Versus 'War on Drugs' Debate

[Padawanbater2]

This looks pretty interesting, a real debate between a panel of all walks of life;

[youtube]YGdMMPmmZcM[/youtube]

The 2 hour debate;

[youtube]gSrN2zIRwN8&[/youtube]

 

[Padawanbater2]

At around the 32 minute mark, former gov. Elliot Spitzer makes the claim that "we do not incarcerate people for simple drug use". I just about lost my shit, that is a blatant lie. I saw Russel Brand crack a smile too, I hope that gets called on because that's one of the most incorrect claims I've ever fucking heard in my life.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Son of a bitch Spitzer is an idiot!

He's trying to make a false correlation between available drugs (legalization or decriminalization) and growing addiction rates, he then goes on to suggest if addiction rates rise, wouldn't that mean that addiction rates in kids would rise, as kids are more susceptible to using drugs.

Spitzer, how many alcoholic kids do you know? How many kids under the age of 18 do you know who habitually smoke cigarettes?

If heroin became legal tomorrow, why would I go buy it? How does legalizing a substance increase consumption? It seems keeping substances illegal and unregulated is what leads people to seek them out, specifically kids.

 

[Padawanbater2]

At 48 minutes in, Spitzers ridiculous claim "we do not incarcerate people for drug use" gets challenged, fuck yes! I knew they wouldn't let that shit squeak by!

 

[Padawanbater2]

And Spitzer comes back with "you're wrong", claiming his former status as DA gives him greater knowledge on the statistics.

The number was 1.6 million people were arrested last year on non violent drug related charges.

Do you think Spitzer is wrong? Do people get arrested for nonviolent drug offenses or not?

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/sep/20/drug_arrest_every_19_seconds_say

(2011 - prisons & drug offenders - inmates in federal prison for drug offenses)

"Of the inmates residing in federal prisons as of September 2011, and for whom offense data are known, more than half (101,929 or 50.4%) were serving sentences for federal drug offenses—including simple possession. And of the 24,366 federal drug offenders known to have been sentenced for drug related offenses, 6,336 were sentenced for marijuana-related offenses and 4,309 were sentenced for methamphetamine-related offenses in 2010.""

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#Federal-Data

 

[Padawanbater2]

What. The. Fuck...

Where do they get these fucking people..

Now a former General in the US military is claiming the crime rate has gone down "enormously" in the US.

Blatant lie. Demonstrably false.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Oh fuck me!

"90% of people don't take drugs because they're illegal"

!!!

 

[NoDrama]

At around the 32 minute mark, former gov. Elliot Spitzer makes the claim that "we do not incarcerate people for simple drug use". I just about lost my shit, that is a blatant lie. I saw Russel Brand crack a smile too, I hope that gets called on because that's one of the most incorrect claims I've ever fucking heard in my life.

It's not illegal to use drugs dude. Check the laws, they only make possession, operating under the influence of, manufacturing,or facilitating in their trade illegal. Ever got popped on a piss test? Did a cop come and arrest you?

 

[NoDrama]

Oh fuck me!

"90% of people don't take drugs because they're illegal"

!!!

I think he meant that of 90% of the people that do not use ILLICIT drugs don't do so simply because its against the law. 10% of the people who don't use illicit drugs don't use them for other reasons ( Health?).

 

[Padawanbater2]

An argument was presented by Spitzer about if all drugs are legalized (or decriminalized), wouldn't the big pharma corporations get involved in advertising and enticing people to use drugs?

Well, if we legalized (or decriminalized) drugs, why couldn't we write up a law similar to the ones we have with tobacco that prohibit such things?

Another failed argument by Spitzer.


An hour in and I'm noticing a trend, nobody is agreeing with the opposing sides statistics. Each side (mainly the 'pro war on drugs' side so far) says the other side is grossly misinformed about them. They're claiming Portugal is worse off since 2001, the opposition is claiming otherwise.

How can there be a legitimate debate when not even the goddamn statistics used to prove the points can be agreed upon?

 

[NoDrama]

What. The. Fuck...

Where do they get these fucking people..

Now a former General in the US military is claiming the crime rate has gone down "enormously" in the US.

Blatant lie. Demonstrably false.

It has gone down.

 

[budsmoker87]

It's not illegal to use drugs dude. Check the laws, they only make possession, operating under the influence of, manufacturing,or facilitating in their trade illegal. Ever got popped on a piss test? Did a cop come and arrest you?

bullshit. i was arrested on a possession AND ingestion charge. the ingestion maximums are far more severe than the possession

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's not illegal to use drugs dude. Check the laws, they only make possession, operating under the influence of, manufacturing,or facilitating in their trade illegal. Ever got popped on a piss test? Did a cop come and arrest you?

That's semantics. It's exactly the tactic I'd expect Spitzer to use. You and I both know that while it may not be illegal to have drugs in your system (because there is no way to prove you purposefully put them in your body, when, or how much), it is illegal to posses, transport or manufacture them, which is all that is needed to arrest people, as the statistics show.

IOW, it doesn't matter if "using" drugs is illegal because everything else tied to them is, and anyone who uses them is likely in violation of the written law.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think he meant that of 90% of the people that do not use ILLICIT drugs don't do so simply because its against the law. 10% of the people who don't use illicit drugs don't use them for other reasons ( Health?).

In the context of the question he was asked, he meant it exactly as stated. 90% of people worldwide do not use drugs only because they are illegal. Implying that if they were legal, 90% of people would use drugs, which is absurd.

 

[NoDrama]

bullshit. i was arrested on a possession AND ingestion charge. the ingestion maximums are far more severe than the possession

Yeah you got me there

 

[NoDrama]

In the context of the question he was asked, he meant it exactly as stated. 90% of people worldwide do not use drugs only because they are illegal. Implying that if they were legal, 90% of people would use drugs, which is absurd.

yeah, that is quite the embellishment.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It has gone down.

I was wrong about that, but this is pretty interesting...

1. One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[SUP][8][/SUP]
2. Another hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.

 

[cannabineer]

An argument was presented by Spitzer about if all drugs are legalized (or decriminalized), wouldn't the big pharma corporations get involved in advertising and enticing people to use drugs?

Well, if we legalized (or decriminalized) drugs, why couldn't we write up a law similar to the ones we have with tobacco that prohibit such things?

Another failed argument by Spitzer.


An hour in and I'm noticing a trend, nobody is agreeing with the opposing sides statistics. Each side (mainly the 'pro war on drugs' side so far) says the other side is grossly misinformed about them. They're claiming Portugal is worse off since 2001, the opposition is claiming otherwise.

How can there be a legitimate debate when not even the goddamn statistics used to prove the points can be agreed upon?

You're watching a polemic, a propaganda piece dressed as legitimate debate. You're spotting the scam. Remember Clemens' famous observation about statistics ... it applies here. cn

 

[Padawanbater2]

Another claim, if drugs were legalized, they'd end up like tobacco and alcohol (which kill between 5-7 million people annually worldwide) only worse given the potential of addiction with unimaginable consequences.

Agree or disagree? Why?

 

[cannabineer]

Another claim, if drugs were legalized, they'd end up like tobacco and alcohol (which kill between 5-7 million people annually worldwide) only worse given the potential of addiction with unimaginable consequences.

Agree or disagree? Why?

I disagree on two grounds.
1) A false dichotomy. Alcohol and tobacco are already profoundly addictive (although, for most people, becoming addicted to alcohol takes considerable effort).

2) The "classic" addictive drugs, the narcotic analgesics, are remarkably nondestructive of the organism, especially if not administered IV. I would see much worse chronic problems from the stimulants like meth. But 5 to 7 million dead per annum? Shyaah right. cn