Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Why Legalizing Drugs Is A Bad Idea Why Legalizing Drugs Is A Bad Idea

03-08-2012 , 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snagglepuss
if i were offered a job making 500k a year to be a member of a task force that was tasked with finding out marijuana users or marijuana growers or marijuana dealers, so that they could be rounded up and 'brought to justice' and thrown into private prisons, i would not take it.

do you know why? because i consider that immoral scumbag behavior.
03-08-2012 , 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
I'll concede most of my issue is sample size, because I've dealt with many "wolves" and few "sheep"

When the term "drug dealer" pops into my head, three images pop into my head:

1) The charred remains of a family, clutching together as they gasped for air and died the most painful death I can imagine

2) My best friend, who was killed while working undercover attempting to get to the bottom of a stolen car/bike operation and got caught up in a drug argument,

3) A body rotting in the trunk of a car, left in the Wal-Mart parking lot until the stench attracted attention from someone who reported it to 911.

My theory on this is that these people aren't going to magically become non-violent with legalization.

I still agree with legalization, this whole issue essentially stems from Fear's assertion that the police would have little to do without drug laws.

My gut tells me drug legalization isn't going to be the solution to make the people involved in those crimes above magically become model citizens. Pretty sure the police will be dealing with them with or without drug laws.
The problem with your thinking is that, like it or not, these killings are not simply acts of violence without motivation. The ability to kill is genetically coded in all human beings, given the proper motivation and the means. The drug war provides a black market that provides both of those things. Without it, many people would not find the benefit of killing someone to be higher than the cost.

Murder/rape/terrible things will still exist, simply not at the scale today.
03-08-2012 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
You're kidding, right?



Old chart, but still.
Yeah, lets ignore the last 20-something years.

Your graph proves nothing. There is 0, zero, zip, zilch, nada that can show a correlation between prohibition of mind altering substances and violent crime.

Like 95% of this forum, I'm on your side when it comes to legalizing drugs. But the violent crime rhetoric is a non-starter. The data isn't there.
03-08-2012 , 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
You're kidding, right?



Old chart, but still.
er.

03-08-2012 , 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofball
er.

Yeah. Ever see The Wire? :-\
03-08-2012 , 10:06 AM
I feel like OP is talking about people selling brick weed from Mexico in the hood, and most of the posters itt are talking about high end bud.

They are basically completely different industries and comparing them as one in the same is incorrect.
03-08-2012 , 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Legend
I feel like OP is talking about people selling brick weed from Mexico in the hood, and most of the posters itt are talking about high end bud.

They are basically completely different industries and comparing them as one in the same is incorrect.
How so? I think they are fairly similar.
03-08-2012 , 11:37 AM
Holds all the similarities of a $1500/hr Vegas escort with a crackhead giving $10 BJ's IMO.
03-08-2012 , 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
How so? I think they are fairly similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Holds all the similarities of a $1500/hr Vegas escort with a crackhead giving $10 BJ's IMO.
That pretty much sums it up.
03-08-2012 , 11:47 AM
One is legal and one is not?
03-08-2012 , 11:51 AM
Both are illegal AFAIK but I think one would have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to argue in good faith the latter isn't a much more serious public health concern than the former.
03-08-2012 , 11:52 AM
When you are buying high end bud you are typically working with different types of people than when you are buying brick weed.

Does a $1500/hr escort worry about being robbed, raped, arrested, etc. sure she does, but not anywhere near as much as the $10 bj crackhead.
03-08-2012 , 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Both are illegal AFAIK but I think one would have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to argue in good faith the latter isn't a much more serious public health concern than the former.
I thought prostitution was legal in vegas and heavily regulated. I am not saying they are not on different levels. One can be much more dangerous but they can still operated in mostly the same way. I get the analogy though, so i'll stop obsfucating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Legend
When you are buying high end bud you are typically working with different types of people than when you are buying brick weed.

Does a $1500/hr escort worry about being robbed, raped, arrested, etc. sure she does, but not anywhere near as much as the $10 bj crackhead.
Well, they both have pimps. I would imagine the structure of the organization is much the same, but one group drives nicer cars.
03-08-2012 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
I thought prostitution was legal in vegas and heavily regulated. I am not saying they are not on different levels. One can be much more dangerous but they can still operated in mostly the same way. I get the analogy though, so i'll stop obsfucating.
I'm no expert on Nevada law, but IIRC prostitution is legal but regulated under Nevada state law but against a city of Las Vegas ordinance.
03-08-2012 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
I'm no expert on Nevada law, but IIRC prostitution is legal but regulated under Nevada state law but against a city of Las Vegas ordinance.
Actually it's legal in nevada but only in counties with less than a certain population level. Las Vegas and Reno both exceed that level
03-08-2012 , 01:37 PM
Yea, I knew there was some reason why all the (legal) whorehouses in Nevada were in the middle of the desert, I just couldn't recall how the whole thing worked exactly.
03-10-2012 , 05:14 AM
http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-0...l-gang-members

"Sicilia went on to found a nationwide movement advocating an end to Mexico’s drug violence, which saw at least 47,515 people killed between December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug cartels, through September 2011, the latest figures made available by the government. Thousands more are thought to have disappeared."

That right there is 47,515 people who would be alive without the War on (some) Drugs.
03-10-2012 , 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Legend
It is known as the "forbidden fruit hypothesis". There is a lot of research in regards to this hypothesis and its impact on Sex, Alcohol, and Cigarettes, but there is admittedly less published research on drug use.

I believe this topic is covered in: 2009 Utah L. Rev. 105 (2009)
Predicting the Future: A Bad Reason to Criminalize Drug Use; Husak, Douglas

I am unable to access the whole thing though without paying for it.

Satisfied?
Psychological reactance is the term you're looking for.

Satisfied? No. Because it's anything but definitiveas far as a person's actions. A person may feel psychological reactance, but that does not mean that they will act on it.


The topic is alluded to in the study you mentioned, but they leave out that it's not definitive. From their study:

Quote:
Forecasts about the incidence of drug use after decriminalization are
confounded by yet another phenomenon—the forbidden fruit effect. Many
individuals—most notably adolescents—are known to be attracted to a type of conduct precisely because it is bannedYes. These individuals are more likely to engage in given behaviors that have been proscribedMaybe, certainly not definitive. Although all drug-policy experts acknowledge the importance of the forbidden fruit phenomenon in explaining the prevalence of drug use, its true extent is unknown.28 Still, its role is probably significant.
Probably is ambiguously used in this context. It's easy just to make a blanket statement saying, in a vacuum not accounting for consequence, that they'd partake in the action. Many people would like to do stuff they aren't allowed to, and even though they really want to, they still don't.

I think an infinitely bigger motivating factor is peer pressure.



b

      
m