War on drugs

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 05:51PM #1

Does anyone else think the war on drugs is a waste of time money and resources.That prohibition did not work in 1920's America and its not working now.
1 Funds crime
2 Alcohol causes more deaths every year then any drug
3 Drugs are pretty much freely available anyway
4 If they were decriminalised they could bring in laws where it could be only legal to sell them between certain hours
5 The thousands of people who are killed each year because they are involved in it
6 It would bring money to some of the poorest country's in the world instead of just going to a few top drug dealers ( see point 1 )
7 That the majority of drug users are recreational users and if you take this market from the criminal gangs e.g putting it into a legal market , you will also be putting a serious dent in these gangs

Also please read these statistics i found
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

sorry one last thing also if legalized alot of the dangerous chemicals used in the mixing process of drugs would be taken or at least monitored

4zn76tysfajdxp · 27-01-2010 05:54PM

The "war on drugs?" What is this? George Bush Snr's America?

In before the Bill Hicks video.

strobe · 27-01-2010 05:54PM

You must be new here, welcome to boards Mannequinhands. I agree with you in part but this has been done to death, zombified and then shot in the head. Same thing always happens 1.) a couple of people on both sides of the argument make really good points, 2.) far far more people make lots and lots of stupid arguments and irrepairably damage the case for the side they think they are on and then 3.) it goes round and round in circles for 5 or 6 pages.

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 05:55PM

No as in Prohibition
I just used war on drugs as a pharse

brummytom · 27-01-2010 05:57PM

Yep, I agree.

Though I've never tried (nor indeed, intend to try) any illegal substances, I really don't see why some drugs (I'm not sure how the grading works over there; they're 'Class C' here) such as Cannabis, aren't legal. I heard it summed up well once, "Prohibition is chaos and regulation is control".

Dymo · 27-01-2010 05:57PM

It would of been possible years ago to bring drugs into the main stream like tobacco and alcohol but now we live in a society were anything which effects the human body is seen as evil and must be banned and outlawed.

Kiera · 27-01-2010 05:57PM

No i dont think its a waste fo time and money. I do however think anyone who thinks its a waste of time and money isnt the full shilling!

Captain_Generic · 27-01-2010 06:02PM

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, drug related crime has been dropping ever since

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 06:03PM

Kiera wrote: »

No i dont think its a waste fo time and money. I do however think anyone who thinks its a waste of time and money isnt the full shilling!

Can you give your reasons i was kind enough to give mine
I would also be more than happy to hear some retorts of my points

funk-you · 27-01-2010 06:07PM

Hey governments...I've got a secret...People like to get high, you're not going to stop that. You've probably been high yourself in the last week. It doesn't matter what you get high on. You're there to keep the place ticking over, not to impose your moral stance on anyone you can.

-Funk

Kiera · 27-01-2010 06:09PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

Can you give your reasons i was kind enough to give mine
I would also be more than happy to hear some retorts of my points

You think getting drug dealing scumbags off the street is a waste of money? I think there should be more guards on the streets to deal with these low-lifes. Drugs destroy families and innocent people ie. Anthony Campbell. If the guards had locked up that scumbag from Finglas for drugs sooner then Anthony wouldn’t have been killed.

I didnt quite understand your post tbh. Its all over the place. My reply is to the first line in it.

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2010 06:09PM

I used to know a guy called Warren Druges.

We used to tease him that he was pointless.

That was funny.

Pace2008 · 27-01-2010 06:13PM

Kiera wrote: »

You think getting drug dealing scumbags off the street is a waste of money? I think there should be more guards on the streets to deal with these low-lifes. Drugs destroy families and innocent people ie. Anthony Campbell. If the guards had locked up that scumbag from Finglas for drugs sooner then Anthony wouldn’t have been killed.

I didnt quite understand your post tbh. Its all over the place. My reply is to the first line in it.

Drug dealers only exist as a result of prohibition. Please try again.

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 06:15PM

Kiera wrote: »

You think getting drug dealing scumbags off the street is a waste of money? I think there should be more guards on the streets to deal with these low-lifes. Drugs destroy families and innocent people ie. Anthony Campbell. If the guards had locked up that scumbag from Finglas for drugs sooner then Anthony wouldn’t have been killed.

I didnt quite understand your post tbh. Its all over the place. My reply is to the first line in it.

If there was no illegal drug trade Anthony Campell would still be alive because Marlo Hyland would not have been a drug kingpin or if he was would be legit and would more than likely not been shot in a drug related crime.

Please read the link i left the statistics speak for themselves

TheMilkyPirate · 27-01-2010 06:15PM

Kiera wrote: »

You think getting drug dealing scumbags off the street is a waste of money? I think there should be more guards on the streets to deal with these low-lifes. Drugs destroy families and innocent people ie. Anthony Campbell. If the guards had locked up that scumbag from Finglas for drugs sooner then Anthony wouldn’t have been killed.

I didnt quite understand your post tbh. Its all over the place. My reply is to the first line in it.

Are you for real? Drug dealers only exist in the first place because of prohibition. And it's not getting them off the streets either i know off the hand ten who have been around for years.

Innocent people die because they are involved in the illegal drugs trade, If drugs were legalized and regulated it wouldn't be like this.

extra-ordinary_ · 27-01-2010 06:16PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I used to know a guy called Warren Druges.

We used to tease him that he was pointless.

That was funny.

Where's the 'No thanks' button?

TheMilkyPirate · 27-01-2010 06:18PM

extra-ordinary_ wrote: »

Where's the 'No thanks' button?

It's up in the top right hand corner labelled "log out"

MaybeLogic · 27-01-2010 06:18PM

extra-ordinary_ wrote: »

Where's the 'No thanks' button?

You just thank the post ,then click on 'Remove your thanks' as a sign of protest.

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 06:23PM

Kiera wrote: »

I didnt quite understand your post the first line in it.

did anyone else not understand my post or was it just her

rubensni · 27-01-2010 06:23PM

strobe wrote: »

You must be new here, welcome to boards Mannequinhands. I agree with you in part but this has been done to death, zombified and then shot in the head. Same thing always happens 1.) a couple of people on both sides of the argument make really good points, 2.) far far more people make lots and lots of stupid arguments and irrepairably damage the case for the side they think they are on and then 3.) it goes round and round in circles for 5 or 6 pages.

Yes, let's speed things up:

Typical anti:
1. Cost to society/health service
2. "All you druggies are the same, spongers on the dole who want a council flat, etc."
3. Anarchy, crime, etc.
4. "My friend took drugs once and twenty years later she got a..."
5. "Will somebody think of the children."

Typical pro:
1. The Beatles, jazz, house and Hendrix
2. Cigarettes and alcohol are drugs
3. Waste of time and money in prohibition/prisons full of people with clear consciences
4. I've smoked my whole life and...
5. Tax on drugs = revenue for health services

Followed by hours of trolling until a mod closes it down.

extra-ordinary_ · 27-01-2010 06:24PM

MaybeLogic wrote: »

You just thank the post ,then click on 'Remove your thanks' as a sign of protest.

Yeh, I thought of that, but nobody would see that sign. I suppose I could just say...

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I used to know a guy called Warren Druges.

We used to tease him that he was pointless.

That was funny.

Down with this sort of thing.:p

extra-ordinary_ · 27-01-2010 06:24PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

did anyone else not understand my post or was it just her

lol

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2010 06:26PM

extra-ordinary_ wrote: »

Down with this sort of thing.:p

Ah come on - that was a good one!

Kiera · 27-01-2010 06:27PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

did anyone else not understand my post or was it just her

Oi n00b, it would stand well to you to have a bit of respect for other members on the site. Just a helpful word of warning

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 06:29PM

Kiera wrote: »

Oi n00b, it would stand well to you to have a bit of respect for other members on the site. Just a helpful word of warning

What it was a honest question:D

Kiera · 27-01-2010 06:30PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

What it was a honest question:D

Sure it was.

token56 · 27-01-2010 06:31PM

I dont really know which I would prefer, as much as a I dislike any type of drug.

Would decriminalizing drugs reduce the number of drug dealers on the streets and drug related crimes, maybe, probably.

Will it get completely rid of drug related crimes, of course not.

Is this going to decrease the number of criminals as a whole, I seriously doubt it will effect it significantly. People involved in the drugs trade wont just think, oh well nothing I can do here anymore, may go earn an honest living now. They are still criminals and will find some other activity to try fuel their income and keep their organizations going. I do think it would just lead to an increase in problems in other areas of crime. So either way money needs to be spent to catch the criminals and any money which does so is money well spent in my opinion.

Would it be a more efficient method of spending money, to legalize drugs and then try catch the criminals when they move to other areas, I dont know, I dont think it will be an easy job to stamp out criminal activity in any particular area.

Sofiztikated · 27-01-2010 06:48PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

Does anyone else think the war on drugs is a waste of time money and resources.That prohibition did not work in 1920's America and its not working now.
1 Funds crime
2 Alcohol causes more deaths every year then any drug
3 Drugs are pretty much freely available anyway
4 If they were decriminalised they could bring in laws where it could be only legal to sell them between certain hours
5 The thousands of people who are killed each year because they are involved in it
6 It would bring money to some of the poorest country's in the world instead of just going to a few top drug dealers ( see point 1 )
7 That the majority of drug users are recreational users and if you take this market from the criminal gangs e.g putting it into a legal market , you will also be putting a serious dent in these gangs

Also please read these statistics i found
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

sorry one last thing also if legalized alot of the dangerous chemicals used in the mixing process of drugs would be taken or at least monitored

I'm going to be the first to argue your points.

1) Because its so profitable.
2) So why not ban alcohol, rather than legalise other harmful substances?
3) Just because you can get something, doesn't mean its good. You can pick up Chlamydia in a lot of places, but its not a good thing.
4) Because making it illegal to sell outside certain hours will stop dealing. Right. Because at the moment, them being illegal ALL the time is stopping that. Come on.
5) Not going to change.
6) How? Seriously, how would it being money to people in Cambodia, and the like? Because Ireland legalises Cannabis/Coke/whatever your having yourself? Won't stop that country from ****ting on their people.
7) Not really. It'll still work out cheaper for a blackmarket good, than a common market good, due to the taxes and costs involved. So your common, or garden, drug enthusiast will still get their stuff from One Eyed Steve because it'll be cheaper for them. Look at cigarettes. €8.xx in shops, but go outside and talk to people, you can get them for €5 a pack.

A country the size of Ireland legalising drugs will NOT immediately mean drugs are going to be manufactured clean and pure.

And I say this as a person who likes his weed.

Sir Gallagher · 27-01-2010 07:22PM

First thing that popped into my head when i read war on drugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ

TPD · 27-01-2010 07:27PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm going to be the first to argue your points.

1) Because its so profitable.
2) So why not ban alcohol, rather than legalise other harmful substances?
3) Just because you can get something, doesn't mean its good. You can pick up Chlamydia in a lot of places, but its not a good thing.
4) Because making it illegal to sell outside certain hours will stop dealing. Right. Because at the moment, them being illegal ALL the time is stopping that. Come on.
5) Not going to change.
6) How? Seriously, how would it being money to people in Cambodia, and the like? Because Ireland legalises Cannabis/Coke/whatever your having yourself? Won't stop that country from ****ting on their people.
7) Not really. It'll still work out cheaper for a blackmarket good, than a common market good, due to the taxes and costs involved. So your common, or garden, drug enthusiast will still get their stuff from One Eyed Steve because it'll be cheaper for them. Look at cigarettes. €8.xx in shops, but go outside and talk to people, you can get them for €5 a pack.

A country the size of Ireland legalising drugs will NOT immediately mean drugs are going to be manufactured clean and pure.

And I say this as a person who likes his weed.

(Only talking cannabis, not fussed on anything else being legalised)

1: His point was that you should take all that profit from the criminals.
2: Tried banning alcohol in the past; uproar.
3: He's not saying it's good because it's avaliable. He's saying it being illegal now doesnt really work anyway.
4: I dont really get his point here.
5: There would be a lot less deaths if the drugs trade was legal and above board.
6: I think he means that if the other countries legalised it too, it would bring them money. Through tax / exporting it.
7: Blackmarket trade may well exist, but I'd say it would be more likely that people would grow their own as an alternative to buying with tax. Put a tax on the seeds, and problem solved. I'd consider black market alcohol trade (odd bit of poitin from the man on the hill) to be closer to a black market cannabis trade than tobacco.

Of course they wont be immediately pure. But you have to start somewhere. The system as it is does not work. While legalisation may not be perfect, I really think it's better than where we are now.

Again, I'm only talking cannabis. I haven't researched anything else enough to form a valid opinion.

funk-you · 27-01-2010 07:39PM

rubensni wrote: »

Yes, let's speed things up:

Typical anti:
1. Cost to society/health service
2. "All you druggies are the same, spongers on the dole who want a council flat, etc."
3. Anarchy, crime, etc.
4. "My friend took drugs once and twenty years later she got a..."
5. "Will somebody think of the children."

Typical pro:
1. The Beatles, jazz, house and Hendrix
2. Cigarettes and alcohol are drugs
3. Waste of time and money in prohibition/prisons full of people with clear consciences
4. I've smoked my whole life and...
5. Tax on drugs = revenue for health services

Followed by hours of trolling until a mod closes it down.

**** folks, shut up shop. Turn off the servers...I said turn off the servers Conor. We're all done here.

-Funk

War on drugs

Comments