California voters: Do you support prop 57 and 58? - Page 7

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 16:32

im talking about all drugs - weed, hash, coke, heroine, shrooms, x etc.

and i hope you get arrested for being gay and get thrown out of a helicopter.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 16:34

All drugs? What are you stupid or something? Weed... well.. I don't give a damn about it any more. But cocaine? Heroin? LSD? What the hell are you on? HELL NO. And your second sentence isn't worth a response.... what the **** is wrong with you? Being gay is not the same as being a stupid drug addict.. so don't even try it with your stupid half @$$ed comparsions.

Just curious, are you high?

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 16:37

hahaha nah. being high doesnt make you confrontational - it makes you chill out. at least high on bud. i have no desire to try anything else.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 16:39

Just don't compare me to a drug addict. I don't appreciate that.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 16:41

the arguments against drugs and gays are very similar.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the arguments against drugs and gays are very similar.

No they aren't.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 17:01

yea they are. you say drugs are immoral, people say that gayness is immoral.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yea they are. you say drugs are immoral, people say that gayness is immoral.

But neither are comparable in any other sense.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 17:04

one connection is enough.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
one connection is enough.

No it isn't.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 17:14

yea it is.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 18:21

no it isn't.

GePap · February 23, 2004, 18:22

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I never thought a debate would actually devolve to this point......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 18:23

yea it is.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I never thought a debate would actually devolve to this point......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm just playing along.

I wonder what he'll reply with..

And he beat me to it.. so my reply:

No it isn't!

rev · February 23, 2004, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

But neither are comparable in any other sense.

Yes: both are examples of government legislating based on morals rather than crime. Government and its associates don't want someone ingesting marijuana based on a moral repulsion to the very idea of it, so it's made illegal and lies, damned lies, and far-fetched statistics are employed to scare the populace into agreement. Similarly, government and its associates don't want a male 'ingesting' another male's genitals in gany method, so they employ untruths or rexaggerations as scare tactics to keep the populace in agreement: Homosexuals shall never be allowed to do anything together because it will result in your offspring suffering molestation, or THEY MAY EVEN BECOME HOMOSEXUALS THEMSELVES!!1! (scary music goes here).

Government should make *crimes* illegal -- crimes in which there is a victim and a victimizer; they should not legislate morality.

Imran Siddiqui · February 23, 2004, 19:07

This is ****ing hilarious...

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 23:16

exactly rev. just as there is no victim with using drugs, there is no victim with being gay.

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by rev

Yes: both are examples of government legislating based on morals rather than crime. Government and its associates don't want someone ingesting marijuana based on a moral repulsion to the very idea of it, so it's made illegal and lies, damned lies, and far-fetched statistics are employed to scare the populace into agreement. Similarly, government and its associates don't want a male 'ingesting' another male's genitals in gany method, so they employ untruths or rexaggerations as scare tactics to keep the populace in agreement: Homosexuals shall never be allowed to do anything together because it will result in your offspring suffering molestation, or THEY MAY EVEN BECOME HOMOSEXUALS THEMSELVES!!1! (scary music goes here).

Government should make *crimes* illegal -- crimes in which there is a victim and a victimizer; they should not legislate morality.

You haven't changed. You still are the same old joke you always have been.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 23:57

whos the 'victim' of drug usage? whos the 'victim' of gayness?

Giancarlo · February 23, 2004, 23:58

Victim of drug usage = you.

Homosexuality is like heterosexuality.. drug addiction is not.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 23, 2004, 23:59

and what if i dont consider myself a victim of drug use? how can i be a victim when i voluntairly use it?

rev · February 24, 2004, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You haven't changed. You still are the same old joke you always have been.

Well, for one, I've never claimed to have "changed", so don't put words into my mouth.

Secondly, all I did was reply to your argument with an illustrated standpoint of my own, and all you can do is retaliate with a personal attack.

I'll let that speak for itself.

Aeson · February 24, 2004, 00:45

For some drugs (in some situations) the only 'victim' is the user (and they are free to determine whether they are a victim or not IMO). For other drugs there definitely are victims who are not the ones chosing to use the drug or not. In some cases it is the taxpayer, having to support the user or their children. In other cases it's victims of violent crime by those under the influence.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/satsfp97.htm (picture from the pdf)

I'll agree that these statistics aren't too meaningful (based on the criminal's word), but they represent the best collection of data I could find on drug use and violent crime. Anyone have a better source of data?

From personal experience I can attest to the effect of drugs on a user's agressiveness, and have been attacked by friends under the influence.

Imran Siddiqui · February 24, 2004, 00:48

Shameful, isn't it Aeson?

CharlesBHoff · February 24, 2004, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Legalize drugs? In your dreams. Why the hell should we do that? So people can sell their **** freely in the streets without getting arrested? And maybe some cops want to work in narcotics. Several cops I know here in LA like the job they do.

Legalize drug is the best way to kill the drug catural. If cocain was legal 1 kg will be worth 6 dollar instead 30000 dollar a kg. Heron will be worth 10 dollar a kg instead of 1000,000 dollar a kg.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 24, 2004, 04:12

cool stats. interesting how drug consupmtion is less likely to make you do violent crimes, since a lot of drugs chill you out, while they are more likely to make you rob houses. alkie seems to have a differnet effect, and makes people more beliigerent.

Giancarlo · February 24, 2004, 04:20

Quote:

If cocain was legal 1 kg will be worth 6 dollar instead 30000 dollar a kg. Heron will be worth 10 dollar a kg instead of 1000,000 dollar a kg.

I'll say this. I understand the positions that people have on marijuana legalisation. But legalising cocaine or heroin? People who want that are half wit idiots who do not have an argument for such a stupid argument.

And just ask yourself this: Who can buy drugs at such high prices? Fewer can. And your numbers are bogus. Also... legalising it will bring in an influx of supply, thus cancelling out any loss in sales for the illegal drug trade.

Oerdin · February 24, 2004, 04:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
if we legalized drugs, there would be no more overcrowding of jails in california. then we could say a lot of money. not to mention closing the narcotics division of all the police stations and transfering those guys to real crime divisions - like homicide, rape, etc.

That's wrong. I saw a study which showed less then 5% of the people who were in jail were there solely because of drugs. It's a myth to say that legalizing drugs will solce jail over crowding because California already releases most no violent offenders to rehab programs due to over crowding.

Aeson · February 24, 2004, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
cool stats. interesting how drug consupmtion is less likely to make you do violent crimes, since a lot of drugs chill you out, while they are more likely to make you rob houses. alkie seems to have a differnet effect, and makes people more beliigerent.

Well, if you assume that on average, every person in the US is on illicit drugs more than 30% of the time, then you can make a case for using drugs to reduce violent crime rates. I very highly doubt that though, as only 8% of the population uses illicit drugs regularly, and while a good chunk of the remainder may use illicit drugs occasionally or once in a while, it would be virtually impossible for the 8% to pull the 'average time on drugs' up to 100% for 30% of the population (or any equivalent). Given the lack of data in this area, I don't think any hard conclusions can be drawn, so didn't make that assertion. It's too much assumption either way really.

If you do just go by the numbers though, alcohol has more of an impact on crime than drugs. Given that alcohol's effects are similar to many illicit drugs, you would have to assume it is in large part the ease of obtaining alcohol (and perhaps even it's legality) that results in it's higher costs to society. This would disagree with an argument that legalization of drugs with similar effects as being in society's best interest.

I wish there was more defined data though. (anyone know of a source?) To show things well, we need comparable counts of who uses what (lumping all illicit drugs together is bordering on useless) in the criminal (violent or otherwise non-drug violation related) and general population. Then any discrepancies could be made much clearer.