Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why drugs should be illegal

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.

Airborne drugs for example that come in the form of smoke do not only harm the individuals who subject themselves to such influence, but also the environment and the people around said individual. It is this caustic side affect that makes drugs (airborne in particular) a social disturbance and a public vice. If the drug only affects the individual, then I would say, go ahead. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.

I rest my case on that for the time being. Any response?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:26:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.

Airborne drugs for example that come in the form of smoke do not only harm the individuals who subject themselves to such influence, but also the environment and the people around said individual. It is this caustic side affect that makes drugs (airborne in particular) a social disturbance and a public vice. If the drug only affects the individual, then I would say, go ahead. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.

I rest my case on that for the time being. Any response?

By that logic, any type of drug should be illegal--tobacco affects others, and alcohol too.

Since there are laws already against doing things in public while intoxicated/smashed/stoned/high/etc, to protect others.

My point #1 is that a man (or woman, but I'll use man) has the right to do as he wishes, so long as he neither endangers nor severely violate the rights of others. And I said, there are laws already in place for this.

#2: It'd put the money in the hands of the government and businesses, not in the hands of a criminal drug lord. Specifically in the US, we would have more revenue for everyone involved--more stimulus=a more likely better economy.

#3: I offer a model--Portugal recently legalized all drugs--illicit and otherwise. Studies showed that not only did the usage remain largely the same, but the usage was actually shown to decrease slightly.

So why not for the US?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:27:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.:

We can reach a consensus on the purpose, but that doesn't necessarily justify it's application.

As to the airborne argument, farts are far more caustic to the environment than meth or any other manufactured drug to the environment ever could. Should we ban farts?

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.:

Then by that token I assume cheeseburgers and pizza should be outlawed too on account of it being "bad for you." What the f*ck do you care what someone puts in their body so long as it doesn't affect you?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:30:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:27:28 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.:

We can reach a consensus on the purpose, but that doesn't necessarily justify it's application.

As to the airborne argument, farts are far more caustic to the environment than meth or any other manufactured drug to the environment ever could. Should we ban farts?

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.:

Then by that token I assume cheeseburgers and pizza should be outlawed too on account of it being "bad for you." What the f*ck do you care what someone puts in their body so long as it doesn't affect you?

Hear hear!
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:31:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't recall marijuana or tobacco smoke ever being mentioned as harmful to the environment. Even the nature-loving Native Americans smoke Peyote and tobacco.

Btw, do you believe tobacco should be outlawed as well?

The other drugs such as shrooms, extacy, lsd, morphine, DMT, and cocaine do not involve smoke nor do they endanger or infringe on others who are not using it.

All of these drugs should be 100% legal.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only drug that should probably be illegal is PCP for obvious reasons (the user becomes violent, unstoppable, and a threat to those around him).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:33:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The only drug that should probably be illegal is PCP for obvious reasons (the user becomes violent, unstoppable, and a threat to those around him).:

Even then you respond in accordance with one's actions, not the drug. If it wasn't this way, then anyone could simply blame a mental defect on a persons propensity for violence. I don't see them locking up schizophrenics because they might go ballistic, they lock them up IF and when they do go ballistic. All that matters is the individuals ACTUAL actions, not based on hypotheticals.

Secondly, I'm curious to hear the OP's stance pharmacueticals.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:26:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.

Airborne drugs for example that come in the form of smoke do not only harm the individuals who subject themselves to such influence, but also the environment and the people around said individual. It is this caustic side affect that makes drugs (airborne in particular) a social disturbance and a public vice. If the drug only affects the individual, then I would say, go ahead. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.

I rest my case on that for the time being. Any response?

By that logic, any type of drug should be illegal--tobacco affects others, and alcohol too.

Since there are laws already against doing things in public while intoxicated/smashed/stoned/high/etc, to protect others.

My point #1 is that a man (or woman, but I'll use man) has the right to do as he wishes, so long as he neither endangers nor severely violate the rights of others. And I said, there are laws already in place for this.

#2: It'd put the money in the hands of the government and businesses, not in the hands of a criminal drug lord. Specifically in the US, we would have more revenue for everyone involved--more stimulus=a more likely better economy.

#3: I offer a model--Portugal recently legalized all drugs--illicit and otherwise. Studies showed that not only did the usage remain largely the same, but the usage was actually shown to decrease slightly.

So why not for the US?

point 1. It does indeed violate the rights of others. Have we not the right to breathe clean air in a public place, or a social place? "more than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Among these, 200,000 to 1 million are children with asthma" (http://www.examiner.com...) This is the same reason why we push for less air pollution and the purification and sanitation of air in smoggy, crowded cities. We must not fool ourselves into believing that the drug user is the only one in harms way.

Point 2: I would like to see a source on this. A better economy does not magically appear due to the introduction of a new source of revenue.

Point 3: Not a very relevant point for a few reasons. You neglected to provide the results of that legalization on the health of non-drug users. That is the strongest reason for my stance on this subject. Portugal and the U.S aren't similar countries. A lifted law in portugal, can have dramatically different results in the U.S.

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:52:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:26:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.

Airborne drugs for example that come in the form of smoke do not only harm the individuals who subject themselves to such influence, but also the environment and the people around said individual. It is this caustic side affect that makes drugs (airborne in particular) a social disturbance and a public vice. If the drug only affects the individual, then I would say, go ahead. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.

I rest my case on that for the time being. Any response?

By that logic, any type of drug should be illegal--tobacco affects others, and alcohol too.

Since there are laws already against doing things in public while intoxicated/smashed/stoned/high/etc, to protect others.

My point #1 is that a man (or woman, but I'll use man) has the right to do as he wishes, so long as he neither endangers nor severely violate the rights of others. And I said, there are laws already in place for this.

#2: It'd put the money in the hands of the government and businesses, not in the hands of a criminal drug lord. Specifically in the US, we would have more revenue for everyone involved--more stimulus=a more likely better economy.

#3: I offer a model--Portugal recently legalized all drugs--illicit and otherwise. Studies showed that not only did the usage remain largely the same, but the usage was actually shown to decrease slightly.

So why not for the US?

point 1. It does indeed violate the rights of others. Have we not the right to breathe clean air in a public place, or a social place? "more than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Among these, 200,000 to 1 million are children with asthma" (http://www.examiner.com...) This is the same reason why we push for less air pollution and the purification and sanitation of air in smoggy, crowded cities. We must not fool ourselves into believing that the drug user is the only one in harms way.

Point 2: I would like to see a source on this. A better economy does not magically appear due to the introduction of a new source of revenue.


Point 3: Not a very relevant point for a few reasons. You neglected to provide the results of that legalization on the health of non-drug users. That is the strongest reason for my stance on this subject. Portugal and the U.S aren't similar countries. A lifted law in portugal, can have dramatically different results in the U.S.

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.

I'd counter argue, but Paradigm and Geo explained it better than I can--I side with them.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:46:04 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:33:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The only drug that should probably be illegal is PCP for obvious reasons (the user becomes violent, unstoppable, and a threat to those around him).:

Even then you respond in accordance with one's actions, not the drug. If it wasn't this way, then anyone could simply blame a mental defect on a persons propensity for violence. I don't see them locking up schizophrenics because they might go ballistic, they lock them up IF and when they do go ballistic. All that matters is the individuals ACTUAL actions, not based on hypotheticals.

Secondly, I'm curious to hear the OP's stance pharmacueticals.

But they keep them locked up if they are deemed to be unsafe to society (meaning have a paticularly high risk of blowing up). And actually, if there is strong reason to believe that they are a danger to themselves and those around them, they can be locked up (in a special treatment facility) before commiting a crime.

We currently outlaw drinking and driving purely on the grounds that it greatly increases the risk of harming others. Do you believe this should be changed? If you hold the notion that people are ultimately responsible for the state of mind that they are in, then you must also agree that anyone who enters into a contract was drunk or high is still fully responsible for that contract.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:56:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
point 1. It does indeed violate the rights of others. Have we not the right to breathe clean air in a public place, or a social place? "more than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.:

Most places already have a no smoking policy in their establishment. Since they own the place, that's their choice. YOU have the choice of not dining at the establishment. But who gives you the right to ban tobacco or marijuana in someone's own private home, far away from you or anyone else?

Point 2: I would like to see a source on this. A better economy does not magically appear due to the introduction of a new source of revenue.:

That's funny. For a minute there I thought the illicit drug trade was a trillion dollar industry clearly showing supply and demand. And it's this way BECAUSE it's illegal!

Point 3: Not a very relevant point for a few reasons. You neglected to provide the results of that legalization on the health of non-drug users. That is the strongest reason for my stance on this subject. Portugal and the U.S aren't similar countries. A lifted law in portugal, can have dramatically different results in the U.S.:

Nice dodge. Why didn't you just say "nuh-uh," it would have made a more convincing argument.

I'll get to the rest later. Gotta go
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:05:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:46:04 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:33:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The only drug that should probably be illegal is PCP for obvious reasons (the user becomes violent, unstoppable, and a threat to those around him).:

Even then you respond in accordance with one's actions, not the drug. If it wasn't this way, then anyone could simply blame a mental defect on a persons propensity for violence. I don't see them locking up schizophrenics because they might go ballistic, they lock them up IF and when they do go ballistic. All that matters is the individuals ACTUAL actions, not based on hypotheticals.

It turns out PCP doesn't make people violent. It's the police's fault for violence caused by PCP users. Figures. Shoulda known.

"PCP users are often characterized as violent or suicidal. However, this portrait of a PCP user may not be accurate. Dr. Jaime Diaz, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington, reviewed many of the published reports of PCP use in his book, How Drugs Influence Behavior. A Neuro-Behavioral Approach (Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1997). He states that PCP use rarely results in violence and concludes that:

'Phencyclidine does not cause aggression or criminal behavior.'

Dr. Diaz believes that the reported violent behavior is not due to the pharmacological effect of PCP, but rather is the result of the way people under the influence of PCP perceive things and are subsequently treated by law enforcement personnel. People under the influence of PCP may not feel pain and their perception of sensory stimuli may be altered, possibly causing police officers to use stronger methods to control such individuals."

http://faculty.washington.edu...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.

Everyone agrees with this?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:15:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.

Everyone agrees with this?

no, sadly, they don't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...

I am guessing Alcohol destruction in America takes near 200-300 billion in 2011 to clean up?

Oh well, that deserves a shrug from the anti-tobacco crowd.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:17:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...

I am guessing Alcohol destruction in America takes near 200-300 billion in 2011 to clean up?

Oh well, that deserves a shrug from the anti-tobacco crowd.

Medical consequences: It's cheaper to pay for them If they die young rather then old

Lost Future Earnings Due to Premature Deaths: It's unfair to count this If you don't count lost consumption as well.

Also, where the hell do the statistics about crime and property damage come from? Are there studies that show that tobacco actually causes violence and crashes. Also isn't that what the sin tax is for anyways?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:33:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:26:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:17:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...

I am guessing Alcohol destruction in America takes near 200-300 billion in 2011 to clean up?

Oh well, that deserves a shrug from the anti-tobacco crowd.

Medical consequences: It's cheaper to pay for them If they die young rather then old

Lost Future Earnings Due to Premature Deaths: It's unfair to count this If you don't count lost consumption as well.

Also, where the hell do the statistics about crime and property damage come from? Are there studies that show that tobacco actually causes violence and crashes. Also isn't that what the sin tax is for anyways?

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.

All I am asking is if people believe tobacco costs society far more to fix in dollars than alcohol?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:38:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:33:04 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:26:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:17:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...

I am guessing Alcohol destruction in America takes near 200-300 billion in 2011 to clean up?

Oh well, that deserves a shrug from the anti-tobacco crowd.

Medical consequences: It's cheaper to pay for them If they die young rather then old

Lost Future Earnings Due to Premature Deaths: It's unfair to count this If you don't count lost consumption as well.

Also, where the hell do the statistics about crime and property damage come from? Are there studies that show that tobacco actually causes violence and crashes. Also isn't that what the sin tax is for anyways?

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.

didn't realize it was alcohol, not tobacco. My bad. Yea. I'm still holding on to my contention that dying young is good for the economy. 64 is the best time to die.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:40:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:38:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.

didn't realize it was alcohol, not tobacco. My bad. Yea. I'm still holding on to my contention that dying young is good for the economy. 64 is the best time to die.

http://berkeley.edu...

So apparently, Google data says smoking costs 72 billion versus 200 billion for alcohol. Booze wins! Fatality!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:42:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:40:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:38:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.

didn't realize it was alcohol, not tobacco. My bad. Yea. I'm still holding on to my contention that dying young is good for the economy. 64 is the best time to die.

http://berkeley.edu...

So apparently, Google data says smoking costs 72 billion versus 200 billion for alcohol. Booze wins! Fatality!

Again, it considers health cost for tobacco use, but doesn't factor in the health cost that would have occured if the person didn't use tobacco, which would have been worse off for society, since people actually have to pay in medicare.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:50:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:42:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:40:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:38:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.

didn't realize it was alcohol, not tobacco. My bad. Yea. I'm still holding on to my contention that dying young is good for the economy. 64 is the best time to die.

http://berkeley.edu...

So apparently, Google data says smoking costs 72 billion versus 200 billion for alcohol. Booze wins! Fatality!

Again, it considers health cost for tobacco use, but doesn't factor in the health cost that would have occured if the person didn't use tobacco, which would have been worse off for society, since people actually have to pay in medicare.

That is very interesting, I had not thought of that. You would have to deduct 72 billion from what the average cost of a non-smoking related death experience. However, there still needs to be some estimate of productivity lost due to smoking? Is that just assumed negligible? What about the time lost on the job due to extended "smoke breaks?"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why do we have laws?

We have laws to ensure that individuals of a country are safe, with the duty of preventing the harm of others, and the harm of ourselves. (just to name the two most relevant principles). Laws also exist to enforce justice, fairness, and order. I'm sure we can all reach consensus on that.

Airborne drugs for example that come in the form of smoke do not only harm the individuals who subject themselves to such influence, but also the environment and the people around said individual. It is this caustic side affect that makes drugs (airborne in particular) a social disturbance and a public vice. If the drug only affects the individual, then I would say, go ahead. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Drugs being openly permitted in the U.S comes at a disadvantage for others, as well as a tremendous disadvantage for the individual that makes the poor choice of using them.

I rest my case on that for the time being. Any response?

Contradiction?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:25:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

As for tobacco, that as well should be illegal, and many are pushing for such a law. Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs. We have laws against alcohol abuse, and those are sufficient. Furthermore, our bodies can process alcohol as a poison. It affects less non-alcohol users than tobacco affects non-tobacco users.

Everyone agrees with this?

Not me, or science.

"slightly more than half (50.6%) of the inmates had used drugs and/or alcohol on the day they committed the offence for which they were incarcerated; among this group, approximately 16% had used illegal drugs only and 13% had used a combination of the two; and significant differences in the types of crimes committed by type of drug used (i.e., alcohol and illegal drugs).

There was a rather clear distinction between acquisitory crimes and violent crimes in the prevalence of use of drugs and alcohol. While homicides and, more pronouncedly, assaults and wounding were predominantly alcohol-related, crimes such as thefts and break and enter showed a higher prevalence of drug use on the day of the crime."

http://www.parl.gc.ca...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 10:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:50:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:42:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:40:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:38:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I think the lion's share from that chart goes to loss of productivity in the workplace. Tobacco can't hold a candle to that statistic, and it persists for a person's entire work/drug abuse history.

didn't realize it was alcohol, not tobacco. My bad. Yea. I'm still holding on to my contention that dying young is good for the economy. 64 is the best time to die.

http://berkeley.edu...

So apparently, Google data says smoking costs 72 billion versus 200 billion for alcohol. Booze wins! Fatality!

Again, it considers health cost for tobacco use, but doesn't factor in the health cost that would have occured if the person didn't use tobacco, which would have been worse off for society, since people actually have to pay in medicare.

That is very interesting, I had not thought of that. You would have to deduct 72 billion from what the average cost of a non-smoking related death experience. However, there still needs to be some estimate of productivity lost due to smoking? Is that just assumed negligible? What about the time lost on the job due to extended "smoke breaks?"

Likely insignificant. It's not as If people don't take breaks from work. Nor do employers discriminate against smokers. I can think of many politically incorrect things that cost a company more.

And its not like If a smoker privately paying for health insurance it affects the public much, since the costs are internalized, not externalized.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 10:42:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What a classic liberal reply. Drugs harm far more people than the individuals who use them. You keep trying to make this notion that what people do relates to and affects only them. 'What business does the government have to tell people what to do'. Frankly, you live in a society, not in the lawless wild. Something that influences behavior and social environment like drugs needs to be controlled for the safety of everyone else. From that, drugs are an issue, and I'd love to hear you argue that it isn't. How we approach this issue, legalization or banishment is the question.

I know alcohol has the same effects, but only when used to drunken excess. Alcohol is also used for many things from cooking to first aid, to sanitation. What other purpose do the drugs you want legal have but to corrupt the mind? Alcohol is responsible for violence nationwide, but as are drugs. We fight a war with alcohol through taxation and regulation only because alcohol has other necessary purposes. The other drugs do not. Why would you now legalize all the others, further exacerbating the issue of drug-related crime?

"People and their rights don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that drugs only hurt the people who use them is very shallow and illogical. One needs to look beyond themselves and look at the entire picture, and it becomes obvious that drugs have drastic effects on MANY people besides those who use them. For instance, according to a 1994 Newsweek report on child abuse, "Drugs now suffuse 80 percent of the caseload; sexual and physical assaults that once taxed the imagination are now common." It is also estimated that 100,000 babies a year are born addicted to cocaine. I don't think these babies chose to take these drugs.

Don't tell me that drugs only hurt the user - Tell that to a crack baby. Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he was high on PCP. Or tell that to the six year old that is raped by that same guy....Tell that to the taxpayers who will be paying out the wazoo for higher insurance rates, more taxes for drug rehabilitation programs, and more money for court cases due to the increased number of drug related offenses.
" (Carolyn C. Gargaro)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:01:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs.

Everyone agrees with this?

Hell no, I'd go Con in a debate on that, I reckon alcohol probably has more negative impacts on society than any illegal drugs do.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 10:42:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

I know alcohol has the same effects, but only when used to drunken excess.

And mild to moderate use of most drugs will have little effect on well being either.

Alcohol is also used for many things from cooking to first aid, to sanitation. What other purpose do the drugs you want legal have but to corrupt the mind?

Many illegal street drugs are prescribed as medicines in slightly modified forms, from canabinoids to the morphine they will pump you full of if you survive a nasty accident. Ritalin is prescribed to over a million young people world wide and is basically a form of amphetamine, like crystal meth.

Alcohol is responsible for violence nationwide, but as are drugs. We fight a war with alcohol through taxation and regulation only because alcohol has other necessary purposes. The other drugs do not. Why would you now legalize all the others, further exacerbating the issue of drug-related crime?

Can't actually speak for America, but if you go to a UK city centre on a weekend evening, all the idiots beating the crap out of each other are drunk, not stoned. Cocaine may perhaps have the potential to aggravate confrontations and make people feel a little bolder than they might otherwise, but probably not to the same extent as alcohol certainly does. As for heroin, no-one is starting much of a fight just after they've took a hit of that, and weed, pills, acid etc. certainly aren't normally motivators to fight either.

Almost all the crime associated with illegal drugs exists solely because of their illegal status. Control of the drugs is placed in the hands of ruthless criminals and those who make the unfortunate choice to use them are completely marginalised by the society they live in.

"drugs are bad, blah blah, scaremongery, scaremongery...." (Carolyn C. Gargaro)

All could probably be said of alcohol but moreso.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 1:54:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 10:42:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
What a classic liberal reply. Drugs harm far more people than the individuals who use them.

Confusing correlation and causation, and you are very wrong. Read: http://www.parl.gc.ca...

You keep trying to make this notion that what people do relates to and affects only them. 'What business does the government have to tell people what to do'. Frankly, you live in a society, not in the lawless wild. Something that influences behavior and social environment like drugs needs to be controlled for the safety of everyone else.

I've seen fights over girls. Love must be banned. Alcohol causes waaaaay more violent crime than drugs. See my earlier post.

From that, drugs are an issue, and I'd love to hear you argue that it isn't. How we approach this issue, legalization or banishment is the question.


I know alcohol has the same effects, but only when used to drunken excess.

Different from drugs how?

Alcohol is also used for many things from cooking to first aid, to sanitation.

Weed is used for medicine.

What other purpose do the drugs you want legal have but to corrupt the mind?

Recreation.

Alcohol is responsible for violence nationwide, but as are drugs.

Alcohol is responsible for more.

We fight a war with alcohol through taxation and regulation only because alcohol has other necessary purposes. The other drugs do not. Why would you now legalize all the others, further exacerbating the issue of drug-related crime?

Thank you. Drug related crime is not crime caused by drugs.


"People and their rights don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that drugs only hurt the people who use them is very shallow and illogical. One needs to look beyond themselves and look at the entire picture, and it becomes obvious that drugs have drastic effects on MANY people besides those who use them. For instance, according to a 1994 Newsweek report on child abuse, "Drugs now suffuse 80 percent of the caseload; sexual and physical assaults that once taxed the imagination are now common." It is also estimated that 100,000 babies a year are born addicted to cocaine. I don't think these babies chose to take these drugs.

Lemme get this straight. Correlation=causation and stupid people use drugs in excess, ergo ban drugs?

Don't tell me that drugs only hurt the user - Tell that to a crack baby. Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he was high on PCP. Or tell that to the six year old that is raped by that same guy

Tell that to people who are hurt by people misusing it. Tell that to the many more people hurt by alcohol.

....Tell that to the taxpayers who will be paying out the wazoo for higher insurance rates, more taxes for drug rehabilitation programs, and more money for court cases due to the increased number of drug related offenses." (Carolyn C. Gargaro)

Tell that to taxpayers when the government steals all their money for totally unnecessary things.

Summary: Correlation doesn't equal causation, alcohol is worse.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 9:30:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:01:22 PM, feverish wrote:
At 8/17/2011 8:13:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:49:03 PM, 000ike wrote:

Alcohol however isn't on the same destructive level as the other drugs.

Everyone agrees with this?

Hell no, I'd go Con in a debate on that, I reckon alcohol probably has more negative impacts on society than any illegal drugs do.

I agree with you!!!