. Legalization, harsh regulations, and educating ourselves on the nature and effects of drug use IS responsible.

B??? the floor is yours.

Cheers,
Churchanddestroy

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

#8    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE

  • Its is when aspirations come in toe with destiny, are great men manifested

Posted 05 July 2009 - 01:33 PM

Quote

1. The legalization of drugs will actually make our streets and homes safer.

Those opposed to the legalization of drugs often claim that drugs turn people into criminals. Well... they're right. In part. We're told that drugs lead otherwise normal people to do things that they normally wouldn't. This often leads us to the assumption that drug users are criminals by default, that people commit crimes because they are on drugs. But thats not the whole story. It is true that drug use often leads to criminal acts, but not because people are on drugs (necessarily) at the time. Drug users commit crimes to finance their drug habits. One Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, did a 2 1/2 year study on crime rates in Detroit. This is what he found: with a 10% increase in the price of heroin, "[there was] an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." The rate of armed robbery rose 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent. When law enforcement cracks down hard on a certain drug, the price of that drug on the street also rises - basic supply and demand. To finance their addictions, drug users must resort to outside methods (i.e. robbery, burglary, assaults etc.) when their current level of income won't allow them to acquire whatever drug it is that they need.

"When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." Statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged in direct relation to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine are not available. The obvious point is that black markets for any desirable illegal products cannot be stopped.

For heroin, the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a 500% markup.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

   1. Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
   2. At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
   3. Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
   4. The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.

Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. Drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known drugstore retailers."


Courtesy of http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/legaldrugs.htm


So being on drugs doesn't necessarily mean that you will commit a crime, but a rise in prices likely will (if you are an addict. And trust me, addicts will go to great lengths to get what they want). We can solve this by (surprise) legalizing drugs. With safe, cheap, and legal outlets with which an individual can acquire their drugs there will be less an incentive to commit a crime to finance said addiction.

Interesting statistics: U.S. crime rates (drugs are illegal) v. Netherlands crime rates (many drugs are legal)
Netherlands

Assaults 44,129 [14th of 58]
Car thefts (per capita) 2.33559 per 1,000 people [15th of 55]
Drug offences 47 per 100,000 people [20th of 36]
Murders 183 [40th of 63]
Murders (per capita) 0.0111538 per 1,000 people [51st of 62]
Rapes 1,648 [20th of 66]
Rapes (per capita) 0.100445 per 1,000 people [22nd of 65]
Total crimes 1,305,640 [14th of 61]

USA

Assaults 2,238,480 [1st of 58]
Car thefts (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people [9th of 55]
Murders 12,658 [6th of 63]
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Murders with firearms 8,259 [4th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]
Rapes 89,110 [1st of 66]
Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people [9th of 65]
Total crimes 23,677,800 [1st of 61]

Interesting... there are 20 times as many crimes committed in the USA, where drugs are illegal, than in the Netherlands, where many drugs are legalized and regulated...

As I have very clearly stated that we have reduced the consumptions by war on drugs....
The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.

1- Most cases of simple drug possession are simply not prosecuted, unless people have been arrested repeatedly for using drugs. In 1999, for example, only 2.5 percent of the federal cases argued in District Courts involved simple drug possession. Even the small number of possession charges is likely to give an inflated impression of the numbers. It is likely that a significant percentage of those in prison on possession charges were people who were originally arrested for trafficking or another more serious drug crime but plea-bargained down to a simple possession charge.
As I am repeatedly stating...


1-The good news continues. According to the 2001-2002 PRIDE survey, student drug use has reached the lowest level in nine years. According to the author of the study, “following 9/11, Americans seemed to refocus on family, community, spirituality, and nation.” These statistics show that U.S. efforts to educate kids about the dangers of drugs is making an impact. Like smoking cigarettes, drug use is gaining a stigma which is the best cure for this problem, as it was in the 1980s, when government, business, the media and other national institutions came together to do something about the growing problem of drugs and drug-related violence. This is a trend we should encourage — not send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use.

2-The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s has diminished greatly in scope. And we’ve reduced the number of chronic heroin users over the last decade. In addition, the number of new marijuana users and cocaine users continues to steadily decrease.

3-The number of new heroin users dropped from 156,000 in 1976 to 104,000 in 1999, a reduction of 33 percent.


Quote

2. Legalization would put a huge financial strain on organized crime.

Legalizing drugs would put many organized criminals out of business. Many illicit drugs are widely distributed by organized crime. For instance, the Mafia is associated with heroin, Jamaican gangs distribute crack, the Mendellin Cartel sells vast quantities of cocaine, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Legalizing and regulating these drugs in the same way that we have done with alcohol and tobacco would force these organizations to either begin running legitimate operations or go out of business. The same thing happened during the Prohibition era. There was no legal market for alcohol, so the criminal empires had a choke hold on selling illicit liquor for the entire period. However, when alcohol was re-legalized, the Mob could not compete with legitimate, legal operations that sold alcohol, namely plain old businesses. Why? Well, for one, the danger of illicit substances largely lies in the fact that they are unregulated. Those who (in the past) sold illicit alcohol were not concerned with the actual quality of what they sold. Many people died during the prohibition era because they had been sold poorly made bootlegged booze. When alcohol was re-legalized and heavily regulated, quality control returned and nobody sold tainted alcohol. The same would apply to illicit drugs. One of the huge problems with illicit drugs is that... well... they're dangerous. But not necessarily because they're drugs, though certainly few drugs are what we would consider beneficial (but then again, neither is alcohol nor tobacco, so there you go). The danger lies in the fact that because there is no regulation concerning the quality of illegal drugs, you really never know what it is you are buying when you purchase illicit drugs from a dealer. It make look like weed, it may smell like weed, but you really have no idea if it has been tainted in some way or not. There is no way to regulate the quality of something when it is illegal. As such, criminals who distribute drugs are not concerned with the quality of the drugs they sell so much as they are concerned with getting the money and moving on. In an environment of legalization and regulation, consumers would be able to hold distributors accountable for their product. If a store sold bunk drugs that seriously hurt someone, they could potentially face a lawsuit, in addition to very stiff regulatory fines from the Feds. Once drugs are legalized, regulated, and sold cheaply at drug stores the incentive to go out of your way to find a 'dealer' who supports a vast drug cartel will virtually vanish. Prohibition era alcohol markets have shown us that this is the case. Contrary to your claims B???, legalizing something does remove the black market for it. Just look at alcohol. No criminal empires fight street wars over alcohol. Nobody tries smuggling alcohol into the United States. Why? Because there is no market for illegal alcohol. Why? Because alcohol is legal, and as such legitimate operations can provide clean, cheap, regulated booze to the American public, something that criminal empires cannot do.



The case with alcohol is entirely different because it is less damage causing and so linking a black market of alcohol to black market of drugs is an absurd idea.

1-under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors
2-If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?
3-n addition, any government agency assigned to distribute drugs under a legalization scenario would, for safety purposes, most likely not distribute the most potent drug. The drugs may also be more expensive because of bureaucratic costs of operating such a distribution system. Therefore, until 100 percent pure drugs are given away to anyone, at any age, a black market will remain.
4-According to the 1999 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) study, more than half of arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at the time of their arrest.
5- The greatest weakness in the logic of legalizers is that the violence associated with drugs is simply a product of drug trafficking. That is, if drugs were legal, then most drug crime would end. But most violent crime is committed not because people want to buy drugs, but because people are on drugs. Drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity, and there is ample scientific evidence that demonstrates the links between drugs, violence, and crime. Drugs often cause people to do things they wouldn’t do if they were rational and free of the influence of drugs.


Quote

3. Legalizing drugs will reduce the strain on our already overcrowded prison system.

The United States has a total 5% of the world's population. The United States also has 25% of the world's known incarcerated population. That's a hell of a discrepancy. A huge portion of the inmates in our prisons are incarcerated due to drug related offenses.

Again, the article I cited before provides a compelling case for legalization, concerning the overcrowded situation of our prisons:

Prison overcrowding is a serious and persistent problem. Studies show that the prison environment has become increasingly violent and faceless which exacerbates an already dangerous and dehumanizing environment. Prison is intended to punish "real" criminals for their crimes, however, as you will see, the overcrowding is due mostly to drug offenders.

According to the 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, between 1979 and 1985 the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by 57.8 %, nine times faster than the general population. Governments at all levels keep building more prisons (spending our money), but the number of new prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 1985 Statistical Report, as of September 30, 1985, federal institutions held 35,959 prisoners --- 41% over the rated prison capacity of 25,638. State prisons were 114% of capacity in 1986.

Of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, drug law violators were the largest single category, 9487. A total of 4613 were in prison but not yet sentenced under various charges. Since 1985, the courts have released drug-related criminals to the street as quickly as possible to free prison space for real criminals. We get a vicious cycle of repeated drug offenses followed by release to alleviate overcrowding. Burglaries and theft would decrease by 50% if drugs were legalized because the price would decrease.

Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the strain and burden on the prison system, since drug offenders would no longer be incarcerated. Also, since drug users would no longer commit violent/property crimes to pay artificially high prices for their habits, there would be fewer future drug-related criminals to incarcerate. Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the savings and still be safer.

Removing the 9487 drug inmates would leave 26,472. Of those, 7200 were in for assault, burglary, larceny-theft, or robbery. If the proportion of such crimes that is related to drugs is 40 percent, without drug laws another 2900 persons would never have made it to federal prison. The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison's rated capacity.

According to statistics there is toatl inmates are 47000 but out of wich 15 are prisoned for simple pocessionTherfore legalisation is not going to decrease strain over prison system whatsoever
Most cases of simple drug possession are simply not prosecuted, unless people have been arrested repeatedly for using drugs. In 1999, for example, only 2.5 percent of the federal cases argued in District Courts involved simple drug possession. Even the small number of possession charges is likely to give an inflated impression of the numbers. It is likely that a significant percentage of those in prison on possession charges were people who were originally arrested for trafficking or another more serious drug crime but plea-bargained down to a simple possession charge.The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study of their inmate population. They discovered that out of 47,000 inmates, only 15 people were incarcerated on first-time drug possession charges. (500 are incarcerated on drug possession charges, but 485 are there on multiple charges or pled down.)In Wisconsin the numbers are even lower, with only 10 persons incarcerated on drug possession charges. (769 are incarcerated on drug possession charges, but 512 of those entered prison through some type of revocation, leaving 247 entering prison on a “new sentence.” Eliminating those who had also been sentenced on trafficking and/or non-drug related charges; the total of new drug possession sentences came to 10.)






Quote

The War on Drugs hasn't made much progress. According to LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the statistic amount of Americans classified as 'addicts' has not changed from 1913 (when drugs were legal) until the present time (when drugs are illegal). That statistic is 1.3%. Over the course of most of this century, the percentage of Americans who are addicted to drugs has not changed. It has remained a solid 1.3%

In that aspect, the war on drugs has failed.


The facts are to the contrary to such pessimism. On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine.Almost two-thirds of teens say their schools are drugfree, according to a new survey of teen drug use conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. This is the first time in the seven-year history of the study that a majority of public school students report drug-free schools.The good news continues. According to the 2001-2002 PRIDE survey, student drug use has reached the lowest level in nine years. According to the author of the study, “following 9/11, Americans seemed to refocus on family, community, spirituality, and nation.” These statistics show that U.S. efforts to educate kids about the dangers of drugs is making an impact. Like smoking cigarettes, drug use is gaining a stigma which is the best cure for this problem, as it was in the 1980s, when government, business, the media and other national institutions came together to do something about the growing problem of drugs and drug-related violence. This is a trend we should encourage — not send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use.The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s has diminished greatly in scope. And we’ve reduced the number of chronic heroin users over the last decade. In addition, the number of new marijuana users and cocaine users continues to steadily decrease.

Quote

Also, I already showed you that a black market would not exist once drugs are legalized. There is no black market for alcohol and cigarettes. The black market for alcohol died with the Prohibition. Why would drugs be any different?

They are differnt for the simple reason that they are not as harmful as drugs.
QUOTE
Again, with point one, I showed why this is not the case. When drugs are legalized and regulated there will not be an incentive to commit crimes to support drug habits. Why? Because the ridiculous markup on drug value will diminish with legalization. Like I said earlier, the markup on illegal drugs, in comparison to what they cost where they are made, is ridiculous. Without a vast criminal cartel to support drugs would be relatively cheap.


People who make money with illegal items will continue it if even they are legalised and legalising all harmfull things for the sake on putting these cartels out is at present a fragile alternative to consider for the US government

QUOTE
Also, you don't hear about many people who manage to 'pickpocket' cigarettes from convenience stores. Its not like in the world of legalized drugs the drugs would just be sitting there for you to stuff in your pockets. You would need to provide a license to prove that you are of legal age, the drugs would most likely be locked behind the counter, etc. etc.

Legalisation will only cause the governmet to takeover distribution.As this involves high cost the government would charge high cost on drugs even they are legalised so people will resort to pickpocketing and surely you dont want all those drug addicts to turn into pickpocketers


QUOTE
It seems like a sort of shallow argument to say that someone would do drugs because they are legal. There are plenty of people who abstain from alcohol even though it is legal. 3/4 of Americans do not smoke, even though access to tobacco is relatively easy (if you are of age). Why don't most American's smoke? Because they know the health consequences. Americans should know the consequences of doing drugs, from a health point of view.


And for the same reason this is why the US government says that even though drugs are legalised 93% of Americans who dont consume it will stay firever like that and legalising it to satisfy the remaing 5% is not a good option to consider and so does the American government belive


QUOTE
Like I have said before, legalizing drugs does not mean that America will become a drug free-for-all. Legalization implies regulation and the responsibilities that come with it. If we regulate drugs in the same way that we have regulated tobacco and alcohol many of the problems will fade away. Drugs will be cheap, because there won't be the ridiculous markup in price, thus lowering the incentive for a drug user to commit crimes to finance their habits. Kids won't be able to acquire drugs as easily: It is, at this moment, far easier for teens to get their hands on drugs than cigarettes or alcohol, courtesy of regulation.

Surely if its not completely drug free the the American governmet should just control the other which they are doing very efficiently through War on drugs and I fail to know what is your logic behind that when you say it has failed



Over the years, some people have advocated a policy that focuses narrowly on controlling the supply of drugs. Others have said that society should rely on treatment alone. Still others say that prevention is the only viable solution. As the 2002 National Drug Strategy observes, “ What the nation needs is an honest effort to integrate these strategies.”Drug treatment courts are a good example of this new balanced approach to fighting drug abuse and addiction in this country. These courts are given a special responsibility to handle cases involving drug-addicted offenders through an extensive supervision and treatment program. Drug court programs use the varied experience and skills of a wide variety of law enforcement and treatment professionals: judges, prosecutors, defense counsels, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others — all focused on one goal: to help cure addicts of their addiction, and to keep them cured.Drug abuse drives some of America’s most costly social problems—including domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of AIDS, and homelessness. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, and treatment of the consequences of family violence burden our already strapped health care system. In 2000, there were more than 600,000 hospital emergency department drug episodes in the United States. Health care costs for drug abuse alone were about $15 billion.This considerably large amount is at the time not so good to afford for US.Just imagine if drugs were available at the nearest corner store located about a block from your house. Would you
want the drug- crazed addicts that go to buy their daily dosage of heroin hanging around your house and/or your
children? If we give up the war against drugs and instead offer to supply the public with drugs we would be setting a
low standard for us and especially our children. Governor Mario Cuomo was exactly right when he described the severity
of drug abuse in our society, he states, “[drug abuse] is the single most ominous phenomenon of our times” and “the most
severe threat to our future.” (Belenko 18). If the United States made drugs legal we as a country would be enabling this
severe problem of drug abuse to grow out of control. It is already pretty easy for a minor to get a hold of tobacco and
alcohol; do we want to make it just as easy for them to get mind destroying drugs also? It has already been proven that
teenagers and young adults are using drugs excessively and the use is growing at an alarming rate (Reinerman and Levine 26).
To offer life destroying substances to the public is completely disrespectful. It’s like saying, “here, have some heroin
would you like to die?” Just because drugs are still so prominent in America does not mean we should give up the war.

We should not do away with the drug laws just because of the amount of money that the government spends on enforcing them.
It is completely worth spending money if we can save lives and reduce the number of babies born to addicted mothers.
We should try everything we can do to wake people up. If it takes putting more police on the streets, paying more money
to educate people, and create more jobs, we should be all for it. Letting drug users get drugs more easily and destroy more
lives is wrong. Life is precious and no amount of money is too much to save a life. We should never give up the war on drugs.



Churchanddestroy the floor is yours,
The next post as far as the Debates and its system is concerned will be your conclusion post
Thanks
B???









Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users