Help me refute the "War on Drugs" argument

[Met Income]

My point: "We can't afford the War on Drugs and we don't have a right to prosecute others for consumption. Any violent crime that drug users commit is already on the books. Simply using harms no one but themselves. And people should have the right to screw up their own life, if they so choose.

Also, criminalization creates the black market (gangs, organized crime
, smugglers) and that is a much bigger detriment than legalized narcotics."


His point: "Except enterprising smugglers and violent people will find something else to smuggle and be violent over. Until we legalize or decriminalize it all. I don't personally favor the idea of letting the scum of the world dictate civilized law. That's real inmates running the asylum stuff.

As for the cost, everything is really, really expensive, especially where lawyers or the government are involved. That one doesn't work for me either."



Thanks!

[Defining Obscene]

Ask said person if they would like to move to Mexico City.

[TruthisTreason]

Ask him if he wants new roads, schools, rest areas, national parks, and more money for our military to have armored cars ........or more prisons in American to put people in cages who smoke pot? Cause we can't afford it all, anymore!

[micahnelson]

His point: "Except enterprising smugglers and violent people will find something else to smuggle and be violent over. Until we legalize or decriminalize it all. I don't personally favor the idea of letting the scum of the world dictate civilized law. That's real inmates running the asylum stuff.

As for the cost, everything is really, really expensive, especially where lawyers or the government are involved. That one doesn't work for me either."

Thanks!

Ignorant arguments.

Him: Except enterprising smugglers and violent people will find something else to smuggle and be violent over. Until we legalize or decriminalize it all.

Response: The violence surrounding drugs is due to high cost and extremely high demand. People are willing to do what it takes to obtain the substance. Only the criminalization of a substance makes it so expensive. If it were legal, potheads would likely grow their own pot, or know a friend who did- for example. Instead, people who want to smoke marijuana have to enter a criminal realm.

Drug users wouldn't be giving money to criminals ordinarily. Make drugs legal- and the drug users will no longer be pumping money into the gangs.

By saying that the gangs will just move on to something else, he is implying that the war on drugs is needed to keep costs high so the gangs have a way to make money, if only to prevent them from moving on to something else. Pretty twisted logic, using law enforcement to prop up drug prices to keep gangs funded.

He will obviously say "Thats not what I meant". This is, however, the logical extension of his assertion.

Him: I don't personally favor the idea of letting the scum of the world dictate civilized law. That's real inmates running the asylum stuff.

Response: So drug users are the scum of the world? I deeply wish substance abusers were the biggest threat to us. Studies have shown that most Americans have tried Weed. Did they want to be criminals? If all these people have tried it, why is it illegal?

As illustrated in my previous response, Gangs and drug dealers benefit financially from criminalization. The laws are supporting the pushers and smugglers today. We want to change the law so that people make their own choices in sunshine, not in back alleys dealing with violent men.

Him: As for the cost, everything is really, really expensive, especially where lawyers or the government are involved. That one doesn't work for me either.

So, the fact that we can't afford it doesn't have an impact. Its not that its expensive, its that we are broke. Even if he believes morally that drugs should be outlawed, how does he justify saddling future generations of Americans with his debt.

Drug use is an emotional, psychological, medical, moral problem. It cannot be solved by the government.

[TastyWheat]

Where there is demand there is supply. Ending the greater war on drugs, that is their illicit use, requires curbing demand through education and strong communities and families (if he didn't have an issue with drugs he wouldn't have argued with you). Too many resources are wasted trying to fight the supply spurred by a steady demand.

[Xenophage]

Next up: The War on Fat.

[Met Income]

His response:

Drugs aren't illegal to stop the black market trade of them. That would be sort of silly, wouldn't it?

I can just about barely tolerate the maniacs that think that pot should be legal... but uh, heroin? Why, because it's "not as addictive as nicotine in lab tests"? That's what the supporters of this tend to say. Come on, man. At least get somewhere near this planet.

The "my drugs only harm me" argument doesn't work in a system such as ours, where all the non-drug users have to pay for rehabilitation, associated medical costs, and any of hundreds of various injuries to society that free use of drugs would cause.

A "tax" wouldn't even come close to paying for this, and that's even presuming that our dear leaders would use said tax on related programs and not the usual "hey, more money, let's spend it on whatever we want" stuff.

And as we're gearing ever faster towards a total welfare state where the "haves" completely support the "have nots" (there's a lot more druggie have nots than haves, despite what the druggies would like everyone to believe - druggie haves eventually become druggie have nots), I vote to not to set the life-wrecking stuff on the loose with a mere Surgeon General's warning.

[Kraig]

lmao - 'druggie haves eventually become druggie have nots'

More like 'druggie haves' become very good at keeping their habits secret to the point that they are almost unbelievable, if they know what's good for them.

[Met Income]

1) It will not necessarily make it cheaper (in fact it may have the opposite effect) and the expense of drug acquisition, not the legality of it, is what makes it a magnet for violent crime of the armed robbery/assault persuasion. Face it, there isn't much cheaper than meth on the street, and meth has created huge violent crime problems in many areas.

2) It will not magically solve problems with production. Many parts of the country still have very vibrant bootlegging industries despite the legality of alcohol. There are several street drugs (crack and meth come to mind) that legalized, controlled forms of very well could be cheaper to be produced in your own bathtub. If you can make it cheaper and sell it cheaper, there will always be a market. As long as there's a market, other people in other countries will be happy to supply the raw materials for it.

3) Enforcement won't suddenly get easier. It will shift, and get new laws, and could very likely get more expensive because of it.

I've always been for legalizing pot, mainly because it's roughly analogous to alcohol, but the harder stuff I'd want no part of legalizing.

[TonySutton]

it is morally wrong to tell an individual what they can or can not put into their own body.

[Josh_LA]

My point: "We can't afford the War on Drugs and we don't have a right to prosecute others for consumption. Any violent crime that drug users commit is already on the books. Simply using harms no one but themselves. And people should have the right to screw up their own life, if they so choose.

Also, criminalization creates the black market (gangs, organized crime
, smugglers) and that is a much bigger detriment than legalized narcotics."


First of all, justice should not have a price. Secondly, there is an argument that drunk drivers harm more than themselves, that is different than saying that drinking should be illegal.



His point: "Except enterprising smugglers and violent people will find something else to smuggle and be violent over. Until we legalize or decriminalize it all. I don't personally favor the idea of letting the scum of the world dictate civilized law. That's real inmates running the asylum stuff.

As for the cost, everything is really, really expensive, especially where lawyers or the government are involved. That one doesn't work for me either."

Thanks!

Yes, criminals will always find excuses to be criminals, we cannot stop that, but we can stop playing their game today by not adding to the drama with our money and time.

[Athan]

His point: "Except enterprising smugglers and violent people will find something else to smuggle and be violent over. Until we legalize or decriminalize it all. I don't personally favor the idea of letting the scum of the world dictate civilized law. That's real inmates running the asylum stuff.

As for the cost, everything is really, really expensive, especially where lawyers or the government are involved. That one doesn't work for me either."

Tell him you have a friend living in South Texas. Let him know that because of the drug war, our politicians here are getting increasingly corrupt because of their ability to influence public offices of any size with the black market money they are earning. We have had in the past year sheriffs (Sheriff Cantu) convicted of corruption and money laundering.

Things are getting MORE violent here in the Rio Grande Valley and it isn't because Mexicans are violent people. Hell this place was a peaceful, and quiet just twenty years ago. Now drugs and the violence is just a way of life thanks to the drug war. This is a stupid waste of time, money, and has worked as well as prohibition. They can't even stop prisoners in maximum security prisons from getting drugs. Does this fool think we should turn America into a prison just so some stupid teenager stops doing hash? Now good companies have employees that have drug runners try to "persuade" them to help them launder the drug money.

This fool seriously needs a dose of reality.

[Josh_LA]

1) It will not necessarily make it cheaper (in fact it may have the opposite effect) and the expense of drug acquisition, not the legality of it, is what makes it a magnet for violent crime of the armed robbery/assault persuasion. Face it, there isn't much cheaper than meth on the street, and meth has created huge violent crime problems in many areas.


Why is making it cheaper a good thing anyway?



2) It will not magically solve problems with production. Many parts of the country still have very vibrant bootlegging industries despite the legality of alcohol. There are several street drugs (crack and meth come to mind) that legalized, controlled forms of very well could be cheaper to be produced in your own bathtub. If you can make it cheaper and sell it cheaper, there will always be a market. As long as there's a market, other people in other countries will be happy to supply the raw materials for it.


Yes, it won't. it'll just cut out the drama on the assembly line.



3) Enforcement won't suddenly get easier. It will shift, and get new laws, and could very likely get more expensive because of it.

Not if the enforcement is to refuse enforcement and allow druggies to be killed.



I've always been for legalizing pot, mainly because it's roughly analogous to alcohol, but the harder stuff I'd want no part of legalizing.

that's one of the WORST arguments, I can understand that drugs are illegal to use if you're operating a vehicle, but aside from that, the more it hurts you the more legal it should be, if somebody's stupid enough to want to kill himself, we should allow it, artificially propping up a loser's life is a socialist idea.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt