Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2008 18:46:21 GMT -4
You stop illegal immigration the same way you stop illegal drug use.
Make it legal.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Mar 18, 2008 19:40:44 GMT -4
Yeah and if your state wants to lower crime numbers like getting the murder numbers to 0 all they have to do is not making it a crime. I can't believe no one ever thought of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2008 21:23:14 GMT -4
Yeah and if your state wants to lower crime numbers like getting the murder numbers to 0 all they have to do is not making it a crime. I can't believe no one ever thought of this. Murder harms to other people, the others are victimless crimes. Good try though.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 18, 2008 22:12:25 GMT -4
Drugs can destroy families and kill innocent people. (I support drug legalization, btw, with stronger restrictions than alcohol)
Illegal immigrants use taxpayer dollars, putting more strain on the middle class. They take jobs from the poor (albeit jobs that they don't want but complain about losing).
Sure, people aren't dying but people are being victimized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2008 22:23:53 GMT -4
Drugs can destroy families and kill innocent people. (I support drug legalization, btw, with stronger restrictions than alcohol) Illegal immigrants use taxpayer dollars, putting more strain on the middle class. They take jobs from the poor (albeit jobs that they don't want but complain about losing). Sure, people aren't dying but people are being victimized. Drugs do destroy families, but they do whether or not they are illegal. There will always be irresponsible people, but the illegality of drugs puts danger on the responsible users and society as a whole. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs in the world, but we seem to be fine as a country. Illegal immigrants only use taxpayer dollars because they are illegal. If they were legal immigrants then they'd be paying into the system like everyone else. It's impossible to stop illegal immigration without spending MUCH more tax dollars than they are costing us without turning our country into a police state. Those examples of victimization are abstract and hard to prove - with valid arguments either way. The only things the government should be stepping in to prevent are concrete cases of victimization like murder, rape, theft, arson, etc.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 18, 2008 22:56:12 GMT -4
Drugs can destroy families and kill innocent people. (I support drug legalization, btw, with stronger restrictions than alcohol) Illegal immigrants use taxpayer dollars, putting more strain on the middle class. They take jobs from the poor (albeit jobs that they don't want but complain about losing). Sure, people aren't dying but people are being victimized. Drugs do destroy families, but they do whether or not they are illegal. There will always be irresponsible people, but the illegality of drugs puts danger on the responsible users and society as a whole. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs in the world, but we seem to be fine as a country. Illegal immigrants only use taxpayer dollars because they are illegal. If they were legal immigrants then they'd be paying into the system like everyone else. It's impossible to stop illegal immigration without spending MUCH more tax dollars than they are costing us without turning our country into a police state. Those examples of victimization are abstract and hard to prove - with valid arguments either way. The only things the government should be stepping in to prevent are concrete cases of victimization like murder, rape, theft, arson, etc. I don't think hard drugs like X, acid, shrooms should ever be legalized because they alter your sense of perception. Hallucinogens are too dangerous and those drugs can cause retardation after not that much use. Nor should cocaine or heroin be legalized because the physical dependence on them becomes way too strong. The ratio of alcoholics to drinkers and cocaine addicts to users is significantly lower. One use of both drugs already puts you on a path towards dependence. Some people are dependent after one use. I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is no less harmful (if not safer) than alcohol. I dunno, there are very few responsible people in the world. I wouldn't trust anyone (even the smartest people in the world) to not abuse drugs if they were legal. If they're illegal, they at least turn people off a bit. I doubt illegal immigrants would make enough money to be forced to pay any taxes. Quite simply, manual labor just doesn't rake in dough. Even if they worked double jobs at minimum wage, they would be under the poverty line (I believe). I don't think victimization is ever concrete. Victims can always be initial provokers or aggressors but that story is never fully told or understood. Nor do people really care for people's justifications. Most people only (want to) see the specific action, not the big picture. Honestly, if you want to cut down on illegal activities, just make penalties extremely strict. For example, if you gave the death penalty for drug dealing, would people not at least reconsider dealing drugs? Give life in prison for getting caught stealing. Strict penalties would make people reconsider but also WAAAAAAAAAAY overcrowd the prison system. Really nothing concerning crime is completely feasible. Any problem solved will lead to too many new problems.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Mar 18, 2008 23:01:02 GMT -4
Agree totally with stork about the immigrants. Doesn't make much sense to me, if they are legal or illegal, they are still living in the country, might as well just let them in since they do a lot of work and if they were legal make the economy better. Fuck im sure they wouldn't mind living in wyoming or North dakota,lol. Not like we have tons of people in those areas.
I think there should be set small rules in place. If you come to live in this country, learn how to speak english. If I moved to another country with different language, you might as well learn the language, communication is a key part to these descrimination towards other people. Why do we call them illegal aliens? There not fucking martians,lol. There people, just would bring people together more if everybody can understand everyone.
Even if there is no harm done hearing another language, everybody wonders what there saying, if there talking about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2008 23:31:26 GMT -4
I don't think hard drugs like X, acid, shrooms should ever be legalized because they alter your sense of perception. So then you must also think alcohol should be illegal. If you've done any research at all you'd know that X and shrooms are two of the more safer drugs, and alcohol one of the most dangerous. Here's a good place to start doing research www.erowid.orgThis is completely false. You're right, just a couple times doing one of these drugs can mean that the person feels like they MUST continue doing them. Unfortunately for society, the illegality of drugs pushes the price up 2000% or more. That makes these drugs VERY hard to pay for, so the person must resort to stealing from innocent people, spending all of their (and their families) savings, or start producing drugs to pay for it. Decriminalize those drugs and the same amount of people will be doing them, but they will have a much lesser effect on their financial status and won't push them into crime. Of course it would be better if they just didn't do drugs at all, but that's completely unrealistic. Your main argument here seems to be that more people would do drugs if they weren't illegal, but statistics from prohibition and the Netherlands suggest otherwise. Legal drugs and strong prevention/treatment programs (paid for by 1/10th of the money currently going towards the war on drugs) would lead to less people doing drugs - and those who do choose to do them would be safer. Would you do crack if it were legalized tomorrow? Didn't think so. Me neither. The same goes for most of the population. Just because you doubt someone will make a lot of money isn't reason to spend taxpayer dollars keeping them out. They will still be paying taxes into the system as a whole. If you're worried about too many people taking advantage of the system then the problem is the system, not the amount of people who are taking advantage of it. Victimization is extremely concrete in 99% of cases murder, rape, theft, etc Statistics have proven that no matter what the punishment, people will still partake in victimless crimes. I'm not certain, but I think there was the death penalty for drug dealing in one of the Asian countries but it didn't slow drug use. If anything it just means the risk is greater therefore the price is greater, therefore it's a larger burden on society (see quote #3 for further explaination) I see you partially see the concept of unintended consequences, but these consequences only come about while attempting to prevent victimless crimes. Preventing crimes that have victims does not lead to any unintended consequences. Drug use often causes problems. MAJOR problems, but those problems are only felt by those doing the drug use and in some cases people close to them - and these people are doing drugs whether or not they are illegal. Drugs being illegal forces the burden of those problems onto society as a whole.
|
|
kidtwentytwo
6th Man
SLOB - Braves & SLOC - Georgia
2006 SLOB Champions
Posts: 1,057
|
Post by kidtwentytwo on Mar 18, 2008 23:50:24 GMT -4
sounds like someone has never been shit faced drunk
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 19, 2008 0:28:53 GMT -4
There's no chance drugs would be cheaper legalized. If cocaine was legalized, the price would substantially increase. Companies like Merck thrive for a monopoly on the drug trade. They hike up medicinal pills substantially over the production price. Why? Because they have to cover research, production, legal costs, and profit. People will sue for millions for overdosing on cocaine or heroin. And if you know people will buy your coke, why not charge $50 a pop? Insurance sure as hell won't cover a person buying a coke, heroin, or a hallucinogen even if they were legalized. It would represent too much of a risk for the insurance company. And even if it were somehow covered, so many poor people don't have insurance and would end up having to resort to crime for that money anyway.
Yeah, that site shows that drugs are good and that everything bad is a myth. It's an interesting read from what I've skimmed through. Yet there are also sites that say drugs are bad and anything that is good is a myth. So who's right? Both, depends what you selectively choose to pay attention to.
I think we're thinking about different things in terms of victimization. You're saying who is the victim while I'm saying why and how they are victimized. Everything can be justified to make the victim look like the guilty party.
Poor people contribute nothing to taxes. Their contribution is like a week's salary for the middle class. Yet they receive the most benefits. If more and more poor people enter the US, it's just going to put more strain on the system. Maybe we should get rid of welfare so poor people can suffer more. Or let's make it harder to get so people that are actually deserving don't get it but some people who no one knows their true history can get it. It's hard to improve welfare because it's intention is good but there's no good way of distributing it. I guess we could support charities more but even charities have a size limit.
Would it really be any cheaper to let them in? If you made all illegals legal, you'd have to go through the process of paperwork, which means you'd have to build buildings to do this. You'd also have to hire people to do this work and managers to oversee the paperwork. You'd need to charge a processing fee of money they probably don't even have. Don't forget the amount of paperwork that you'd have to fill out. And then you need translators, free transportation for them into a city, finding cheap housing, helping them find a job at minimum wage, etc. You're opening floodgates to more and more things that taxpayers would have to pay for. Firing all the few boarder patrol we have won't pay for all of that. Maybe no boarder guards means that we have a 51st state of Mexico. Imagine the DMV for illegal immigrants. Actually, just think of Ellis Island. Plus how many businesses would have to fire or charge more in order to cover the cost of having to pay everyone the legal wage? That would put a strain on the rest of society.
I never said deport them. I'm saying keep out having masses in. THere will always be a stream of illegal immigrants but it would be smarter to control the stream than to overpopulate a country that is seemingly slowly slipping from dominance.
The Netherlands does NOT have legal drugs. Just lax enforcement. If they did enforce it, the Netherlands would have a GDP that simply plummets (although their technology industry is very strong).
If crack were legal, many people would at least try it. Why not? It's legal. It gives off the belief that it is a perfectly safe drug. There would be fewer anti-drug campaigns so people would be less informed. How many people actually read the possible side effects of the medicine in their medicine cabinet? It's like alcohol. About half my school drinks while the other half swears until college or 21. While some people will never drink. But when 21 rolls around, I can guarantee there is a spike of drinkers.
Drugs being legal or illegal will have problems for society. If it's worked for such a long time, why introduce the country to problems that we have no idea that we'll be able to face? I'm all for progress as long as it doesn't lead to chaos.
The funny thing is... I'm going to Amsterdam among many other cities this summer. I might try LSD or shrooms but that doesn't mean it's perfectly safe.
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 19, 2008 0:36:56 GMT -4
sounds like someone has never been shit faced drunk haha
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 19, 2008 0:46:08 GMT -4
sounds like someone has never been shit faced drunk haha the most drunk I've gotten was not remembering what happened at the dance the night before. From what I've heard, I didn't do anything stupid or dangerous besides being really touchy. but... either way loss of and altered perception are different
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Mar 19, 2008 1:03:44 GMT -4
sounds like someone has never been shit faced drunk haha the most drunk I've gotten was not remembering what happened at the dance the night before. From what I've heard, I didn't do anything stupid or dangerous besides being really touchy. but... either way loss of and altered perception are different I don't know about you but if I wake up in the morning next to some troll after hooking up with someone who I thought was some babe while I was drunk doesn't fit the definition of an altered perception than I don't know what does
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Mar 19, 2008 9:23:19 GMT -4
The legalization of drugs is a very complicated issue and I can see many reason to be for it but many of the presented here are lets say, not very well presented. Reading only selective information isn't gonna lead to educated opinions. That's the danger of the internet. It has lots of information and statistics but you still need to know how to interpert them. Using alcohol comparison as one of the arguments for hard drugs legalization is pure demagogy. When we say alcohol is the drug that has destroyed most lifes it is true and it sounds really impressive. But when we look deeper and put that in prespective and compare it to the number of users it doesn't sound that impressive. I'm sure most of us have consumed alcahol plenty of times. Sometimes even in excessive doses. It didn't do our health good but it didn't destroy our lifes. I drink a beer or a glass of wine, not every day but not very far. It doesn't alter my sense of perception mostly because the doses are small. And like me there are millions. Not everyone is a alcoholic. There are many and it's terrible but is the percentage of alcoholic over alcohol consumers that high? No. Now how many of us know guys that do heroin socially? Just small doses here and there? Or that use LSD weekly for years but just socially with friends and with no side effects? Some drugs you'll just keep wanting more and I've tried some of them and I've always wondered what would happened if they could be had easily in the local shop next to my house? The big difference is that with alcohol, you can use it with moderation for years socially and it doesn't get you addicted or change who you are. That doesn't happen with many drugs so it's hard to put them all in the same bag. And another false information is that death penalty in some asian country on drug use/traffic didn't slow drug use. The country being talked here is probably either Singapore or Malasya since they are the most discussed having that kind of punishment. Since 1975, when Singapore started enforcing the death penalty, the numbers have been decreasing. Does this mean this is the solution? Clearly not. First because the death penalty is retarded. Secondly because killing someone for having 0.54 ounces of pure heroin with them seems like a huge exaggeration. But mostly because it's not the only way to the goal. Singapore might be one of the few urban centers in the world where addiction appears to be declining over the long term but Amsterdam is another and it takes the opposite approach. Of course the Amsterdam way has also brought other problems very well know to the dutch but that's another issue. So bottom line, this is a really complicated issue. When I was younger I used to be 100% in favour of legalization but the fact is this is this isn't black or white. The more we learn and by learning I mean not just listening to one side of the argument, the more we realise there isn't an obvious solution and both sides can make really good points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2008 10:43:00 GMT -4
There's no chance drugs would be cheaper legalized. If cocaine was legalized, the price would substantially increase. Companies like Merck thrive for a monopoly on the drug trade. They hike up medicinal pills substantially over the production price. Why? Because they have to cover research, production, legal costs, and profit. People will sue for millions for overdosing on cocaine or heroin. Just like people sue for ODing on alcohol? Because production costs aren't that high, and it's something that many different companies could easily produce. If one company is drastically overcharging, then another company will come in and charge a reasonable price - driving the overcharging company out of business. It's called competition. No it doesn't, it just doesn't give you the "DRUGS ARE BAD" propaganda you're used to hearing. Direct quotes from the site: "Heroin use can cause death by respiratory failure. Several factors can increase the risk of overdose, including the strong tolerance effects that develop with repeated use. Tolerance effects wear off over time, and users who take a break may find that a previously-safe dose is now dangerously large. The purity of street heroin is also highly variable (and may have risen in recent years) and users often do not know how much heroin they are taking." "Methamphetamine causes significant tolerance, as well as psychological dependence. This combination can be particularly bad because the user is likely to have strong cravings for more meth, while at the same time being unable to reach a satisfactory high. Withdrawal from high doses can produce severe depression." It doesn't matter why and how they are victimized. If someone commits a heinous crime against someone else then there is a victim. Motive doesn't matter. Take it out of the federal government's hands and do it at a state or county level and things will get much more efficient and effective. We already have all of this, but we refuse to use it. Sure it would take a small amount of time, but nowhere near the 10+ years the current waiting period is. How do you plan on doing that? The Netherlands does NOT have legal drugs. Just lax enforcement. If they did enforce it, the Netherlands would have a GDP that simply plummets (although their technology industry is very strong). Maybe on their 21st birthday, but not afterwards. In fact, most binge drinking is done by people under 21.
|
|