What is Digg?500 Comments
- insllvn, on 11/27/2007, -5/+139The Drug War is just like alcohol prohibition. The only people it benefited were gangsters, bootleggers, and moonshiners. It made the booze that was served unsafe, because there was no standards as to what was served, or how it was made. Meanwhile, innocent citizens were punished for going against the edicts of the so-called moral majority. Most drugs are not much more dangerous than alcohol, and some are considerably safer. The war on drugs is a crime against civil liberty.
- VaporBro, on 11/27/2007, -13/+87LEGALIZE IT!
- bwisok, on 11/27/2007, -8/+54Once again a brilliant assessment of what's needed to make our streets safe.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -4/+42You forget, though, why the drug lords make so damn much money off of the substances. The drug business wouldn't be nearly so lucrative if drugs weren't on the black market. The prices are greatly inflated due to their illegal status. You're not just buying the drugs, you're paying for the service of having the drugs illegally smuggled into the country, which comes out to a pretty penny. And let's not forget that drugs lords aren't exactly open to competition. Forget Bill Gates-style monopolies, you mess with the wrong people and you'll wind up dead real quick. Yeah, that's great for competition. Honestly, legally sold drugs would probably be much cheaper than "street" value.
- spyrochaete, on 11/27/2007, -2/+37Legalize it all.
If I can legally make myself drunk, fat, racist, religious, surgically altered, obnoxious, and smelly, why can't I get high? What's the line? Why can I do things that are harmful to others but not to myself? - RedHerringHack, on 11/27/2007, -3/+37Prohibition doesn't work. Anyone who says otherwise needs to study history.
- PistolSO, on 11/27/2007, -3/+36THC has been shown to SHRINK tumors...try again.
- PistolSO, on 11/27/2007, -5/+37Neither are "consensual crimes"...and you obviously didn't study history or economics. The War On Drugs cannot be won, and if the government legalized cannabis and decriminalized the hard drugs, violence will go down.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -3/+34You're missing the point ufia. The consumption of drugs is a victimless crime. It's something people choose to do to themselves. I take nothing away from anybody by smoking a joint.
Other crimes like identity theft and bank robberies take things away from other people and in the case of bank robberies, violence is involved.
And in any case, you have no right to decide what I do in life if it doesn't affect you. My smoking weed has absolutely no impact on your life. You therefore have absolutely no right to even have an opinion about it.
The justice system is supposed to be about protecting our individual rights and freedoms by removing the people who infringe them from society. My smoking weed has absolutely nothing to do with that.
And the only reason drugs are associated to gang/criminal violence is because they are illegal. If they were legal, criminals would lose most of their money. So essentially, if you support the war on drugs, you support gang violence. - dets, on 11/27/2007, -3/+31I can't get over the arguments prohibitionist use.
Some claim that murders, robberies and crime in general will go up. Have you heard of that insane argument before?
Its like me saying "the only reason i don't do crack is because its illegal". - davdev, on 11/27/2007, -1/+28My friend is actually a Boston Cop and part of his training was being told that if a gang member ever shoots at him attempt to dodge to the left. This is because most people are right handed, including gang members. Gang members also like to look cool while shooting, so instead of point the gun straight at the target they twist their wrist so the trigger is now parrallel to the ground. The kick causes the gun to recoil to the shooters left, instead of up, throwing the bullet wide to cops right. So by dodging left you are moving away from the path of the bullet.
Now whether you can actually dodge a speeding bullet is one thing, but it is a part of the Police Academy training. I thought it was funny as hell when he told me about it. - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+26And this is why my homeboy Lefty is the #1 crack dealer in Houston. He never misses.
- malhombre, on 11/27/2007, -0/+25Seems so damn obvious, doesn't it? I'm 50, I quit using rec drugs years ago, but in the 70's I sure as hell figured pot (at least) would be legal by now if for no other reason than it is much safer than alcohol and the tax revenues could be enormous...but what do I know. There is a lot of money going to a lot of people under the present system, like the "dry" counties in the southern U.S. where the bootleggers pay big money to the local sheriff for "insurance".
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/27/2007, -2/+25Please point out the inaccurancies. Really, I'd like to hear them...
- wunderdog, on 11/27/2007, -7/+28Legalize it, privatize it, and tax it.
- pussieLicker, on 11/27/2007, -18/+38Yes, i think we can all agree that drugs kickass.
- Mockylock, on 11/27/2007, -4/+23If marijuana were legal, it would be less harmful than alcohol and will keep users indoors rather than being motivated to drive around or break laws. This would also free up resources to fight more harmful substances.
- AaronS2000, on 11/27/2007, -2/+21yes a margin of 50-100% would be a great profit for a legal operation, where as in the illegal drug trade the profit margins are much higher.
People still buy beer and cigarettes from those Capone types so they can't bypass all of those pesky taxes and prices. Wait, no they don't. - cookdsc, on 11/27/2007, -1/+20If I were to buy drugs I think i would prefer a store that has to follow rules and regulations instead of buying from some guy on the street. If there was a person on the corner selling Tylenol for half the price of Walgreens, I'm still going to Walgreens.
- PistolSO, on 11/27/2007, -1/+19Meth is a byproduct of the War on Drugs. I'm not sure if Meth should be legalized or not, but I know jailing addicts is a bad idea.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+18Well, no, obviously, but it is primarily an economic problem. Money is what drives the whole thing. Therefore, it stands to reason that the best solution would be an economic one.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -5/+22they don't really kick ass but they are not as bad as politicians make them out to be and they definitely are not as bad as the legal ones. I would rather smoke weed over any of those legal drugs thats shrink prescribe.
- flygirl62, on 11/27/2007, -0/+17It's amazingly obvious. I didn't live through prohibition, but every time I read an article about drug-related crime --- especially innocent people being shot in a drug "turf war" between gangs --- I think "this sounds *just* like everything I have read about alcohol prohibition!" The particular that comes to mind is Chicago in the '20s.
How can people NOT see that you can't stop a consumption activity by decree without *severely* damaging the rights of innocent citizens (both by the removal of their rights AND by the damage to their lives due to the side effects of "the war" itself)?
Yes, if drugs were legalized, more people might die as users. But, looking at cigarettes as an example, it'd be unlikely for us to have "hey, the first one's free kid" type marketing and the people who DIDN'T choose to do drugs would probably be *safer* and more free. - RedHerringHack, on 11/27/2007, -1/+18Slashbot, you know nothing. You contribute nothing. How about staying in the masterbation threads where you have some authority.
- reuscel, on 11/27/2007, -6/+23The end of marijuana prohibition is inevitable. An unjust and unenforceable law can't possibly last forever.
- dezmo, on 11/27/2007, -3/+19um, it definitely declined
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -2/+18Mine too.... Oh wait that was wild dogs. They should outlaw those too.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+16Hey, look at that, you people can speak, after all. I'm impressed.
Sorry to be so condescending, but I'm just getting really frustrated with the fact that your side doesn't even really seem to be trying. Anyway, that is a good point. However, what about drug users? Forget the dealers for a second, and consider that an entire segment of the population is being arbitrarily branded as criminals. Everyone makes mistakes. It's part of being human. We don't need to be sending people to prison for something as idiotic as possession. Think about it - besides the huge expense of housing these people, being in prison hardens them, makes them more likely to commit another crime once they're back on the outside. Not to mention the fact that with a felony record, it's going to be a lot harder to get a job, which once again, leads them back to crime.
I mean, we say we outlaw drugs because we're concerned about them ruining their lives? Well, if we're so concerned, why then do we throw them in prison and pretty much guarantee that they've got almost zero chance of ever getting their lives back together? - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -5/+21Shut up! It's illegal, so therefore, it must be bad! I'm too stupid to think for myself, I have to have the government tell me what's right and wrong.
Oh, geez, I'm terribly sorry. Must've been channeling ufia there. - spyrochaete, on 11/27/2007, -1/+15This isn't the pro-drug lobby, it's the anti-gang crime lobby. Please elaborate on your defence of gang crime. I'm not sure I understand your point.
- fixedcoma, on 11/27/2007, -1/+15Marijuana is better than seeing people smoke cow ***** and whatever it is they try to do to catch a buzz! Oh, no! these people want to relax we better throw them in prison! Jeesh, how lame!
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -4/+18They will "find new drugs"? Regardless of the idiocy of this statement, it is also irrelevant because until said new drugs are made illegal, it isn't an issue.
- jcastillo81, on 11/27/2007, -1/+15Google: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. (thats prohibition of drugs not Alcohol)
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -4/+17Why are drug prohibitionists such morons? I really hate to say things like that, but normally I believe that there are two sides to every issue. In this case, though, I have yet to see one coherent argument against drug legalization. It boggles my mind. What is with you people? Normally in these situations, I'd just take over and make your case for you, because I feel bad that both sides aren't being equally represented here, but well, I've got to be honest, I'm kinda struggling to come up with a sane argument here. Maybe that's the problem, that there is no sane argument to be made in favor of drug prohibition?
Anyway, just sayin'... I was kinda hoping for a lively and spirited debate on the subject, but alas, no. It's not even close to a competition... You've got one side making rational, well-thought-out arguments, and then the other sides can barely form complete sentences. Ugh... - hydrodev, on 11/27/2007, -3/+15idiot
- RedHerringHack, on 11/27/2007, -2/+14The reason that new drugs are synthesized is because the law keeps cracking down on the old ones. The old drugs are better than the new ones, and better for you. The STIGMA of drug use does more damage than the drugs themselves.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -4/+16Finally, someone who gets it. I've got enough to deal with worrying about all that other ***** without having to worry about street gangs whose primary source of income is drug money. Legal drugs means no income, and thus, no drug gangs.
- Homecooker, on 11/27/2007, -7/+19Boredom is a disease worse than cancer. Drugs cure it, with little or no side effects, if used as directed.
-- Doug Stanhope - thefandango, on 11/27/2007, -1/+13or just buying cheetos
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12You're not harming others when you take drugs, you're harming yourself. I mean, if we ban drugs for being harmful, why not ban McDonald's?
- pkonink, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11You may already know that if you ever get busted for anything drug-related you are completely barred from getting university financial aid? I've never understood why we would want to prevent someone from getting their life together and becoming a better person.
- cybermort, on 11/27/2007, -2/+13yeah, because thats exactly what happened when prohibition ended. I know i still get my moonshine from the local mafia.
- amoro99, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11Drugs don't damage peoples lives. People can damage their own lives by taking them. I've never seen a syringe leap off a table and inject itself into someone. Baseball bats are legal. They can kill. Automobile wrecks kill thousands per year. I could hang myself with a rope. Does rope destroy people's lives?
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12@spyrochaete
He becomes envious of the joy and fun emanating from his neighbor's house. - inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11Wouldn't these towns enjoy a rehabilitation program for Meth addicts that is entirely paid by meth addicts through taxes instead of paying 50k a year for the useless incarceration of every single meth addict on top of having to pay the police to waste their time on people who take meth, on top of having to pay for government sponsored rehabilitation programs?
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11No, you have, you're just too narrow-minded. I don't mean coherent as in "Oh, I agree with that statement," I mean coherent as in actually explaining your stance. Whether or not you agree with them, you must agree that the pro-drug people here have at least explained why they believe the way the do, and have put forth arguments to back up their beliefs. The pro-drug side may be completely wrong, but they've made an effort. So far, I have seen maybe one anti-drug comment that actually made a point. I disagreed with the point, but that's not the point. It was something worth saying, even though I disagreed with it.
Are you really that thick-headed, that you have to distort reality to support your views? I try to be open-minded, but people like you make it so difficult. So often it's just like "Even if I completely agreed with you, that was just an idiotic statement." - cmdrNacho, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11you forgot the police forces, and government agencies, that continue to receive huge amounts of funding to continue this perpetual war, that no one can win...
and also the pharmaceutical companies... why sell cheaply pain reliving drugs, that you can grow in the back yard, when you can charge a fortune for and claim its for R&D. - spyrochaete, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11@FiosFiend
Please elaborate. Let's say the man who lives next door to you smokes a joint every evening at 7:00pm. How does this hurt or affect you in any way? - hydrodev, on 11/27/2007, -2/+12you cant control people, you can only hope to educate them enough that they make more informed and better desisions. If you think the answer to fixing a persons lack self control, is to impose more laws, you haven't thought your statement through.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 497 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is