The war on drugs ... does it make any sense?

[psalms 91]

You're not making any coherent arguments here Bill, you're just falling back on what you hope the masses think. Do you have a logical argument to back your stance, or are you just hoping for strength in numbers?

How many times do I have to say it, drugs kill and destroy lives that is reason enough. Try this with everyone you wish to get to vote for it ansd see how far you get. I grow weary of this type of argument when common sense tells me different. I will leave you to try to convince everyone you are right

 

[MarkFL]

How many times do I have to say it, drugs kill and destroy lives that is reason enough. Try this with everyone you wish to get to vote for it ansd see how far you get. I grow weary of this type of argument when common sense tells me different. I will leave you to try to convince everyone you are right

Bill, the issue here isn't about whether drug abuse is harmful, it's about whether the prohibition of drugs is effective and actually more harmful and worth the great cost.

Sure, most people will flinch at the idea of legalizing certain drugs, simply because they feel this implies societal approval of their use. However, if we step back and look at how much the war on drugs is a drain on our resources, how ineffective it has been and then look at how the lifting of prohibition of alcohol was actually beneficial, we can conclude that the legalization of other drugs would likely have the same types of benefits.

 

[tango]

How many times do I have to say it, drugs kill and destroy lives that is reason enough. Try this with everyone you wish to get to vote for it ansd see how far you get. I grow weary of this type of argument when common sense tells me different. I will leave you to try to convince everyone you are right

You keep saying it while ignoring my response that it's meaningless. Drugs kill and destroy lives now, and they illegal. The laws aren't working. It really is that simple.

How about this - cars kill and destroy lives. Using your logic that's reason enough to ban them. They destroy a lot more lives than drugs do, so even more reason to ban them. Should we get used to Amish-style transport? Or is there more to it than "they kill, therefore they should be banned"?

The question isn't whether drugs are harmful, nobody is disputing that. The question is whether drugs would do more or less harm overall if they were legal, and that's the question you're constantly dodging. A related question is whether adults should have Nanny State telling them they can't do something dangerous. If we go there perhaps we should ban mountain climbing as well.

It's all very well saying that common sense tells you something. If it's that simple, perhaps you could actually present an argument. Anyone can say "common sense says I'm right" and leave it at that, but the fact that there's a discussion at all means there may be more to it than that.

 

[psalms 91]

You keep saying it while ignoring my response that it's meaningless. Drugs kill and destroy lives now, and they illegal. The laws aren't working. It really is that simple.

How about this - cars kill and destroy lives. Using your logic that's reason enough to ban them. They destroy a lot more lives than drugs do, so even more reason to ban them. Should we get used to Amish-style transport? Or is there more to it than "they kill, therefore they should be banned"?

The question isn't whether drugs are harmful, nobody is disputing that. The question is whether drugs would do more or less harm overall if they were legal, and that's the question you're constantly dodging. A related question is whether adults should have Nanny State telling them they can't do something dangerous. If we go there perhaps we should ban mountain climbing as well.

It's all very well saying that common sense tells you something. If it's that simple, perhaps you could actually present an argument. Anyone can say "common sense says I'm right" and leave it at that, but the fact that there's a discussion at all means there may be more to it than that.

Personally I think the reason that there is a discussion is because you want them legalized, not because it is more meaningful in terms of legalization. Ithink the discussion should be treatment versus prison but not legalization

 

[tango]

Personally I think the reason that there is a discussion is because you want them legalized, not because it is more meaningful in terms of legalization. Ithink the discussion should be treatment versus prison but not legalization

So what treatment do you suggest for someone who is using a drug in a way they are managing and doesn't hurt anybody else?

 

[psalms 91]

If that is the case which very few can do, then why would treatment enter into it? If they are that careful why would there be an issue with prison

 

[visionary]

Logic
Drugs harm
People are addicted
Treat addicted people not punish unless crime was also committed.
Unless you get to the heart of the matter.. which is the addiction itself, the drug problem will not go away legal or otherwise.

 

[tango]

If that is the case which very few can do, then why would treatment enter into it? If they are that careful why would there be an issue with prison

What's your source for saying "very few can do"?

Do you have a reliable source or are you merely speculating? I've known a lot of people who used marijuana with no ill effects, I've known a couple of people who I believe were using cocaine (including using it at work), and showed no ill effects. I've also known a number of people who got into all sorts of troubles because of alcohol.

I think you're making my case for me. If someone is careful but happens to get busted (all it takes is a tip-off from someone with a grudge) what you're essentially saying is that the person who smokes a bit of weed in their own home without hurting anyone else now faces treatment (although treatment for what remains unclear) or prison.

 

[tango]

Logic
Drugs harm
People are addicted
Treat addicted people not punish unless crime was also committed.
Unless you get to the heart of the matter.. which is the addiction itself, the drug problem will not go away legal or otherwise.

Drugs harm, as do many other things.

Some people are addicted, some are not.

If addicts want treatment it can be made available. If drugs are legalised and taxed there's more money in the pot to fund treatment. If people commit crimes it makes little difference whether the crimes were to buy drugs or anything else.

Attacking the supply side of the equation doesn't do anything to reduce the demand.

As you say, part of the equation is figuring out why people want to use this stuff in the first place. Perhaps some are trying to escape a miserable existence (which doesn't reflect well on society or the church), perhaps some are just curious (and there will always be the curious ones), perhaps some are rebellious (and making their fix of choice available over the counter at CVS makes it infinitely less cool), and perhaps some started out with something mild but were eased along the path by their dealer who wanted to make more profit from them (which legalisation would solve).

 

[psalms 91]

Drugs harm, as do many other things.

Some people are addicted, some are not.

If addicts want treatment it can be made available. If drugs are legalised and taxed there's more money in the pot to fund treatment. If people commit crimes it makes little difference whether the crimes were to buy drugs or anything else.

Attacking the supply side of the equation doesn't do anything to reduce the demand.

As you say, part of the equation is figuring out why people want to use this stuff in the first place. Perhaps some are trying to escape a miserable existence (which doesn't reflect well on society or the church), perhaps some are just curious (and there will always be the curious ones), perhaps some are rebellious (and making their fix of choice available over the counter at CVS makes it infinitely less cool), and perhaps some started out with something mild but were eased along the path by their dealer who wanted to make more profit from them (which legalisation would solve).

As long as it was addicting it doesnt matter. Bottom line is that drugs or anything else we use in place of God is trying to fill a void that God should rightfully fill

 

[tango]

As long as it was addicting it doesnt matter. Bottom line is that drugs or anything else we use in place of God is trying to fill a void that God should rightfully fill

Which is great from a theological perspective but still doesn't answer the question at hand. Just about anything can be addictive yet we don't ban all of them. Alcohol can be addictive, tobacco can be addictive, adrenaline can be addictive, food can be addictive, work can be addictive. Should we require anyone caught drinking a beer, or getting an adrenaline buzz from a fast descent on a mountain bike, or someone who works 85 hours a week, to be given a choice between treatment or prison?

I obviously won't dispute that things fill the hole where God should be. The sad reality is that many people don't have God in that hole, there's no point even attempting to legally mandate people turning to God to solve their problems, so we still have to consider how best to deal with the clearly observable situation that despite the laws on the books and untold amounts of money thrown at the problem drugs are still out there and people are still using them.

 

[psalms 91]

Which is great from a theological perspective but still doesn't answer the question at hand. Just about anything can be addictive yet we don't ban all of them. Alcohol can be addictive, tobacco can be addictive, adrenaline can be addictive, food can be addictive, work can be addictive. Should we require anyone caught drinking a beer, or getting an adrenaline buzz from a fast descent on a mountain bike, or someone who works 85 hours a week, to be given a choice between treatment or prison?

I obviously won't dispute that things fill the hole where God should be. The sad reality is that many people don't have God in that hole, there's no point even attempting to legally mandate people turning to God to solve their problems, so we still have to consider how best to deal with the clearly observable situation that despite the laws on the books and untold amounts of money thrown at the problem drugs are still out there and people are still using them.

I think I have been very clear on how to address it from my viewpoint. I have seen the horrible things that drugs do as one of my best friends way back when was a drug counselor and I spent time around his daycare or whatever you want to call it and I saw the people and what happened tomthem so you will never use logic or reasoning to convince me that they should be outlawed and kept that way. Yes we pick and choose what is convienient for us to keep legal and what not to but where drugs are concerned the harm is to great and to immediate

 

[tango]

I think I have been very clear on how to address it from my viewpoint. I have seen the horrible things that drugs do as one of my best friends way back when was a drug counselor and I spent time around his daycare or whatever you want to call it and I saw the people and what happened tomthem so you will never use logic or reasoning to convince me that they should be outlawed and kept that way. Yes we pick and choose what is convienient for us to keep legal and what not to but where drugs are concerned the harm is to great and to immediate

You have been very clear what you think but you've consistently refused to provide any reasoning as to why you think the way you do.

Your friend was harmed, and harmed badly, by a substance that it was illegal to use. The laws prohibiting the use of whatever he was using didn't stop him from using and didn't stop him from being harmed by using. The law failed your friend, just as it continues to fail everyone whose lives are ruined by drugs. And in the process the existing laws mean that people like your friend are treated as criminals rather than as victims. How does this help them?

If someone's life is being damaged by abuse of alcohol it is easy to seek treatment because alcohol is legal to buy and to own. Seeking help for addiction to illegal drugs means, firstly, admitting to criminal activities. How much damage must people suffer between realising they have a problem and being willing to step forward and self-identify as a criminal, over and above what they might have suffered if there were no legal implications to seeking help?

On another note, how does it help the individual or society for non-violent drug users to end up in prison? If someone's use of drugs isn't causing problems for them or society how does it help anyone to lock them up? All it does is cost society a lot of money to keep them incarcerated while destroying their chance to develop a career, putting them in the company of far more serious criminals and then leaving them reliant on criminal skills to earn a living once they are released and nobody wants to hire the guy who just got out of jail for drug-related offenses.