Discuss: Teens and drugs

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is further criminalization of the issue. Furthermore, just because you can stop some drug dealers doesn't mean you will stop them all, or that they won't keep appearing as long as drugs are a profitable black market.

Legalize it, you don't have the problem of drug dealers.

that's like saying if you legalize murder the problem of murder will disappear. Its merely turning a blind eye to the problem or worse, allowing the private sector to carry out horrendous acts in plain sight for profit.

At least with the current system, we get to catch some of these exploitative bastards and put them behind bars. Its about eventually catching all of them but I'll settle for and start with catching MORE of them... and this is what this method would achieve. Its enough for now. Do you know how many lives drugs have destroyed? And for many people it started in the schools because no one was there to stop the dealers...

The problem is that murder and drugs are different issues.

Prohibition carried on the same logic: "Do you know how many lives alcohol has destroyes? We need to get all those damn drunkards and put them behind bars". A massive black market appeared for alcohol. In the end we had to legalize alcohol back BECAUSE prohibition did not work, alcohol was produced and unregulated killing even more people. Right now is the same issue with drugs, the same endemic situation where drugs are unregulated and there is a massive black market.

Also, I do not see you protesting about tobacco.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

if something is wrong, you criminalize it and you fight it. You don't just give up and make it legal and say the problem has disappeared. Dealing drugs is wrong... it doesn't matter if its the people on the street doing it, or big corporations, or the government. Anyone who would exploit people like this needs to be stopped for the greater good.

If something is wrong you criminalize and fight it, yes. However, you cannot fight something or moderate something if it is hidden behind the closet and you refuse to acknowledge that your prohibition is driving people to the closet anyways because they don't see anything wrong with peeping in that closet you got.

You cannot fight drugs if you do not make them legal, all you're doing is turning an eye in trying to deal with the issue of the drugs' unregulation and safety rather than try and regulate it.

[Infected Mushroom]

that's like saying if you legalize murder the problem of murder will disappear. Its merely turning a blind eye to the problem or worse, allowing the private sector to carry out horrendous acts in plain sight for profit.

At least with the current system, we get to catch some of these exploitative bastards and put them behind bars. Its about eventually catching all of them but I'll settle for and start with catching MORE of them... and this is what this method would achieve. Its enough for now. Do you know how many lives drugs have destroyed? And for many people it started in the schools because no one was there to stop the dealers...

The problem is that murder and drugs are different issues.

Prohibition carried on the same logic: "Do you know how many lives alcohol has destroyes? We need to get all those damn drunkards and put them behind bars". A massive black market appeared for alcohol. In the end we had to legalize alcohol back BECAUSE prohibition did not work, alcohol was produced and unregulated killing even more people. Right now is the same issue with drugs, the same endemic situation where drugs are unregulated and there is a massive black market.

Also, I do not see you protesting about tobacco.

prohibition was over 60 years ago... we have much better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, technology etc now

Tobacco is bad too.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Forced drug tests are not the answer. Neither are scare tactics

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is that murder and drugs are different issues.

Prohibition carried on the same logic: "Do you know how many lives alcohol has destroyes? We need to get all those damn drunkards and put them behind bars". A massive black market appeared for alcohol. In the end we had to legalize alcohol back BECAUSE prohibition did not work, alcohol was produced and unregulated killing even more people. Right now is the same issue with drugs, the same endemic situation where drugs are unregulated and there is a massive black market.

Also, I do not see you protesting about tobacco.

prohibition was over 60 years ago... we have much better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, technology etc now

Tobacco is bad too.

And if we have better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, etc. then why have we allowed the cartels to run rampant? Why have we not stopped people from doing drugs? Why are there still drug dealers? And why "if we do this extra step" does any good? Like you said, we have better technology, but this technology has proven that it is utterly useless against people who will do things anyways that they don't see wrong.

[Infected Mushroom]

if something is wrong, you criminalize it and you fight it. You don't just give up and make it legal and say the problem has disappeared. Dealing drugs is wrong... it doesn't matter if its the people on the street doing it, or big corporations, or the government. Anyone who would exploit people like this needs to be stopped for the greater good.

If something is wrong you criminalize and fight it, yes. However, you cannot fight something or moderate something if it is hidden behind the closet and you refuse to acknowledge that your prohibition is driving people to the closet anyways because they don't see anything wrong with peeping in that closet you got.

You cannot fight drugs if you do not make them legal, all you're doing is turning an eye in trying to deal with the issue of the drugs' unregulation and safety rather than try and regulate it.

prohibition is about convincing people not to go into the closet because they know that if they go into that closet they may become an enemy of the state.

are people less likely or more likely to deal drugs if they face a long prison sentence for it (then in its absence)?

would you deal if you know you could spend the rest of your entire life behind bars for it? what good is money if you are in jail?

its about creating disincentives...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If something is wrong you criminalize and fight it, yes. However, you cannot fight something or moderate something if it is hidden behind the closet and you refuse to acknowledge that your prohibition is driving people to the closet anyways because they don't see anything wrong with peeping in that closet you got.

You cannot fight drugs if you do not make them legal, all you're doing is turning an eye in trying to deal with the issue of the drugs' unregulation and safety rather than try and regulate it.

prohibition is about convincing people not to go into the closet because they know that if they go into that closet they may become an enemy of the state.

are people less likely or more likely to deal drugs if they face a long prison sentence for it (then in its absence)?

would you deal if you know you could spend the rest of your entire life behind bars for it? what good is money if you are in jail?

its about creating disincentives...

No, they just become more sneaky in avoiding having to deal with the law for their vices.

We already have long prison sentences for drug dealing, it hasn't done any good whatsoever. People as enemies of the state? Please, people have not stopped smoking weed even though they know that smoking weed is illegal.

[Infected Mushroom]

prohibition was over 60 years ago... we have much better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, technology etc now

Tobacco is bad too.

And if we have better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, etc. then why have we allowed the cartels to run rampant? Why have we not stopped people from doing drugs? Why are there still drug dealers? And why "if we do this extra step" does any good? Like you said, we have better technology, but this technology has proven that it is utterly useless against people who will do things anyways that they don't see wrong.

because sadly, there is a lack of political willpower to do what is truly necessary. We aren't using all the tools that we've got (surveillance, mandatory tests, random searches etc) to their maximum potential because every time people suggest (and rightly) that we should step up our methods, people yell some kind of rights violation or another. Society has gone too soft... it has the weapons to win the war, but it lacks the stomach to use them.

[Rob Halfordia]

Look, I smoke pot maybe once a month, and I get high honors, and I took AP European History last year, and will be taking AP US History and AP English next year. And I've been smoking on that basis for a good 2 years. So don't give me crap about, "Oh, it slows down your brain and makes you lazy!", because it hasn't yet.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And if we have better tools, methods of organization, policing strategies, etc. then why have we allowed the cartels to run rampant? Why have we not stopped people from doing drugs? Why are there still drug dealers? And why "if we do this extra step" does any good? Like you said, we have better technology, but this technology has proven that it is utterly useless against people who will do things anyways that they don't see wrong.

because sadly, there is a lack of political willpower to do what is truly necessary. We aren't using all the tools that we've got (surveillance, mandatory tests, random searches etc) to their maximum potential because every time people suggest (and rightly) that we should step up our methods, people yell some kind of rights violation or another. Society has gone too soft... it has the weapons to win the war, but it lacks the stomach to use them.

And rightly so. Do you want a pervasive society that watches your every move, every step you make; or do you want a society with regulations and laws but that is not as intrusive?

See, the solution to drugs for many people is to be as intrusive as possible; however, to do that is to also mix the good people with the bad people and consider everyone guilty until innocent. That's not how our system works.

[Dynasty of Dalliances]

School is not optional. Thus drug testing would constitute a mandatory search without any implied consent or probable cause.

yes and no.

There would be no implied consent... but there would be probable cause. Schools are a major center of activity for drug dealers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_c ... ted_States

A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

I'm not sure how drug testing every student in a school could possibly fit in with this or any other known definition of probable cause.

No one in my school used cocaine. I imagine some percentage used marijuana, but uh, it was low. Perhaps 10-15% regular users by graduation. The people who used weed were destined to be subhuman regardless. Their mental development was stunted by other factors well before their usage of weed. It is not something one must prevent or lament.

That... seems a bit extreme.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Look, I smoke pot maybe once a month, and I get high honors, and I took AP European History last year, and will be taking AP US History and AP English next year. And I've been smoking on that basis for a good 2 years. So don't give me crap about, "Oh, it slows down your brain and makes you lazy!", because it hasn't yet.

"U COULD BE THE NEXT EINSTEIN BUT U PLAYIN'"

Or the rational response, "occasional use is not harmful, however to an undeveloped brain, smoking pot on a frequent basis can be slightly damaging, and it's best that you stick to what you're doing instead of upping your usage. Please do not drive or operate machinery while high or 'coming down.'"

[Infected Mushroom]

because sadly, there is a lack of political willpower to do what is truly necessary. We aren't using all the tools that we've got (surveillance, mandatory tests, random searches etc) to their maximum potential because every time people suggest (and rightly) that we should step up our methods, people yell some kind of rights violation or another. Society has gone too soft... it has the weapons to win the war, but it lacks the stomach to use them.

And rightly so. Do you want a pervasive society that watches your every move, every step you make; or do you want a society with regulations and laws but that is not as intrusive?

See, the solution to drugs for many people is to be as intrusive as possible; however, to do that is to also mix the good people with the bad people and consider everyone guilty until innocent. That's not how our system works.

the good and the bad people are not mixed. Only the guilty will go to jail. And no one is presumed guilty, surveillance is not about presuming guilt, its about making it easier to DETERMINE guilt.

[Charellia]

School is not optional. Thus drug testing would constitute a mandatory search without any implied consent or probable cause.

yes and no.

There would be no implied consent... but there would be probable cause. Schools are a major center of activity for drug dealers...

Simple proximity to a drug dealer is not probable cause. There has to be real suspicion that a crime is being committed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And rightly so. Do you want a pervasive society that watches your every move, every step you make; or do you want a society with regulations and laws but that is not as intrusive?

See, the solution to drugs for many people is to be as intrusive as possible; however, to do that is to also mix the good people with the bad people and consider everyone guilty until innocent. That's not how our system works.

the good and the bad people are not mixed. Only the guilty will go to jail. And no one is presumed guilty, surveillance is not about presuming guilt, its about making it easier to DETERMINE guilt.

Maybe we don't do all those things because authoritarian hellholes that deprive basic freedoms are just that, hellholes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

the good and the bad people are not mixed. Only the guilty will go to jail. And no one is presumed guilty, surveillance is not about presuming guilt, its about making it easier to DETERMINE guilt.

Yes, but you are presuming by surveillance that everyone can do something.

Prevention =/= fearmongering. Education about drugs is more appropriate. Otherwise, surveillance would mean you have an entire grid of surveillance over the city, overly intrusive, extremely expensive, and insurmountably practical.

[Rob Halfordia]

Look, I smoke pot maybe once a month, and I get high honors, and I took AP European History last year, and will be taking AP US History and AP English next year. And I've been smoking on that basis for a good 2 years. So don't give me crap about, "Oh, it slows down your brain and makes you lazy!", because it hasn't yet.

"U COULD BE THE NEXT EINSTEIN BUT U PLAYIN'"

Or the rational response, "occasional use is not harmful, however to an undeveloped brain, smoking pot on a frequent basis can be slightly damaging, and it's best that you stick to what you're doing instead of upping your usage. Please do not drive or operate machinery while high or 'coming down.'"

[Infected Mushroom]

the good and the bad people are not mixed. Only the guilty will go to jail. And no one is presumed guilty, surveillance is not about presuming guilt, its about making it easier to DETERMINE guilt.

Maybe we don't do all those things because authoritarian hellholes that deprive basic freedoms are just that, hellholes.

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn into North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

[Infected Mushroom]

the good and the bad people are not mixed. Only the guilty will go to jail. And no one is presumed guilty, surveillance is not about presuming guilt, its about making it easier to DETERMINE guilt.

Yes, but you are presuming by surveillance that everyone can do something.

Prevention =/= fearmongering. Education about drugs is more appropriate. Otherwise, surveillance would mean you have an entire grid of surveillance over the city, overly intrusive, extremely expensive, and insurmountably practical.

Prevention = detecting and eliminating threats (hopefully before they do too much damage). Any viable strategy of Prevention must assume that every possibility is a possibility (hence anyone could potentially be a drug dealer or a drug user). But that's not the same thing as presuming immediately that everyone is Guilty and throwing everyone in jail immediately. No... people are not arrested unless they have done something wrong.

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Education is a tool too but it is not the primary means to fight drug dealers; the primary means of fighting profit-seeking criminals has always been the forces of the law and justice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Maybe we don't do all those things because authoritarian hellholes that deprive basic freedoms are just that, hellholes.

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn into North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

Which is precisely what will happen.

Intrusion for the sake of fighting something only makes censorship much easier.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe we don't do all those things because authoritarian hellholes that deprive basic freedoms are just that, hellholes.

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn in North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

But why shouldn't we turn into Stalinist Russia? Say what you want about it but Stalin did a damn good job of fighting something abhorrent using all the tools and and technology available. Including firing squads and machine guns. It isn't really a hyperbole either, all three states you listed all had (and have in NK's case) extremely pervasive surveillance systems that give the average person little to no privacy, but it's all for the greater good right?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, but you are presuming by surveillance that everyone can do something.

Prevention =/= fearmongering. Education about drugs is more appropriate. Otherwise, surveillance would mean you have an entire grid of surveillance over the city, overly intrusive, extremely expensive, and insurmountably practical.

Prevention = detecting and eliminating threats (hopefully before they do too much damage). Any viable strategy of Prevention must assume that every possibility is a possibility (hence anyone could potentially be a drug dealer or a drug user). But that's not the same thing as presuming immediately that everyone is Guilty and throwing everyone in jail immediately. No... people are not arrested unless they have done something wrong.

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

How are those not the same things?

If there is a possibility you are a criminal you are criminalizing the person. You are assuming they are possibly guilty of anything.

[Charellia]

Maybe we don't do all those things because authoritarian hellholes that deprive basic freedoms are just that, hellholes.

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn into North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

We have restrictions on government power for a reason. If we abandon them, even for a just cause, then there is a very real risk of us becoming no different from any of the states you mentioned.

[Infected Mushroom]

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn into North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

Which is precisely what will happen.

Intrusion for the sake of fighting something only makes censorship much easier.

what do you mean?

[Infected Mushroom]

Please don't use hyperboles.

I am merely advocate that we use all the tools and technology that we do have to fight something abhorrent. I am not advocating that we turn into North Korea, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

We have restrictions on government power for a reason. If we abandon them, even for a just cause, then there is a very real risk of us becoming no different from any of the states you mentioned.

the electoral system and the bill of rights won't collapse overnight just because we decide to use a few technologies more efficiently to fight drug dealers.