Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:34:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
257 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > A) The price of coke is inflated above the consumer-market value.
>
> Or, more accurately, above the price it would be if legal.
Yeah. After I sent that, I didn't like the way I'd worded it.
> > B) People are motivated to be 'bad' when it is highly profitable.
>
> People are also motivated to be 'good' when it is highly profitable.
Sure! So things in general should be set up to motivate people to do good, or
not motivate them at all and let their inherent goodness rise to the surface.
> > 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'.
Well, what do you mean? You suppose they'll start meth factories instead?
Legalize that. You think they'll start robbing from the rich? They _are_ the
rich. As Frank pointed out, they would probably continue to be bad while
flailing about to find some way to keep their power. But they would fail if
there was no money in it.
> > I don't know the stats. My small sample annecdotes suggests that about 80% • of
> > teenagers can use cocaine responsibly.
> How do they pay for it? Do they budget their use responsibly?
They were from rich (by my standards) families and had budgets that far
exceeded my own. They were not the addicts that you hear about robbing 7-11s
for enough to buy their next dose. They were kids playing with drugs to feel
good. And none of the ones that I have kept track of, chose to become
addicted.
> 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?
Yes. When people live in a system in which they can load the walk-in fridge at
a 7-11 for an hour and earn enough to buy three fixes, why on earth would they
take the risk of robbing the place? It seems common sense to me. And you know
what? If we ended the war on drugs, we could return half of the funds that it
soaks up to the public (hopefully to pay down our debt) and use the other half
to make robbing 7-11s even less picturesque. I happen to think it would be
cool if law enforcers were out doing good -- you know, protecting people --
instead of causing more problems. But maybe it's just me.
> And what about the new ways the Colombian 'baddies' find to make their money?
Look! They are all in place to run giant coca plantations -- they're doing it
now. It would still be a cash crop that would allow them to make a decent
wage. Only, now they could feel good about it. It would keep them in wealth
and return to them an option for humanity. Why would they balk?
I'll go ahead and answer myself: Because some of them are crazy. Those ones
should be killed or remediated. As the problem dwindles, it becomes easier to
fix.
> Whether it does or not, it's just one case.
That's true. And I do know people that drink with a lower standard of
responsibility than I hold. But none of them have hurt anyone (at least beyond
themselves) aside, arguably, from my father in law who is an alcoholic that has
been dry for 32 years and nearly lost his family over it. But still, those are
just a few cases, and some people do drink irresponsibly. So what?
John asked me to show him people who use alcohol responsibly and I maintain
that most people who use alcohol recreationally _do_ use it responsibly. I see
it all the time. The ones who do not, do not negate the trend.
> > 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?
None.
Your implication here (and I guess John's before you) is that because some
people use cocaine irresponsibly, we should make it illegal. What about
alcohol? What about tobacco? What about cars? Or telephones or computers or
paperclips? What about box cutters or airplanes? Should everything be
illegal?
> Anyone who thinks drug dependency doesn't cause violence
> is kidding themselves.
Anyone who thinks that mere drug dependency causes violence, instead of the
economics behind their situation, 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.
It is as plain as the nose on your face. I don't think I'm particularly
optimistic about anything.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
