Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 05:22:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > One might *suppose* the violence would settle, but we have no way of knowing
> > that, much less calling that hypothetical "truth".
>
> With which part of what I think is obviously the truth do you disagree? My
> statement breaks down into:
>
> A) The price of coke is inflated above the consumer-market value.
Or, more accurately, above the price it would be if legal.
> B) People are motivated to be 'bad' when it is highly profitable.
People are also motivated to be 'good' when it is highly profitable.
> C) The inflation is caused by the illegality of obtaining the commodity.
> D) The illegality of cocaine generates the high profits driving the 'badness.'
>
> I then go on to suggest that if you remove the economic underpinnings of
> Colombian terror, that the terror will subside. Did I get something wrong, or
> do you think that the people involved are devilishly wicked rather than just
> greedy enough to act wicked?
That terror may well subside. Doesn't mean it won't be replaced by other kinds
of 'badness'. These guys aren't gonna just say 'Oh well, no profit in coke
anymore, lets go home'.
> > How many Americans would you suppose could use a highly addictive drug such • as
> > cocaine "responsibly"?
>
> I don't know the stats. My small sample annecdotes suggests that about 80% of
> teenagers can use cocaine responsibly. If that is even close to
> representative, we can expect similar percentages among the popualtion at
> large. But I think that most people would continue to avoid it as a dangerous
> medicine.
How do they pay for it? Do they budget their use responsibly?
> > If cocaine were legalized, I suspect we'd have a lot of drug-related
> > violence (refer to stats on alcohol-related deaths in this country)
> > in *this* country.
>
> Drug-related deaths, or violence? I mean, people might get hopped up and have
> heart attacks, but that's not violence. The stats that I'm dredging vary
> widely depending on what's being examined. The CDC notes that out of
> 11,806,737 deaths in one decade, 26,373 died from having too much alcohol in
> their system. (That's one fifth of one percent.) But there are also • certainly
> many drunk driving deaths, which concern me lots more.
>
> Another source suggests 81,000 deaths per year are alcohol related. (Compared
> to 430,000 for smoking -- the only greater category). I guess that if about
> 2.6K die per year from alcohol poisonging then this 81K figure must include
> everything. That's out of 632,000 deaths -- 12%.
>
> Which stats were you using? And what do they have to do with cocaine related
> violence?
What about violence & death related to the need to support the habit? Sure
they'd need less money if it was legal (assuming it's not taxed through the
roof), but do you really think people would stop robbing 7 11s to pay for more?
And what about the new ways the Colombian 'baddies' find to make their money?
> > First let me see U.S. citizens use alcohol responsibly, then we can talk • about
> > coke....
>
> But you do. Virtually everyone who drinks does so in a more or less
> responsible manner. Though, it might be tough to define responsible so that
> everyone was happy. I am most concerned that people not use substances that
> will so greatly impair their judgement that they will inflict themselves on • me,
> one way or another. I drink (very) roughly five drinks per week. maybe one
> day of each week I have more than one drink (meaning a beer, glass of wine,
> mixed drink, etc.) Only if I pass my own personal criteria (only had one • drink
> recently and can't feel it at all) will I drive. Does that count as
> responsible?
Whether it does or not, it's just one case.
> With me "(in this case)" I was attempting to demonstrate that I don't think
> that all terror is caused by this situation with drugs -- though a case might
> be made that it is always caused by oppression of one kind or another.
>
> > > It is a twisted attempt to dehumanize those who
> > > choose to self-medicate.
> > >
> > > When will the madness end?
> >
> > Legalize coke, and I'll show you where it will begin...
>
> Uh huh. You can keep saying that, but I don't see it. How many coke users
> have you watched become insanely violent for no reason? I'm guessing none. I
> don't currently know any cocaine users (that I know of) but in high school
> they were common and rarely did I hear of anyone getting out of hand. So if • it
> works out non-violently illegal, why would that change with legalization?
Well, how many long-term (5+ years) users do you know? Again I ask, how do they
support their habit? Anyone who thinks drug dependency doesn't cause violence
is kidding themselves.
And anyone that thinks reducing the 'baddies' income (by legalising those drugs
or any other method) will make more than a temporary glitch is being pretty
optimistic.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
