Author Topic: The Root Cause of Crime... (Read 2448 times)

mietla · « **Reply #75 on:** January 31, 2007, 11:49:54 AM »

this maggot should be executed for what he did, not for what he is. Does not matter why he did it.

It is a disgrace that the people working for the system have the power to simply turn a vicious animal loose and not be responsible in any way.

Gunthr · « **Reply #76 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:37:04 PM »

Quote

define "dangerous drugs " please. - John

I'm not an expert in pharmacology, but I'll try. I am generally referring to illegal drugs that are proven to be destructive, addictive, also powerful hallucinogenics, crystal meth or crank, all forms of cocaine, morphine, heroin and all its illegal derivatives, barbiturates and all prescription drugs used illegally that have a high potential for abuse/addiction. There are other dangerous drugs that should also remain controlled. I am basically referring to any currently illegal drug that you would associate with the words addict, junkie, or monster.

john9001 · « **Reply #77 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:49:58 PM »

if alcohol is not dangerous, why do we have so many laws controlling it?

and why could we not have laws controlling pot and cocaine?

bsdaddict · « **Reply #78 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:52:28 PM »

how about a drug that you would associate with the word "alcoholic"? that's just peachy with you I take it? are illegal drugs illegal because they're dangerous, or are they dangerous because they're illegal?

Gunthr · « **Reply #79 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:00:02 PM »

Quote

if alcohol is not dangerous, why do we have so many laws controlling it?

and why could we not have laws controlling pot and cocaine?

Alchohol can certainly be dangerous. So can water, or caffiene or many OTC drugs.

Why couldn't you have laws controlling pot and cocaine? I suppose you mean less restrictive laws than you have now?

Its partly a relative question. In Alaska pot laws are far less restrictive than those in many other places. but any amount of cocaine, when used illegally, is a felony amount. Why? Maybe it has to do with its potential for damage. Why couldn't you have less restrictive laws for cocaine? Ask the legislators. I'm sure it has something to do with public opinion.

john9001 · « **Reply #80 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:04:49 PM »

and "public opinion" is formed/controlled by who?

Gunthr · « **Reply #81 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:17:52 PM »

Quote

how about a drug that you would associate with the word "alcoholic"? that's just peachy with you I take it?

I intentionally didn't refer to alcohol, being as how it is legal - even though it is the cause of untold human misery, it is also very benificial to the human race. Just like fire.

Quote

are illegal drugs illegal because they're dangerous, or are they dangerous because they're illegal?

my post is concerned with the reasons why i think dangerous illegal drugs should be kept illegal. if you disagree, simply tell me why... i don't know what meaning you are trying to get across with the riddle...

Gunthr · « **Reply #82 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:20:48 PM »

Quote

and "public opinion" is formed/controlled by who?

you. along with everyone else in society. however, it sounds like you were outnumbered

Torque · « **Reply #83 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:44:17 PM »

the problem with illegal drug laws...is that they're are written by people who have no idea or experience with them.

if you want efficient drug laws ...let reformed junkies and addicts write them.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #84 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:53:06 PM »

Smartest statement ever...

handsomehunk.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #85 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:02:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
my post is concerned with the reasons why i think dangerous illegal drugs should be kept illegal. if you disagree, simply tell me why... i don't know what meaning you are trying to get across with the riddle...

I was just trying to make a point. according to you we've got "dangerous illegal drugs" (meth, coke), so we must also have "dangerous legal drugs" (alocohol, tobacco). it's pretty obvious to me that the dangerousness (lol) of a given drug isn't the sole reason for it's legal status, otherwise alcohol and tobacco (which kill MANY, MANY more of it's users than any other drugs in existance) would be illegal as well.

I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.

Shamus · « **Reply #86 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:12:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bsdaddict
I

I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.

The part that you have to remember is the "I dont do that so therefore you shouldn't either" or the favorite argument of control freaks that it may indirectly cost them money in the long run.

When these are acceptable reasons for modifying others personal behavior, as they are now in the good old US of A, anything goes, just work like hell to keep your majority in place in this soon to be democracy.

shamus

Gunthr · « **Reply #87 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:34:43 PM »

Quote

I was just trying to make a point. according to you we've got "dangerous illegal drugs" (meth, coke), so we must also have "dangerous legal drugs" (alocohol, tobacco).
I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.

'it's pretty obvious to me that the dangerousness (lol) of a given drug isn't the sole reason for it's legal status, otherwise alcohol and tobacco (which kill MANY, MANY more of it's users than any other drugs in existance) would be illegal as well."

i agree. it isn't just the potential danger of a substance that dictates its legal status. Substances are controlled according to its potential for damage weighed against its benificial uses.

Quote

I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.

[/i]

sorry, didn't see it. I don't see your first reason as valid because it does not address reality. It fine to talk about freedom and liberty - until the impaired individual somehow effects you negatively.

The reality is that individuals on heavy hitting drugs always effect society, and you, negatively. whether in lost productivity, impaired function, impaired relationships, health, dui, bankruptcy, lack of child support or any of the train wrecks that addicts and those around them experience.

if you agree that legalized dangerous drugs will result in more users and more addicts, you will agree that there is an increasing negative impact on society. before you know it, our legal drug users will begin to pay the price in declining health, increased exposure to disease, pretty soon the addicts will learn to use their votes, impaired tho they are, to vote themselves support from liberals in exchange for hand outs. liberals of course enable these voters with the hand outs, subsidies, housing, harm reduction clinics, free needle programs, free health clinics, child care, gov't subsidized this and that, increased crime and so on. Believe me, you and society will pay, one way or another.

As far as the war on drugs is concerned, i really don't know what that is any more - just like the war on poverty. i think it is just a slogan, except with the DARE program in elementary education.

I agree that enforcing laws against dangerous drugs, their possession, use, manufacture and distribution is like shoveling ***** against the tide, a job that will never be finished. So?

i'm not going to let somebody mess with my pursuit of happines just because they want to get high on dangerous drugs. Screw em.

Gunthr · « **Reply #88 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:46:18 PM »

Quote

The part that you have to remember is the "I dont do that so therefore you shouldn't either" or the favorite argument of control freaks that it may indirectly cost them money in the long run. - Shamus

i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.

The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars. People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control. Do you have children? Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?

You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.

john9001 · « **Reply #89 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:47:41 PM »

you claim cocaine is a "dangerous drug", you know this how? from personal experience or by "public opinion"?

public opinion thinks "speed kills".