Legalizing drugs.

[Quarterquack]

Apart from the occasional Belgian beer and French wine, I have no vested interest in any narcotic drug.

It has become apparent to me that residents of this forum are at the very least knowledgeable on the subject, so now I'd like to find out what the argumentative hype is. To the extents of my knowledge and professional social circles, I know of no one who supports this movement, with direct relation to the substances at hand themselves, with an annual salary higher than 5 grand a year (I'm just rounding up) (Unit of measurement: Mexican Pesos).

So why should I care? And if you're going to come at me from the prisons angle, bring statistics along. Also be ready to answer the question of what happens to all the inmates should it become legalized. What's going to happen to the "gateway drug" argument, and all the backing information that goes with it, then?

To me it seems like this argument started with a few friends around a table getting high;
Friend 1: You know what?! I found it! The prison system!
Friend 2: YEAH!
Friend 3: Legalize prisons!
But then they uncharacteristically remembered the idea after tripping.

[manker]

One benefit of legalisation that oft gets neglected in threads such as these is that Darwinism will rid us of a lot of fucking idiots.

I would suggest a period of around 6 months where the mark-up form production costs of heroin is 15% - to thin the herd, as it were.
After which time, the government is free to tax the fuck out of it and make it so that only the criminally idiotic or infeasibly rich want to buy it. A bit like now.

See, heroin is doing society a service. it's making the idiots congregate in undesirable areas, such as Glasgow, and it's either making them commit crimes in the most obvious way possible so they get caught - or they die. Whatever, they're out of the way of non-idiots.
Sure, there's collateral damage. Some non-idiots die too when caught up in robberies or fall on an aids infected needle in the playground. But we'd be remiss if we didn't consider the bigger picture.

Heroin; helping make Britain good

[mjmacky]

If you want to ask someone else to make you care, that's a bit of a leading trap. Rather, if you would like to point out all the reasons why you think we should incarcerate drug users, I'll gladly pick apart your argument (on all the conditions set within it). On the other hand, if you would like to recognize it for the farce that it is, then I will nod and say, "yes, water is very wet".

[Quarterquack]

If you want to ask someone else to make you care, that's a bit of a leading trap. Rather, if you would like to point out all the reasons why you think we should incarcerate drug users, I'll gladly pick apart your argument (on all the conditions set within it). On the other hand, if you would like to recognize it for the farce that it is, then I will nod and say, "yes, water is very wet".

You're far more sinister than people usually give you credit for.

You said that you arrived at your support of the movement based on logical merit alone. As such, I'd love to rationalize it if you point me in the right direction. However, accepting arguments like "It would help out prison systems" and "Regulation tax money will help the government" etc., especially at face value, are weak at best. Drug confiscations at borders are a trillion dollar industry. Regulating the same drugs would cost the government(s) a lot more in "under the table" money, and regulation body setups than it would letting them run amok. Cocaine alone, on the Canadian border alone, that was confiscated in busts alone in 2010 alone netted the Canadian government $80b. I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

As for pointing out all the reasons to incarcerate drug users: That's a cheating shot. I in no way support or care about the current laws. My indifference to narcotic drug laws is on par with my indifference to 18 wheeler truck weight limit laws.

My interest remains the same. There's no leading trap. I've been known to on occasion start these threads because while I can't muster up enough care, someone might open my eyes to an opinion or exception that I could stand behind. Off the top of my head, I've started an "I am trying to like Ebert" thread a while ago on here. It wasn't successful, but I honestly wanted to give him a shot because I wanted to like him. Similarly with this. If there's a logical stand point that I'm missing, as opposed to apologetic reasoning to argue a point circularly, then I'll be happy to vote for it.

I guess what I'm looking for is the opposite of what's happening; instead of "Legalize drugs because", I want to hear more of "We had a massive problem balancing [blank] until we calculated the advantage of legalizing drugs and look at what we found!" [EDIT:] I'll even settle for a pharmaceuticals advantage point if one exists, considering a lot of these drugs are readily synthesizable and aren't under any form of protection. But I'll want to see some numbers or some reliable source backing it up.

[manker]

I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

[Quarterquack]

I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

What we lack in paper supply, we make up for by word of mouth in our village.
I hope that this one sentence sufficiently addressed all the issues you raised.

Don't be so cynical. I just added a disclaimer to hint that I didn't randomly pull a number out of my ass.

[manker]

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

What we lack in paper supply, we make up for by word of mouth in our village.
I hope that this one sentence sufficiently addressed all the issues you raised.

Don't be so cynical. I just added a disclaimer to hint that I didn't randomly pull a number out of my ass.

Oh did you. I had to give up reading when I read about your governmental drug accountant mate.

I mean I know it's the lounge but, ffs, put some effort in.
3/10

[Quarterquack]

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.

I, on the other hand, gave up when you showed your true presumptuous sexist side. I've learnt to accept humens of all species and intelligences.

I don't call you out on it, though. Cawk. 2/10 for trying.

Never mind, I used the word "himself". Backfired. :-/

[mjmacky]

You said that you arrived at your support of the movement based on logical merit alone. As such, I'd love to rationalize it if you point me in the right direction. However, accepting arguments like "It would help out prison systems" and "Regulation tax money will help the government" etc., especially at face value, are weak at best. Drug confiscations at borders are a trillion dollar industry. Regulating the same drugs would cost the government(s) a lot more in "under the table" money, and regulation body setups than it would letting them run amok. Cocaine alone, on the Canadian border alone, that was confiscated in busts alone in 2010 alone netted the Canadian government $80b. I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

As for pointing out all the reasons to incarcerate drug users: That's a cheating shot. I in no way support or care about the current laws. My indifference to narcotic drug laws is on par with my indifference to 18 wheeler truck weight limit laws.

My interest remains the same. There's no leading trap. I've been known to on occasion start these threads because while I can't muster up enough care, someone might open my eyes to an opinion or exception that I could stand behind. Off the top of my head, I've started an "I am trying to like Ebert" thread a while ago on here. It wasn't successful, but I honestly wanted to give him a shot because I wanted to like him. Similarly with this. If there's a logical stand point that I'm missing, as opposed to apologetic reasoning to argue a point circularly, then I'll be happy to vote for it.

I guess what I'm looking for is the opposite of what's happening; instead of "Legalize drugs because", I want to hear more of "We had a massive problem balancing [blank] until we calculated the advantage of legalizing drugs and look at what we found!" [EDIT:] I'll even settle for a pharmaceuticals advantage point if one exists, considering a lot of these drugs are readily synthesizable and aren't under any form of protection. But I'll want to see some numbers or some reliable source backing it up.

That might take more time than I'm really willing to put forth. If the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana (the easiest one) was on a ballot in front of you, which way would you vote right now?

I may touch upon some of the logical merits in a new paragraph, but first and foremost incarcerating people for recreational drug use (as its own end consequence) is just wrong and/or archaic futuredystopian. I could understand laws in place that make it illegal for sales practices that circumvent taxation, quality control, product safety, but not the inconsequential consumption of it. One can only continuously draw parallels with alcohol and tobacco here. I also don't want to see prisons benefit, I want to see them hurt.

Private prisons spawned as both a solution and opportunity during the first sorties of the drug war. Now it's a for profit business with accomplished lobbying force in local to federal governments. Their business requires incarcerated people, and their income is completely financed by the public dime. Organized opposition to the legalization of drugs comes from where? Take a guess.

[manker]

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.

I, on the other hand, gave up when you showed your true presumptuous sexist side. I've learnt to accept humens of all species and intelligences.

I don't call you out on it, though. Cawk. 2/10 for trying.

Never mind, I used the word "himself". Backfired. :-/

At least you tried

In all fairness, I am completely aware that I have professional contemporaries of the female persuasion. They're often not as proficient as their male counterparts, what with being preoccupied with babies and periods, but they exist and frequently make a decent fist of it.

Going back to #2. As a decent spud, I feel duty-bound to elucidate because if your mate 'ran the balance sheets for the government', then his depiction as you describe means he is either making fun of you because he thinks you're thick or that he, in fact, he doesn't 'run the balance sheets' at all - in this scenario I imagine that subsequent to leaving the house of a morning, he stops the car and changes out of his suit and into garments of a janitorial nature more appropriate for cleaning the governmental bogs.