Should drug dealing be illegal?

jon · Post by **jon** » 28 Mar 2006 08:31

JoFa wrote:Like I stated earlier, our government is payed to keep drugs illegal, making it a much more profitable business!

by who? what evidence do you have to support this idea?

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 28 Mar 2006 08:44

Yay! Someone asked!

I met a geologist who searches the planet for minerals and such. They have satelite cameras which can zoom in to any place in the world. At sunrise and sunset, they can look at the ground and tell if it has minerals. Very advanced!

But this system has other capabilities. He told us (although he wasn't supposed to) that the US government uses the cameras to search for unauthorized drug growers and dealers - if they are not "on the list" then they send men in to burn down the crops. They also inspect potential labs and such where illegal drugs might be made and once again check to see if they're authorized.

This is not all! The government can also target any place on the planet and send missiles there. Bush doesn't need to send any soldiers out ever - we have machines that can fight war from home.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 28 Mar 2006 09:21

You better lay low, you just publicized some pretty top secret information.

Meh, you're probably dead now anyways.

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 28 Mar 2006 11:16

Hahaha yeah I could imagine, but think about it this way - does anyone doubt we can send spacecraft to mars and see tiny bacterium, but not be able to see our own planet? It's not so much top secret as it is simply not brought to our attention.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 28 Mar 2006 12:07

i was being sarcastic man

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 28 Mar 2006 17:14

It seem to me (at least from your comparisons) like you assuming drugs are illegal because they are bad for you. If this is what you are assuming it would be incorrect.

Why, in your opinion, are they illegal then?

jon · Post by **jon** » 29 Mar 2006 15:51

BainbridgeShred wrote:
It seem to me (at least from your comparisons) like you assuming drugs are illegal because they are bad for you. If this is what you are assuming it would be incorrect.
Why, in your opinion, are they illegal then?

In my opinion some drugs are illegal for politcal reasons, and primarily to allow for racial and cultural descrimination over the past two hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_legalization
This touches on some the things I believe to be true. I don't feel like going into detail about what parts I agree with and which I don't so I will just pull a few sentences out that I do agree with:

The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine.

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression.

Hope that makes some sense. The debate over drug laws has been rehashed so many time I don't feel like evening trying to make a good point.

Lackey82 · Post by **Lackey82** » 29 Mar 2006 17:04

Deep breath.

Someone else brought it up... there's a difference between the "should drugs be legal" debate and the "should dealing drugs be legal" topic. Can one be pissed about his drug-dealing thread being "hijacked" when he's mostly not even posting about dealing? I can feel it heating up in here, hahah.

Anyway, I do feel drug dealing should be illegal. Loads of money goes to drug dealing profits, when at least if the government is getting that money it could go somewhere more helpful (like treating addicts maybe?) If it becomes legal and licensed for the average dealer, would it not be even harder to get rid of those causing a problem?

So I guess I basically agree completely with Isaac Noyes... but good discussion so far!

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 29 Mar 2006 17:06

In my opinion some drugs are illegal for politcal reasons, and primarily to allow for racial and cultural descrimination over the past two hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_legalization
This touches on some the things I believe to be true. I don't feel like going into detail about what parts I agree with and which I don't so I will just pull a few sentences out that I do agree with:

The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine.

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression.

Hope that makes some sense. The debate over drug laws has been rehashed so many time I don't feel like evening trying to make a good point.

I figured you'd say this, but I was more looking at what politician's say their motivations are for keeping drugs illegal. We're speaking on two different frequencies.

Someone else brought it up... there's a difference between the "should drugs be legal" debate and the "should dealing drugs be legal" topic. Can one be pissed about his drug-dealing thread being "hijacked" when he's mostly not even posting about dealing? I can feel it heating up in here, hahah.

No one cares. This discussion is back on track. Stop trying to get it off point again.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 30 Mar 2006 10:55

I think that drugs are illegal because the politicians care (or act like they were caring) for the social health.

Fat and coffee can both be healthy if you don't use them too much. I can't see what's healthy in drugs - that's why they should stay illegal. Tobacco should in my opinion be illegalized too.

Although there is a paradox. Maybe people even shouldn't stay alive that long, especially the people in the industrial countries? We use the most of the natural resources and we are the minority on Earth. In Finland there's a free public health care - maybe we should apply socialdarwinism*? Every man for himself. Everyone could do whatever they wanted (do drugs, eat fat, smoke tobacco, etc) but then they would have to pay it all by themselves. The people who lived healthy would survive and produce descendants (right word?).
It's just what we, the human race, really want to have. Fair game, huh?

(* Darwin himself said that it may be even better for the species to help the weaker ones too.)

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 30 Mar 2006 15:59

Fat and coffee can both be healthy if you don't use them too much. I can't see what's healthy in drugs - that's why they should stay illegal. Tobacco should in my opinion be illegalized too.

While I agree, you allowing coffee (And to a lesser extent fat) to be legal, while saying marijuana and tobacco should be against the law, is absolutely hypocritical. Coffee itself isn't healthy, and isn't a required substance for humans to intake. Alchohol can be healthy too, but it's still treated like a drug.

The question is, why do you think the government should be telling you what to ingest and what not to ingest, and actively picking and choosing drugs that they say you can have and those that you cannot. I understand that you're all Pinko's up in Scandanavia, but I can't fathom why you'd want the government saying you can't have a cigarette in the privacy of your own home.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Mar 2006 20:53

A product is good if the government can reap huge taxes off of it.

It is also good (for the government) , if the product kills the population , before they start collecting retirement benefits.

Having people die, BEFORE they contribute a lifetimes of taxes is bad, so:

Cocaine = illegal
Cigarettes = legal

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Mar 2006 20:59

Almost all the evidence I've read - and the studies that have been conducted into it show the pure mdma (ecstasy) has no long term or serious health risks for healthy people. People with heart conditions are at risk and there is also a risk of dehydration. For a health person who makes sure they drink enough water there are no negative side effects. mdma can lead to depression when you're coming down although it's now also being used as an experimental anti depressant.

So why is ecstasy (mdma) illegal? People on it do not have a significant rate of anti social behaviour and it has way less health risks than other legal drugs (including prescription drugs). Because it's only sold by criminals there is some evidence that a lot of pills out there are cut with other less safe substances. If mdma was legalised and regulated by the government this risk would not occur.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Mar 2006 21:24

Why does government regulation mean the drugs will be safe?

Why is weed controlled by the government better than the shit on the street?

How does addicting the government, to the tax revenue from drugs, help?

Stop being such an obiedient slave to the perfection of government.

They are the ones who fucked it up in the first place.

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Mar 2006 21:44

Well in the case of many drugs - they aren't safe because the people selling the drugs are not accountable to anybody.

Governments are accontable. Maybe your government isn't but certainly in Australia if you are legally allowed to sell a product and it turns out that the product is cut with rat poison you will definitely get in trouble for this. Having government regulation would definitely mean that drugs such as mdma would be much safer. I don't think weed would neccessarily be any better but again - if somebody is trying to run a legal business I think in general they are safer to deal with than somebody who is running an illegal business. If people are making money breaking the law - who is to say what laws they won't break.

I don't think it's about "additcting the government to tax revenue" - I think people are going to use drugs no matter what laws you have against them. We see that in countries like Indonesia and Singapore where you can get the death penalty for havnig large quantities of drugs on your first offence. Yet people still do it. Drugs cost society a great deal of money. Tax payer money pays for police efforts to stop drugs and to deal with crime. It helps pay medical costs induced and it pays great amounts of money in anti drug campaigning. Members of society also have to pay for criminal damage etc.

So at the moment recreational drugs cost the government and society (ie. everybody who pays taxes) a lot of money - and people still use them despite the laws and campaigns deterring people. Instead the government and society could be making money that could go to funding things like hostpitals and schools (there is strong evidence of a link between more harmful drugs and low levels of education) - which may result in less people using drugs while also saving a huge amount of money.

Isaac Noyes · Post by **Isaac Noyes** » 31 Mar 2006 11:34

HighDemonslayer wrote:Why does government regulation mean the drugs will be safe?

Probably yes… but there are too sides to this. If made legal the people producing the drugs will probably be those who do it as a hobby and large companies who want a part of the profit. Myself… I wouldn’t really trust the large companies, due to the fact that currently they peddle drugs that are really bad for you and play them off as if they are cure-all miracle pills. As for the hobby producers, I would think that they would strive to product the best possible product, thus the best quality. But this can also go the other way… eg: someone finds out how profitable making/growing whatever is and expands production, then gets greedy and decides to cut it with something that will stretch out how much they have to put into each pill/or whatever. That’s when things would start to get ugly… but I think in the event of legalization there would be different tiers of drugs that would be regulated on different levels… and there would be some that would stay illegal… so the ones that have a greater chance of being unsafe would be more highly regulated while the laws regulating those that you could can safely make/grow at home would be less strict. But knowing the US Government… it is really hard to know what would happen if legalization occurred. There is also the question of taxation… if not highly regulated they wouldn’t be able to collect their drug tax money.

HighDemonslayer wrote:Why is weed controlled by the government better than the shit on the street?

To answer your question:
I don’t know about in other places where bud is legal, but in the great state of California the herb from the cannabis clubs is better because it is grown by people who care about their product and care about the people they are growing for. That and if they grew shit, they would have no market… and there is not any point in growing shit for yourself. Most of what they sell comes from private producers who have incredible quality control and produce a top notch product.
The reason the herb on the streets elsewhere is so crappy it that it is grown in places such as Mexico or some crazy who doesn't give a shit about who is going to buy and is willing to spray it with RAID, dip it in formaldehyde, lace it with PCP and do other things to it that are just not good for you. This may also just be a difference between people growing for medical application as versus those growing something that will fuck you up (but I doubt that that really has any bearing on quality… because some dank will give a harder kick than any . Also, those fine upstanding citizens over at the DEA

keep any of the good stuff from ever getting on the streets, so the people who don’t have much money to spend on it end up getting crap because the only people who are willing do deal with the risk won’t sell the quality for under a premium price which is ALWAYs way too high… I mean it’s too expensive at the club as it is… I can’t even begin to fathom how much it is elsewhere.
Although it is good and provides a great service and product due to the California medical marijuana law they are still somewhat of a double-edged sword. The clubs give top-notch pot to those who truly need it, but there is a huge population of people who get club cards who don't necessarily have anything wrong with them. The interesting part is that if it weren't for these people there wouldn’t be as much to sell in the clubs, because they are the ones who do the majority of the growing and end up selling to the club because dealing anywhere else it too sketch to really seriously think about doing.
What I don’t get is why the federal gov. doesn’t take advantage of this HUGE market and make federally legal. There is so much money in pot… I can’t even begin to quantify it… and as it is right now it is all dealings in cash. Personally I think there would be a horrible decline in quality of it became federally legal. Major tobacco companies have already bought up pot oriented product names that they will use in the event of its legalization… That will be scary. Pre-rolled J’s… with all the burning of the chemicals they put into cigarettes!

sniper4life · Post by **sniper4life** » 05 Apr 2006 18:12

First off alcohol is ethanol, so to say it can be healthy is pretty wrong. Seeing as ethanol is a poisonous substance to the body.

In my opinion making drugs legal but government controlled wouldnt work. If people are willing to go against the law now to get drugs and then they eventually get addicted, why wouldnt they still use drug dealers to get more and fill cravings for them?

Social darwinism would be crazy people would go around killing eachother and doing anything with no consequences even worse then murderers and rapists already do. That would be horrible.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 05 Apr 2006 18:39

In my opinion making drugs legal but government controlled wouldnt work. If people are willing to go against the law now to get drugs and then they eventually get addicted, why wouldnt they still use drug dealers to get more and fill cravings for them?

Dude, if the govt sold drugs their would be no black market for drugs. No one would buy drugs off the street if the govt was selling them because it'd be cheaper, safer, and more convienient to buy them from the govt.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » 05 Apr 2006 19:32

If drugs were sold by the government I imagine there would still have to be a black market but to a much lesser extent.

The government would have pretty tight regulations on the sale including age limits, quantity and quality.

So you would still have kids who want access to drugs.
You would still have users who want to try the latest high i.e new drugs not yet approved by the government
and you would still have users who wanted more than was allowed.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 05 Apr 2006 20:08

This is what shoulder tapping ouside of the liquor stpre is for. Only then it would be the drug store.

The newest drugs aren't even illegal yet, so it's technically not a black market.