Advertisement
by Xirius » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:16 am
by New Chalcedon » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:34 am
Libertarian Mesa wrote:I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:
The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?
And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?
Please correct me if I made a mistake.
by Lackadaisical2 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:36 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Hippostania » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:40 am
by Lackadaisical2 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:48 am
Hippostania wrote:All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Soviet Haaregrad » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:50 am
Hippostania wrote:All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.
by Lackadaisical2 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:53 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Yaltabaoth » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:03 am
by Soviet Haaregrad » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:08 am
by Nazis in Space » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:30 am
Yep.Libertarian Mesa wrote:I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:
The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?
Yep. Although I note that the addictiveness of heroin depends on how it's consumed - it used to be (And IIRC, still is in Britain) sold as a mere painkiller, and for decades, caused fuckall addictions (It's also comparatively non-toxic). Chiefly due to being administered orally, in pill form.And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?
Yes. It makes up a very substantial fraction of the total organised crime in Germany.Galloism wrote:You know of many organized cigarette gangs?
Counterexamples: The legality of opium and heroin (In more addicting consumption forms than swallowing a pill thereof) in the late 19th, early 20th century, when these things could be found, and were regularly consumed pretty much anywhere. While they weren't 'Folk Drugs' like alcohol or tabacco, consumption was nonetheless immense, far higher than post-ban. Pretty much the same applies to cocaine.New Manvir wrote:Actually yes, they do. More liberal policies regarding drugs has led to less use, not more. See: Prohibition, Portugal, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic for examples.
by Soviet Haaregrad » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:28 am
Nazis in Space wrote:Designer drugs in pretty pill form are probably the safest of the bunch (If still not something I'd try myself), but even those are considerably more dangerous than alcohol. One can debate about the cutoff point where society at large, through its enforcement organ (The state) should say 'No, you can't do that, the risk of a fuckup is too high', but IMHO, the position we're at right now is a pretty acceptable one (Though personally, I'm more okay with designer drugs for clubbing than with cigarettes). If our experiences with hard drugs during the aforementioend period - late 19th, early 20th century - are anything to go by (And they are), we should not desire to legalise them.
by Xandyzon » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:32 am
by Nazis in Space » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:36 am
It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?Xandyzon wrote:I always find there is something in history that can guide us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27
Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.
What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?
by Ashmoria » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:37 am
Libertarian Mesa wrote:I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:
The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?
And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?
Please correct me if I made a mistake.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:42 am
Gauthier wrote:There's historical precedence for legalized drugs = lower crime.
It's called Prohibition.
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Vhrach Xian Achiim » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:42 am
by Xandyzon » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:44 am
Nazis in Space wrote:It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?Xandyzon wrote:I always find there is something in history that can guide us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27
Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.
What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?
by San Monteriano » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:46 am
Cosmopoles wrote:Tunasai wrote:Why would he make this up though?
Can I interest you in these magic beans I'm selling?
Ceannairceach wrote:If I were optimistic, I'd never be pleasantly surprised.
Wisconsin9 wrote:Every vegetarian and vegan in the world is sitting back and laughing cruelly at you right now. Or at least one is. Eh, close enough.
Tagmatium wrote:Yes - anything else is wishful thinking or wilful ignorance.
Without the EU, the UK is nothing but a backwater with delusions of grandeur and a history of empire.
by Nazis in Space » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:51 am
You're missing the point.Xandyzon wrote:Nazis in Space wrote:It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?
Uhm, where do you see "government policy" in my post? If anything, I'm stating that "government policy" helped nothing in that case. The governments only policy was to get rid of all the people of Christina, and they mean to do this by police force. How did this have an impact on the hard drug trade?
The people made the impact, not the government. (so i think we're really saying the same thing)
by Thalam » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:57 am
Libertarian Mesa wrote:I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:
The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?
And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?
by Sociobiology » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:00 am
Yaltabaoth wrote:I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.
by Nazis in Space » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:03 am
Are you sure these reasons apply for the drugs in question being banned in, say, various european or asian countries?Sociobiology wrote:Yaltabaoth wrote:I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.
well cannabis was banned to make it easy to deport illegal and legal immigrants from Mexico during a time of job scarcity, when immigration was a perceived threat, since cannabis was the drug of choice for these immigrants at the time. Opium (and its Derivatives) was banned to make it easier to deport Asian immigrants during an economic downturn were immigration was a perceived threat.
I see a reoccurring theme
by Thalam » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:03 am
Sociobiology wrote:Yaltabaoth wrote:I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.
well cannabis was banned to make it easy to deport illegal and legal immigrants from Mexico during a time of job scarcity, when immigration was a perceived threat, since cannabis was the drug of choice for these immigrants at the time. Opium (and its Derivatives) was banned to make it easier to deport Asian immigrants during an economic downturn were immigration was a perceived threat.
I see a reoccurring theme
by Kazomal » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:04 am
Libertarian Mesa wrote:I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:
The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?
And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?
Please correct me if I made a mistake.
by Soviet Haaregrad » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:05 am
Nazis in Space wrote:It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?Xandyzon wrote:I always find there is something in history that can guide us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27
Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.
What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Ancientania, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Burnt Calculators, Eahland, Floofybit, Google [Bot], Lophostoma, Statesburg, Tungstan, Unogonduria, Zurkerx
Advertisement