Before I continue, I think it's important to mention that...
I DO NOT DO ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS. I do not think people should do drugs.I have never even so much as smoked a cigarette.
But this debate isn't about what I want to do or what I think is good for people. It's about the philosophical belief that you, as a human being, own yourself and as long as you are not harming someone else or their property, that you should be allowed to live peacefully without the intrusion of force on you or your family.
Four years ago, I got married four months after both my wife and I lost our jobs. We were both able to scrape by - she eventually returned to an old employer, and I temped for eight months before taking on a low paying retail position, but at the time, every last dollar was important and precious to us. Paying the rent would typically leave us with a balance in the double digits on which to survive until payday came around. Health insurance was right out of the question. Our employers offered it, but it simply wasn't in our budget.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if you were living on your own, then you could've afforded health care if you changed your priorities. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the excuse of, "we couldn't afford it" falls on deaf ears to me unless you are a handicapped person who is incapable of getting any job.
I could very easily say that if this was passed four years ago then yes, it would have placed an undue burden on my life.
Exactly, it takes people who are already in tough financial situations and makes their situation worse. The individual mandate
does not help anyone. I want to point that out very clearly.
I have a friend at work who hasn't been able to get health insurance for over 15 years because of a pre-existing health condition. He has been paying for chemotherapy out of his pocket for over 10 years. I personally don't know anyone who
doesn't want health insurance, and I'm glad that those who don't currently have it will have more access to it.
So what you're saying is that your friend didn't have health insurance before he got cancer.
If he did and he was dropped, then that seriously sucks. I believe that there is a case to be made that health insurance companies should not be able to
drop anyone who gets sick while on the health insurance. This should be written into the contracts.
But this is part of what becomes a major problem when people rely on the government to regulate industries. People become complacent. The only way to prevent that is to put the legal action in the hands of the individual. Let them and the health insurance company write up their own contract. Let the individual hire a lawyer (which would also be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper if there was less government regulation, mind you) and write up their own contract which states what the insurance company's obligations are.
What happens though Nick whenever a drug deal goes bad that leads to violence. What happens if you do take a drug such as PCP which makes a nice, calm, quiet every day citizen turn into a madman?
How is what someone does on PCP any different than what happens when someone is drunk?
People don't "do alcohol deals." They
buy alcohol at a store. It's like buying groceries, filling up your car with gas or paying your internet bill. It's a good/service exchanged for currency.
See, the problem with your argument is that you're completely disregarding the reality of what happens when something is illegal versus legal.
Making something ILLEGAL doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. But what it does mean is that, when it does happen, it's going to be done under unfortunate circumstances where both parties are in danger.
What's stopping someone from robbing a drug dealer right now, or the drug dealer robbing the purchaser? Nothing. Because drugs are illegal, the person being robbed really cannot report the robbery... But what happens when someone robs a liquor store or if, by some crazy situation, a liquor store employee robs a customer? Well, presuming that they do a good job of explaining who the person was, the person committing the violent act goes to jail.
Do you see the difference?
Legalizing drugs takes the VAST majority of the violence out of the game. And after all, isn't that what we all really want to stop anyway?
Legalizing drugs is not the answer. You say that it's our right as Americans to be able to do that, but if crime rates soared you would be saying "It doesn't link to drugs!"
I would bet every last dollar that I have that legalizing drugs would lead to not only LESS crime, but SIGNIFICANTLY less crime. I'm talking, you cut the crime game in half or more.
The majority of drug crimes right now are simple possession or sales anyway, so you'd remove that entirely. Then, as I explained above, you'd significantly cut down on violent crimes associated with drugs.
And to the guy who said I was wrong, I am TELLING you I have seen my cousin lie, cheat, steal, abuse (mainly to his girlfriends) just to get the next hit, and he just started with beer and pot. I've seen close friends who have told me that beer doesn't even phase them anymore. What do they do? They hit the hard liquor. I've also seen friends who started weed and have eventually turned to things like crack and meth.
That's unfortunate, but you're going to have people who do that anyway. As statistics have shown, though, the usage of drugs actually drops when they become legal.
Not only that, but you see a hell of a lot less people killing one another over legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think about that.
Comparing junk food to dangerous drugs like meth is, quite frankly, intellectually- disabled. If I order a pizza, I'm taking a chance at my
own health. If my neighbor decides to cook meth, he's taking a chance of blowing up his apartment, my apartment, and the surrounding apartments around him.
So you're saying that COOKING METH in an uncontrolled environment is the problem, then. Not smoking meth.
Let me ask you this... In the HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION that you were being FORCED to smoke meth... Would you rather that it came from your neighbor's apartment? Or would you rather it came from a private business whose sole operation is to create meth in a safe environment, who puts their product through rigorous testing before it gets to the end-user AND sells the product in a store?
If your answer is the latter, then you've just help make my case for legalizing drugs. Thank you.
If drugs were legalized, your neighbor's apartment meth-making operation would go out of business immediately. It'd be out of business for the same reason that there aren't apartment alcohol-selling operations or apartment hamburger shops... Because people would much rather purchase something from a reputable source.
Thank you again for making my case that making drugs illegal leads to unfortunate outcomes. If drugs were legal, then these things wouldn't exist.
And these are just a few since
May of this year. Every single article said how they had to send a clean up crew in quick enough to clean the area to make sure that it didn't affect other areas of the community. The first article and video said he had 9 meth labs and 16 HCl containers. Hydrochloric acid is extremely dangerous because if you inhale the fumes, a person can get pulmonary edema and die. A family member of my girlfriend just died because of pulmonary edema.
So what you're saying is that it'd be a lot better (because we agree that we're never going to STOP ALL drug usage, right?) if those things were being created in a lab, where there are significant safety precautions going into effect, that we'd all be a lot safer? I agree with you.
So, no, in a sense, I am not wrong. Weed may not necessarily lead to the use of other illicit drugs, but Nick there has to be a line. If you legalize weed, fine. It's legalize. What happens when people want meth legalized. That's okay? Because of our individual freedom?
Abso-
ing-lutely, it should be legal.
The government has proven that it cannot stop drug creation, drug usage or drug violence while making them illegal. The war on (SOME) drugs is a complete, abysmal failure.
The government attempted to do this very same thing decades ago during alcohol prohibition. It was highly unsuccessful and lead to massive increases in violence surrounding alcohol. In fact, this is where practically all of the large historical gangs in U.S. history began. They were the ones providing alcohol, and they were backed by force because their product was unable to be purchased anywhere else. They had cornered the market. This is never good for the consumer and is yet another reason why the free market is the best way to go.
People want to also say weed should be used for medical purposes. Fine. But why does a 16 or 17 year old proceed to smoke it on his couch with his friends if he is not sick? Makes no sense to me.
They don't need to.
But they're going to anyway, right? Might as well reduce the likelyhood of violence.
A. Marijuana doesn't have the harmful side effects that the other illicit drugs being named are. And so what, if someone is smoking meth in their house and
not bothering anyone but themselves, how is it any different from drinking at home or going to a bar? And wait-! we have laws that prohibit public intoxication, disorderly conduct, etc. It would be exactly the same for drugs. Are you saying alcohol should be illegal too?
The "Should alcohol be illegal, too?" argument is one that always gets anti-drug people in a hissy. I love it because it's so clearly backed by fact after fact after fact that completely discredits the idea that it should be illegal, WHILE pointing out how it's WORSE FOR YOU than the vast majority of "street drugs."
And, all in all, it's about individual freedom. Whose to say the choices we make are wrong, and whose to force us, as individuals, to make certain decisions? That's why this whole Obamacare thing is bullbird, because the US government is imposing a penalty for not doing what they want you to do.
Very well said. Obamacare sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that its supporters either don't understand or have decided to agree with. It basically says that the government can force you to buy anything that it wants you to buy, for any reason it sees fit.
While Kliq and others are right that there should be no problems if the addicts just sit at home, the problem is way more complicated and complex than that. Some guy sitting at home mainlining crack cocaine harms no one but himself. The problem is that that's not what happens. The guy mainlining cocaine is likely to have a hard time holding down a job. Someone will have to support him. Even if we assume that he can support himself, his habit has a huge negative affect on his health. Thus, any career he has is likely to be shortened and it's very likely that at some point in his life, he's going to become a burden. It'd be nice if society would then kick him to the curb and let him starve in the streets as the end consequence of his decision, but we won't . Some one is going to feel the obligation to take care of him and someone is going to be forced to pay for it thus the system is taxed even more.
I agree with you.
The problem with your argument, however, is that those people exist one way or another. Also, as statistics have shown, the number of people using actually has dropped once the drugs became legal.
Last, with all the money we're saving by not using violence (the police) to stop people from acting peacefully (using drugs in the comfort of their own homes), and NOT locking them up for years on end... Perhaps we can instead spend some of that money on creating state-of-the-art drug treatment facilities? Or if you're like me and believe that government-run facilities would probably be dog-crap, then you'd likely prefer to see that money spent on drug education programs... Or best yet, perhaps it could go back in the pockets of the taxpayers and, you know, REALLY "stimulate" the economy.
Then you've got a bunch of people who are hooked on a hard drug and can't get employment or public handouts. What happens to them? The general public is probably not going to be a fan of then starving in the street.
If you legalize drugs, then having drug tests to receive welfare probably wouldn't be very logical. I mean, to my knowledge, they don't test for alcohol consumption before people receive their welfare checks and I would venture a guess that WAY more people use alcohol than any street drug... So what would really be different than the current system, other than that we wouldn't be spending money like complete idiots, such as in Florida where drug testing has cost the state more money than it would to just give the people the damn money?
Before continuing, let me make it clear: I'm not in support of legalizing any drugs other than marijuana.
Don't be a ****.
LoL
Jump on in, the water's fine.
1. I NEVER said everybody falls into the category of if you smoke pot you go into other illicit drugs. I said with my experience being around people who started with pot, they eventually hit harder drugs. Studies can only touch base with so many people.
How many people who do "hard" drugs, do you think started with tobacco and/or alcohol? Your argument is null on this one unless you are willing to concede to alcohol and cigarettes both being illegal as well.
Even then, your argument is poor given that the vast majority of people who have tried marijuana never graduated to crack, meth, etc.
2. Okay, so in one hand you want the government out of people's lives, and now you're saying you want the government to regulate over meth. Are you out of your
ing mind? If not handled correctly, the crap will blow up. If you have a 22 year old and a 28 year old drug addict who makes a mistake in their meth lab, it's going to
ing explode. My God. . .
"MY GOD!" I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE LINE OUT THE DOOR OF THE 22-YEAR-OLD DRUG ADDICTS' APARTMENT, WAITING TO BUY SMACK; RATHER THAN GO DOWN TO THE CORNER STORE WHERE THEY CAN BUY IT FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE!
Oh, the HUMANITY OF IT ALL!!!
3. I don't give a flying
if you want to smoke pot in your house. If they make it legal, I could care less. Saying I'm "straight edge" is absolutely hilarious because that's not the case. I just don't get how people want to argue we should make it legal for medicinal purposes, and then they argue that they should just make it legal period. Make up your freakin' mind.
So why is it different for someone to sit in their home and smoke marijuana, versus sit in their home and smoke crack?
Explain to me what the difference is.
If you support marijuana being legal, great. It won't make a difference to me once so ever because it'll be taxed to crap anyway. But to sit here and actually say you'd be okay with meth and crack and all of the other hard drugs being legal if it were regulated by the government is insane.
Well, step one would be that it'd have to be regulated by the government because people are fearful little bitches. But the real, dramatic step toward liberty would be allowing it to be regulated by the free market.
... But that's another story for another day.
Okay, then answer me this: why would the government support something as dangerous as meth? Hmmm? You could make a valid point with something like pot, but heroin or meth there's nothing you can say.
Facilities are around to get people off of the harder drugs, so why would government want to turn it into an industry? Do you realize how much outrage there would be?
**NEWS FLASH**
Drug facilities already exist for legal drugs.
The majority of people in drug rehabilitation are there for, get this -
alcohol.
It's a roundabout conversations. No one is saying legalize and industrialize methadone.
Well, I am saying that.
The conversation at hand, to me at least, isn't whether all US citizens should have access to healthcare, or whether the health care system is in need of reform - it's about the length of the arm we give to the government. By passing a mandate that allows them to punish one for opting out of health insurance for
any reason opens a Pandora's Box of Constitutional incongruities that can now be passed under the guise of a "tax".
Exactly. The government has GREATLY overstepped its boundaries by saying, "all people are required to purchase this product/service or pay a fine to us." That is incredibly dangerous.
Its something that kinda has pros and cons. The pros is it would get some of the scum sucking leaches to stop living off of the Gov't. However it hurts some others, like myself who have preexisting medical problems (and no insurance) and now Im going to have to buy insurance with freaking out of this world payments/co pays....In the long term, its actually just cheaper for me to just buy my meds when I need them.
Absolutely. This is a problem that most people don't realize exists.