Poverty is as bad as it has been for the last 100 years? Where do you come up with that stuff? Obviously poverty is much, much better in basically every western country now than it used to be
not true...at least in the UK...there has been as little change in the number of people in poverty as 10% since the end of the 1800's
poverty is defined as earning less than 60% of the average national salary excluding those in the highest 2%
it has meant that about 1 in 5 has been in poverty for the most part of 100+ years with little fluctuation.
That doesn't follow from anything. Clearly the government would have more money. Whether that is spend on roads, drug rehab, medicare, schools or just to give a tax cut across the board...it will have an influence. That much is clear. The government having a billion more in taxes not doing anything is a ridiculous assumption, based on solely nothing.
how is it based on nothing...
the governments attempts at cutting obesity aren't working...the governments attempts at getting people to drink less aren't working
a billion is a drop in the ocean anyway...government debt for the UK is running at a £1trillion...and in the US the deficit is so large it's gotten too big to put on the debt clock
it's, as of last check, $10,607,477,148,356.33
10 trillion...and increasing at a rate of 3.6 billion per day
Smoking has become much less dominant, alcohol, I am pretty sure has been worse during prohibition at least in the US...whether that has gotten better in the UK, I do not know, but then again the UK has a reputation for it's immense Alcohol problem. Either way, that's again, and argument for nothing, not against legalization of drugs.
the only thing that made a dent was the massive change between believing smoking didn't cause harm, and infact advertising that it was good for people, to the scientific knowlege that it was harmful...this decline happened in the 1970's and 1980's and since then smoking has only dropped by about 2% in 20+ years so i would't say much less dominant
not to mention in young people it's been constant with a low of 8% and a high of 13% of 11-15 year olds smoking
the health and development agency says that, with regards to people in poverty...in some instances the smoking rates of certain demographics are 75%...that's 48% above national average acress all demographics.
as for alcohol...we've discussed that in the happy hour thread...you asked for stats there and i linked them.
What about all those very many with not severe drug problems, but very casual usage.
again...we've already discussed...or are you simply not paying attention?
I am pretty sure has been worse during prohibition at least in the US
i'm pretty sure the drinking levels had vastly more to do with the great depression than they did with prohibition laws.
not to mention the fact that you're actually wrong
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2006862
1st paragraph on right hand side says
We find that alcohol consumption levels fell sharply at the beginning of prohibition, to approximately 30% of its pre-prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70% its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption remained virtually the same immediately after prohibition as during the latter part of prohibition
so the argument that prohibition makes things worse is a lie.
the argument that prohibition increased crime is invalid simply because you were creating a crime where there was none before. thus you're going to get an increase in recorded crime even though it's just the same people doing the same thing
it's obviously the flip argument for legalising drugs...if you make it legal...you remove all the direct drug crime from the stats thus you technically record a drop in crime...even though the same people are doing the same actions...it would just now be legal....thus it's really just a paper loss. the only valid argument would be that police resources would be freed up to tackle other things...but then given that it's really only specialised police units that tackle major drug crime and that the user end is now typically ignored of given small sentences anyway and isn't really actively policed but merely a result of arrests for other things (such as shoplifting) then you would potentially be negating the need for these specialised units such as the drug enforecement administration...and that you claim that the drug traffickers wouldn't move onto other criminal activities....then you'd potentially be puting alot of people out of work....well done.
Originally posted by jaden101
not true...at least in the UK...there has been as little change in the number of people in poverty as 10% since the end of the 1800'spoverty is defined as earning less than 60% of the average national salary excluding those in the highest 2%
it has meant that about 1 in 5 has been in poverty for the most part of 100+ years with little fluctuation.
Oh but poverty has changed a lot. Even the poorest now have much more than people 100 years ago. That the definition of poverty is idiotic, I agree, but it has nothing to do with my point, which was that "poverty is much, much better", not that there is less.
Originally posted by jaden101
how is it based on nothing...the governments attempts at cutting obesity aren't working...the governments attempts at getting people to drink less aren't working
a billion is a drop in the ocean anyway...government debt for the UK is running at a £1trillion...and in the US the deficit is so large it's gotten too big to put on the debt clock
it's, as of last check, $10,607,477,148,356.33
10 trillion...and increasing at a rate of 3.6 billion per day
40 billion a year (as it is in the US), is not just a drop in the ocean. Instead of increasing by 3.6 billion a day, it would increase by 3.5 now. Certainly a step in the right direction.
What a nonsensical argument that is, too. We already have so much debt, that is makes no sense to not waste money.
And that's just savings from not spending money on the drug war, doesn't include the money the government would receive from taxes on the drugs.
Originally posted by jaden101
the only thing that made a dent was the massive change between believing smoking didn't cause harm, and infact advertising that it was good for people, to the scientific knowlege that it was harmful...this decline happened in the 1970's and 1980's and since then smoking has only dropped by about 2% in 20+ years so i would't say much less dominantnot to mention in young people it's been constant with a low of 8% and a high of 13% of 11-15 year olds smoking
the health and development agency says that, with regards to people in poverty...in some instances the smoking rates of certain demographics are 75%...that's 48% above national average acress all demographics.
as for alcohol...we've discussed that in the happy hour thread...you asked for stats there and i linked them.
I'd likes some stats for what you said here as well, please. Either way, it is still not an argument for or against legalization, so I have no idea why you even brought it up.
Originally posted by jaden101
again...we've already discussed...or are you simply not paying attention?
You have not sufficiently answered what you would like for them to happen. You say, you think they shouldn't be prosecuted, how exactly do you think that would work, seeing as you still want the drugs to be illegal?
Originally posted by jaden101
i'm pretty sure the drinking levels had vastly more to do with the great depression than they did with prohibition laws.not to mention the fact that you're actually wrong
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2006862
1st paragraph on right hand side says
Fair enough.
Originally posted by jaden101
so the argument that prohibition makes things worse is a lie.
No, the argument that prohibition made people drink more, might be a lie, that it made things worse is still up for discussion.
Originally posted by jaden101
the argument that prohibition increased crime is invalid simply because you were creating a crime where there was none before. thus you're going to get an increase in recorded crime even though it's just the same people doing the same thing
But you also created ways for organized crime to make money. You actually created gangs that were working to supply alcohol illegally. Which is actually a wholly new thing that didn't exist before.
Originally posted by jaden101
it's obviously the flip argument for legalising drugs...if you make it legal...you remove all the direct drug crime from the stats thus you technically record a drop in crime...even though the same people are doing the same actions...it would just now be legal....thus it's really just a paper loss. the only valid argument would be that police resources would be freed up to tackle other things...but then given that it's really only specialised police units that tackle major drug crime and that the user end is now typically ignored of given small sentences anyway and isn't really actively policed but merely a result of arrests for other things (such as shoplifting) then you would potentially be negating the need for these specialised units such as the drug enforecement administration...and that you claim that the drug traffickers wouldn't move onto other criminal activities....then you'd potentially be puting alot of people out of work....well done.
That ignores a very significant thing though, which is the crimes that are performed related to the illegal nature of drugs. For example shootouts because if drug deals gone wrong, that wouldn't happen because the market would be regulated, if you have a problem with someone you can go to the police and get your right, now you can just take a shotgun and kill someone. There is an increase in crime a) because you make things illegal, which weren't illegal before, yet don't harm anyone and b) because now that it is illegal, there are whole businesses related to the illegal nature that do not exist before, and that, because of being illegal, don't have to go by the other laws, anyways, which leads to more violent crime.
Kinda like hardly anyone nowadays is killed for buying or selling alcohol, cigarettes or caffeine.
And that isn't even addressing the issue of having people in jail for nothing but buying and consuming drugs for themselves.
Oh but poverty has changed a lot. Even the poorest now have much more than people 100 years ago. That the definition of poverty is idiotic, I agree, but it has nothing to do with my point, which was that "poverty is much, much better", not that there is less.
great...so more people than ever (given rises in population against poverty percentage) can barely afford to eat, keep a roof over their heads and if they do have a home, heat it in winter...but we're making progress
yay for "better poverty"
40 billion a year (as it is in the US), is not just a drop in the ocean. Instead of increasing by 3.6 billion a day, it would increase by 3.5 now. Certainly a step in the right direction.
😆 that assumes the money would be put towards not borrowing as much...which means it wouldn't be spent on anything...so it wouldn't have any impact at all
not to mention that preventing drug related crime would, in the UK anyway..save over £1.2 billion a year purely in goods not being stolen from houses and shops...not to mention the amount that's spent prosecuting these crimes....crimes that would still exist if all drugs were legalised, as i've already shown.
I'd likes some stats for what you said here as well, please. Either way, it is still not an argument for or against legalization, so I have no idea why you even brought it up.
i'd like any stats for anything you've brought up rather than it being me who constantly has to provide them....i've done so...but your answer is always..."well i don't believe them"
You have not sufficiently answered what you would like for them to happen. You say, you think they shouldn't be prosecuted, how exactly do you think that would work, seeing as you still want the drugs to be illegal?
there used to be alot of resources put in the UK into stopping drug users from using...just as their used to be alot of money put into stopping prostitutes from selling their bodies.
for the most part, prosecutions for possesion, in the UK, now come about from people being arrested for other crimes and having drugs on them....the drug possesion charges are added without any extra cost to the taxpayer because the police are not actively looking for users as they used to
i dont know whether this is the case in the US or not but what i do know is that around 3/4 of a million people are year are prosecuted for possesion...although i don't know if this is the result of active policing against possesion or merely the result of people being stopped for other crimes.
my analogy to prostitution is that there is now tolerance zones in the UK where they can ply their trade...but to try and stop demand, police are more actively prosecuting solicitation of prostitutes by their customers....in other words...trying to stop the demand.
i'd like to see the same principle applied to drug use...
But you also created ways for organized crime to make money. You actually created gangs that were working to supply alcohol illegally. Which is actually a wholly new thing that didn't exist before.
not really...people have always made moonshine and potcheen and home brewed...
That ignores a very significant thing though, which is the crimes that are performed related to the illegal nature of drugs. For example shootouts because if drug deals gone wrong, that wouldn't happen because the market would be regulated, if you have a problem with someone you can go to the police and get your right, now you can just take a shotgun and kill someone. There is an increase in crime a) because you make things illegal, which weren't illegal before, yet don't harm anyone and b) because now that it is illegal, there are whole businesses related to the illegal nature that do not exist before, and that, because of being illegal, don't have to go by the other laws, anyways, which leads to more violent crime.
i've already argued the opposite in that the criminal organisations would then go to war over the other illegal activities to make money...thus the deaths would likely go up in the short term and then back to their original levels again.
not to mention that alot of drug related violence is perpetrated during the aquisition of drugs by the user....this wouldn't go down because the demand wouldn't go down.
in all likelyhood...as the alcohol prohibition stats i showed, use of drugs may even go up as their would be no fear of prosecution for hard drugs
people who have maybe dabbled with the odd pill in a night club that their friends got and are curious and have an "up for anything" party attitude would then have easy and legal access to whatever drugs they wanted...and thus may even form an addiction and thus **** their lives up.
granted, recent studies show it actually takes a year to form a serious heroin addiction....but it's still possible in a world where drugs are legal...more so than if they are not.
Originally posted by jaden101Oh, they are there...they just don't have internet...
they should ban shoes...they really shouldbest thing about this debate...it was actually civilised...don't get alot of that around here.
mind you...cant really see there being many heroin fanboys
It's a joke about them spending everything on heroin. 😐
I like the idea of making all drugs legal and let people moderate it themselves.
Drug addicts have different reason why they do it. Mines to forget the past, even if its just for few mins. Its an amazing rush. I love it.
Anyways letting people do drugs with law control. Like Drinking, have to be certain age, can't drive while high, ect. It could be used for population control. lol
Re: Drug Addicts
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?What do you think?
Throw them all in prison but don't feed them at my expense. And I have no idea how continuing to give them heroin will get them off the drug. A drug addict is a criminal, not a patient. And we need to dismiss the leftist mental illness which claims that coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. The fact that some people think that drug addicts are patients who need to be given more drugs at the white man's expense only further proves that liberalism is nothing but a mental illness.
Re: Re: Drug Addicts
Originally posted by UKR
Throw them all in prison but don't feed them at my expense. And I have no idea how continuing to give them heroin will get them off the drug. A drug addict is a criminal, not a patient. And we need to dismiss the leftist mental illness which claims that coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. The fact that some people think that drug addicts are patients who need to be given more drugs at the white man's expense only further proves that liberalism is nothing but a mental illness.
It's pretty pointless debating with someone like you, so I won't.
I will however say this: I find people like you a lot more disgusting than someone who likes to do drugs, or who is addicted to drugs.