CNN Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence [Archive]

JoshLowry

03-24-2009, 07:23 PM

Let's just repeal all laws, everything goes! Then we have no "crime" at all.

Do you have a valid point that you would like to make?

Being sarcastic because you don't agree with something doesn't get you anywhere.

How can you refute anything in that article?

BillyDkid

03-24-2009, 07:25 PM

Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University.

He says legalizing drugs would greatly reduce violence.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

GREAT article.

:)Of course the people in power know this, but the drug war is growth industry with many vested interests. The trick is getting the people to recognize this. The drug war is a cash cow for great numbers of people and it will never change until the American people see it for what it is. Our mistake is thinking that the owners of this country have any interest in its welfare. There are a thousand things we shouldn't be doing and that the country would be better off doing, but for all of this stuff there is a vested interest or many who will stop at nothing to protect their interests.

Maverick

03-24-2009, 07:34 PM

Increase Carbon Taxes While Lowering Marginal Tax Rates: Reasonable people disagree about how much the U.S. should reduce its use of fossil fuels, but crowded highways, air pollution, and global warming all suggest that some reduction is desirable.

The effective way to accomplish this is higher gasoline or other carbon taxes, not the messy, complicated green spending in the Obama plan that will morph into pork in many cases. If higher carbon taxes are combined with lower marginal tax rates, the private sector faces better incentives on both counts. This approach avoids the higher deficits implied by Obama's green initiatives.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/miron.libertarian.stimulus/index.html

Uhh...what? How is it that raising taxes can be part of a "stimulus package that libertarians can endorse?"

JoshLowry

03-24-2009, 07:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/miron.libertarian.stimulus/index.html

Uhh...what? How is it that raising taxes can be part of a "stimulus package that libertarians can endorse?"

Email him and ask: miron@fas.harvard.edu

Zuras

03-24-2009, 07:40 PM

Do you have a valid point that you would like to make?

Being sarcastic because you don't agree with something doesn't get you anywhere.

How can you refute anything in that article?

I don't disagree with much at all in the article, not counting the logic, although if I read it more carefully I might find some things I do. I just don't think it's a very profound proposition that decriminalizing things leads to less crime. It's, like, you really need a Harvard scholar to come up with something that genius. Uh-huh. But beware this "end justify the means" logic, as, like I said, the logical conclusions from such ideology can be quite dangerous or absurd. Two of the ugly step sisters of logic in this are: do away with all laws, hence no crime ever happens, and: put people in prison for life for the most trivial crimes, and such draconian measures will make criminality incredibly rare.

JoshLowry

03-24-2009, 07:45 PM

That's a better explanation of how you feel. Thanks.

The article is not calling for an end to all laws. Not even close.

It's an end to the prohibition of substances by our government. I own my body, no one else does. The violence comes from buyers and sellers getting screwed over and having no one to turn to but themselves for justice.

Why is using marijuana or cocaine a "crime" in your eyes? It is not criminal. You are not harming anyone.

Liberty Rebellion

03-24-2009, 07:55 PM

I'm glad this point of view is getting mainstream press.

We've wasted so much money and so many lives fighting an unwinnable war against people choosing to put in their bodies what they want. I love victimless-crime :rolleyes:

Zuras

03-24-2009, 08:02 PM

Why is using marijuana or cocaine a "crime" in your eyes? It is not criminal. You are not harming anyone.

The only thing that makes it a crime is that the republic in which I reside has deemed it so. I firmly believe that people should be able to use drugs as they please, with the caveats that it not be done in public places, restricts the usage for minors, and that it may never be used as a defense in a trial. But that's neither here nor there. My issue, again, is simply with the logic being employed to argue for decriminalization.

JoshLowry

03-24-2009, 08:04 PM

My issue, again, is simply with the logic being employed to argue for decriminalization.

How would you argue for the legalization of banned substances?

I really don't see any flaws in the argument that this guy used.

Just trying to understand what you are saying... :confused:

Zuras

03-24-2009, 08:11 PM

How would you argue for the legalization of banned substances?

I really don't see any flaws in the argument that this guy used.

Just trying to understand what you are saying... :confused:

The flaw is his logic. If we are taking an exam and are asked the question "What is 2 + 2" and the multiple choice gives a. 1, b. 2, c. 3, d. 4 and we both pick d. 4, yet you selected d. because dog starts with a "d" and you like dogs, then we both may be right when it's graded, but what are the chances you are going to get anything else right on the exam?

JoshLowry

03-24-2009, 08:17 PM

The flaw is his logic. If we are taking an exam and are asked the question "What is 2 + 2" and the multiple choice gives a. 1, b. 2, c. 3, d. 4 and we both pick d. 4, yet you selected d. because dog starts with a "d" and you like dogs, then we both may be right when it's graded, but what are the chances you are going to get anything else right on the exam?

Are you saying that he is not using logic in wanting legalization?

He is just a strung out druggie that likes to get lit?

Legalization makes sense because of all the well reasoned arguments he made.

Again, how would you argue for the legalization of banned substances?

jmdrake

03-24-2009, 08:23 PM

Let's just repeal all laws, everything goes! Then we have no "crime" at all.

Your logic fails because:

A) He wasn't saying "legalize drugs to stop crime" he was saying "legalize drugs to stop violence

B) Not all crime has an economic component. People don't generally commit rape to make money for example. In the specific case of drugs the violence exists largely because of the black market profit motive. It was the same for the prohibition of alcohol.

Zuras

03-24-2009, 08:26 PM

Are you saying that he is not using logic in wanting legalization?

He is just a strung out druggie that likes to get lit?

Legalization makes sense because of all the well reasoned arguments he made.

Again, how would you argue for the legalization of banned substances?

Me? I'd personally go back to the documents and words of our founding fathers, particularly the declaration of independence(persuit of happiness) and the constitution(IX) in this case.

Zuras

03-24-2009, 08:31 PM

Your logic fails because:

Wrong. Semantics aside, he uses the same "end justifies the means" throughout the entirety of the piece.

torchbearer

03-24-2009, 10:00 PM

Wrong. Semantics aside, he uses the same "end justifies the means" throughout the entirety of the piece.

If I go into walmart and buy a $500 dollar item, and later find out it is not what I bought... I take it back to walmart.
Walmart either takes it back... or I sue them for fraud.
I can actually take them to court because our financial transactions were legal.

If I buy drugs for street dealer and its not what I thought I bought... I can't sue him in court, I can't ask for a refund, I can't go to the cops.
The only thing I can do is shoot the fuck.

This type of crime disappears with legalization.

Drug Cartels running central and south america. We are one of the biggest consumers.
If we legalize drugs here, those cartel's cash cops will dry up.
No more drug cartels.

The laws as they are do not deter or prevent people from doing drugs it just turns them into hard-core criminals for doing it.

There is no victim, no accuser for which you could question in a court of law. Which is guaranteed by the constitution. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
Otherwise, you are being accused by a non-individual entity for a 'collective' crime against morality.

Smoking pot and damaging your own body on your own dime, on your own time, Is not the same as stealing someone else's property or damaging their bodies.

idiom

03-24-2009, 10:20 PM

The would probably be a lot of patent infringemnet of GE Hemp... People not paying sales tax... People not adhering to zoning laws...

So still lots of crime. But dang the stuff would be cheaper.

torchbearer

03-25-2009, 08:31 AM

The would probably be a lot of patent infringemnet of GE Hemp... People not paying sales tax... People not adhering to zoning laws...

So still lots of crime. But dang the stuff would be cheaper.

those wouldn't be violent crimes. not something that would get your child killed in a drive by shooting.

pcosmar

03-25-2009, 09:03 AM

But, But,, but how would the CIA finance their Black Opps? ;)

acptulsa

03-25-2009, 09:13 AM

Let's just repeal all laws, everything goes! Then we have no "crime" at all.

Zuras, Prohibition didn't work after World War One and it ain't working now. And the reason is pretty simple, too. When a person asks, 'Who are you to tell me what I can and can't put inside my own body?' that person has a point.

Deny it. I dare you.

Now, tell the truth. Are you really convinced that it's better to give the profits to the drug cartels such as the mafias, the Mexican mafias and the CIA on a silver platter than to tax those profits?

torchbearer

03-25-2009, 09:21 AM

But, But,, but how would the CIA finance their Black Opps? ;)

I was telling someone the same thing yesterday... half- joking, half- serious as shit.

werdd

03-25-2009, 09:40 AM

Im split on the issue, obviously crime would be reduced. The prices of drugs would fall immensely, which would eliminate the drug dealer profession.

But if you legalize hard drugs like meth, you might have a few crazies that get strung out and stay up for 2 weeks then go on a killing spree. You would definately see that on the news.

I think pot is a good starting point. And i would love to see the experiment of legalizing all drugs. But i'm afraid with the harder stuff, you might have some people that are not just harming theirselves, but others as a result of their addiction.

"Do whatever you want so long as it does not harm another."

Economically speaking, i think it is a great idea. Socially i am split.

I understand that it is not goverments proper role to protect you from any substance, and goverment is not responsible for what you might do while on that substance, but for the reasons above i am split on the issue.

convince me otherwise.

torchbearer

03-25-2009, 09:49 AM

But if you legalize hard drugs like meth, you might have a few crazies that get strung out and stay up for 2 weeks then go on a killing spree. You would definately see that on the news..

That happens now, by many people, on a daily basis... regardless of the law.
I think it is the epitome of stupidity to think that because you make a law forbidding its use, that people will stop using it.
That is the most retarded idea and is pervasive in people.

Making it illegal just turns those same people into hardcore criminals. That is it.

acptulsa

03-25-2009, 09:53 AM

Werdd, I doubt any company would sell meth. Honestly. It would have to be their whole business, because the stuff is so demonized (not completely without justification at all) that any company that did that and something else would get the something else boycotted. That said, if it did happen at least the stuff would be clean, and probably would be a less obnoxious form of amphetamine to boot.

Then comes the second question. If it's that addictive, who would be brave enough to sell it?

Have your faith in the market restored yet? Really, the biggest practical reason I see behind not bothering to legalize the crap is not much would change--it would probably remain black market. The only people that would see much change at all are the doctors who pay for their Porsches by writing amphetamine scrips for wealthy afficionadoes of it.

torchbearer

03-25-2009, 09:55 AM

Werdd, I doubt any company would sell meth. .

Amphetamines are already sold by prescription.
Adipex comes to mind.
It is useful for weight loss.

The drug companies just don't want anymore competition.

pcosmar

03-25-2009, 10:21 AM

But if you legalize hard drugs like meth, you might have a few crazies that get strung out and stay up for 2 weeks then go on a killing spree.

I hear this argument a lot. Once upon a time speed was widely available. Real Methamphetamine was used to treat hyperactivity, Weight problems and was even used by the Military to keep commanders awake and alert. It has used. The war on Drugs cut the supply of quality speed and bathtub crank took it's place. that is the "Meth" known today.

The Meth problem was created by the war on drugs, Legalize drugs and the garbage drugs will go away.

Bruno

03-25-2009, 10:28 AM

I hear this argument a lot. Once upon a time speed was widely available. Real Methamphetamine was used to treat hyperactivity, Weight problems and was even used by the Military to keep commanders awake and alert. It has used. The war on Drugs cut the supply of quality speed and bathtub crank took it's place. that is the "Meth" known today.

The Meth problem was created by the war on drugs, Legalize drugs and the garbage drugs will go away.

100% truth

Most overdoses (heroin, for example) are also a direct result of the Drug War because users do not know the purity, and might get a more pure or tainted product unknowingly.

Many more people die from traffic accidents each year than all illegal drugs combined (marijuana = zero deaths in thousads of years of use). No one is calling for a ban on automobiles, yet these automobile deaths "tear families apart" just like drug use can.

phill4paul

03-25-2009, 10:28 AM

But if you legalize hard drugs like meth, you might have a few crazies that get strung out and stay up for 2 weeks then go on a killing spree.

"But if you legalize automatic weapons like assault weapons, you might have a few crazies that go on a killing spree." See what I did there?

There will always be abuse. For that we have a judicial system. Use does not equal abuse.

Bruno

03-25-2009, 10:34 AM

This guy killed another guy he met on craigslist by stabbing him repeatedly with a knife.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_violent_sex_ad_led_to_murder_of_wabc_new.html

Knifes should be banned, as well as craigslist, though millions use both responsibly without killing anyone.

Anything that could remotely be dangerous should be banned, and users should be jailed for life.

This includes eating peanuts (some are allergic and could die!) water (you can drink too much water and die!) and stuffed animals (you could roll face down onto a stuffed animal during a nap and die!)

But then....the prohibition of these substances would probably cause a black market, cause ordinary citizens to become criminals to get their "fix" of peanuts, water, or stuffed animals, and be the ultimate cause for billions wasted in fighting these "crimes" and countless deaths when cartels and gangs take over the trade of the banned substances.

Elwar

03-25-2009, 10:39 AM

I believe the Drug War will end once the War on Terror allows for the same trampling of our civil liberties.

JoshLowry

03-25-2009, 11:02 AM

This includes eating peanuts (some are allergic and could die!) water (you can drink too much water and die!) and stuffed animals (you could roll face down onto a stuffed animal during a nap and die!)

/me removes stuffed animals from bed.

jmdrake

03-26-2009, 04:30 PM

Wrong. Semantics aside, he uses the same "end justifies the means" throughout the entirety of the piece.

Semantics are all that matters in this case. He's talking about reducing violence. You're talking about reducing crime. Two totally different things. You've committed the basic straw man logical fallacy and know you're trying to say your fallacy doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

Here's the difference. He's not just saying legalizing drugs would get rid of the crime of drugs (as your false counter argument implies). He's saying legalizing drugs would get rid of the violence associated with drugs being illegal.

To further show why your analogy fails consider this. Say if he said "Legalize file sharing to stop violence". Well there is no violence associated with file sharing being illegal.

carlangaslangas

03-26-2009, 10:57 PM

Isn't it absurd that they'll throw you in jail just for growing a harmless plant in your garden.

Legalization is the only way. The harder you try to stop people from buying what they want, the higher the price will go, which means more money going to dealers and more money they´ll spend on weapons and technology to supply the desired goods.
Think about it: Someone IS profiting from this prohibition, it's just not us taxpayers.

Mitt Romneys sideburns

03-26-2009, 10:59 PM

"federal government doesnt have the right to tell us what drugs should be legal"

- Theocrat

Zuras

03-26-2009, 11:33 PM

Semantics are all that matters in this case. He's talking about reducing violence. You're talking about reducing crime. Two totally different things. You've committed the basic straw man logical fallacy and know you're trying to say your fallacy doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

Try reading for comprehension. You might find that semantics has absolutely nothing to do with the posts I made. I was giving exaggerated and ridiculous scenarios to show that the same logic being used to rationalize legalizing drugs is ridiculous.

It's pretty ironic, you accusing me of a strawman with a strawman, though. I guess after you work on elementary reading comprehension you could buy a dictionary and put your new found skills to work.

idiom

03-27-2009, 03:49 AM

Cafferty picked up the piece to. The mess in Mexico being so obvioulsy caused by the United States means the war on drugs has to go one of two ways, way way bigger, or end it.

Uhh...what? How is it that raising taxes can be part of a "stimulus package that libertarians can endorse?"

Carbon Taxes are taxes on pollution of other peoples property. Libertarians are generally pro Private Property. The people who most vocally oppose Global Warming are usually the most ardent adherent of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't real big on solutions to a general screwing up of the globe, thereofre Global Warming cannot exist. All the other libertarians are okay with fines for pollution.

AutoDas

03-27-2009, 05:26 AM

Don't act like you speak for all libertarians.

Carbon Taxes are taxes on pollution of other peoples property. Libertarians are generally pro Private Property. The people who most vocally oppose Global Warming are usually the most ardent adherent of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't real big on solutions to a general screwing up of the globe, thereofre Global Warming cannot exist. All the other libertarians are okay with fines for pollution.