SlayerRondo said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
-There are more alcohol addicts per capita post-1933 than prohibition-era.
This first one is simple a lie as the standards and detection for alcohol addiction have increased, as is common for many conditions where better detection results in apparant increases.
-Alcoholism has had a massive burden on health care, organ donation eligibility. Drugs do the same.
People are not walking bags of organs for you to harvest for the states benefit and they can do with them what they wish.
-Alcohol consumption has resulted in more accidents and has been a precurser to more violent and/or sexual crimes than there was during the prohibition.
This is also in the same vein as the first as crime against women was vastly under-reported at the time.
-Alcohol has almost no effect on blood donation as it is easily purged from the bloodstream, but drugs remain present longer and have a more pronounced effect on organs that affect the properties on one's blood.
People are not walking blood packs for the state to harvest and they can do with it as they wish.
-Racketeering and smuggling was rampant in that time, though I owe that more to deficiencies in the investigative techniques and technologies of those times.
Racketeering and smuggling as absurdly rampart now given that increased efforts inly increas the cost of drugs and therefore increase the incentive to supply. Not to mention the large amounts of money we piss away trying to stop the supply.
-Average lifespan has since increased since 1933; largely due to antibiotics and vaccines--neither of which are effective against organ damage drugs are responsible for. A greater accessibility to drugs results in increased use which results in adverse health effects. This has occurred with alcohol post-1933. So it shouldn't be different with drugs.
When it comes to drugs legalizing as was done in portugal did not result in increased drug use but decreased levels. Drug use was not a big issue before we started fighting the drug war since before 1973 ad it will not be afterwards.
-When criminal organizations are denied sources of revenue, they invariably try to find it through alternative means, starting with an increased effort in their other activities. This happens everywhere. If drugs are part of their revenue, they will behave accordingly.
They don't use other methods as much because they are less efficient at making money from doing so and their is greater risk. Many people would not go into crime if not for the easy money made by drugs.
-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has since increased since 1933. This condition impairs one to moderate anger--such persons are far more likely to go to prison for violent or sexual crimes. Similar conditions emerge when drugs are taken during pregnancy.
Yet again better detection results in higher levels appearing.
-The end of the prohibition era had the US aligning itself legally nearly equally to its neighboring countries. If the US ended drug prohibition but Canada does not, the Canadian government will tighten its borders, and this means that the US will do the same.
If Canada does not want drugs in its nation thats fine but its not America's responsibility to protect their borders. Hopefully the success of ending drug prohibition will convince Canada to end it on their end.
-Dry counties still exist in the US. When persons from said counties go to areas without prohibition, their alcohol intake increases on average. Greater accessibility and less legal ramifications results in increased use. This is reflected in insurance policies. DUI offenses increase insurance rates across the board; with more people doing drugs, even the perceived increase of risk in certain age groups will result in higher insurance premiums.
Those dry counties are meaniningless as other counties surrounding them provice people who would drink alcohol normaly a place to go. For all you people who consume alcohol leave the county.
-Those most likely to indulge in the increased availabity of drugs are those in their teens and twenties; since drugs have a measurably adverse effect on one's mental function (memory and problem solving in particular), average grades will predictably decrease and the average national IQ will reflect this.
If people want to do drugs instead of getting higher grades is it not their right as adults to do this? I'm sure that their are many factors that you could correlate with lower grades but we leavethe decisions concerning such factors to the person not the State, drugs should be no different.
In short, a lot of this happened after prohibition-era 1933, so there is little reason why it will be different.
|
And lets not forget that over a trillion dollars has been spent on the drug wars of enforcement, people who go to jail not only fail to pay taxes from not working but cost us money to keep them there, the lives that are lost from drug dealers fighting over customers, people dying from impure drugs and were taking away some one's right to decide what they do with their own body.
|
1. If a person is ineligible to donate organs, then they cannot donate organs even if they wish to do so. So no, people cannot do whatever they wish with their organs if they have successfully damaged them through substance abuse.
2. Accidents, violent crime and sexual crime are still under-reported. Of that which has been reported, alcohol has been a significant factor.
3. People with a history of drug use will likely be rejected as blood donors. Moreover, if contaminants are found in blood which has been donated, the blood will be discarded. This is yet another case of people willing to donate yet unable to do so as a direct result of drug use.
4. It sounds like you don't actually know what racketeering even is.
5. Drug use was a major concern in the '60s and quite problematic in the 50's as well.
6. They don't use other methods for income? Bribery, extortion, blackmail, fraud, scams, laundering, counterfeiting, obstruction of justice, intimidation, robbery, trafficking of weapons, humans, distribution of child pornography, any of that ring a bell? Criminal organizations have a number of ways to make money. Even if they lose some revenue from drug sales, they will always focus their efforts through other means and behave just as aggressively to retain their "turf".
7. The US isn't Portugal and never in the past 100 years have Americans suggested that greater accessibility and decreased legal ramifications will result in less use of something. In fact, the opposite has been proven to be true time and again.
8. There are countless who get involved with crime to support their addictions. Like Oxycontin and other pain killers. Greater accessibility means greater chances of addiction and existing dealers will capitalize on this.
9. And increased consumption results in more cases.
10. If Canada has tighter border security than the US, the US will remedy that. It looks pretty bad if a nation boasting a population ten times the size of its neighbor has sub-standard security measures--especially with the worry that terrorists are entering the US through Canada.
11. Please run your statement on dry counties through the Turing Test, because I truthfully do not understand what you are trying to say here.
12. Actually at present, no, it is not their right to do so. Current prohibition laws make it clear that people do not have the right to introduce whatever substance they wish into their bodies. Also, most teens are not recognized as legal adults.
13. Plenty of people actually work while in prison and earn an income. They pay taxes on that income as per usual provided that they are actually doing something to earn money. People will continue to die from impure drugs just as people continue to die from home-made alcohol. Finally, people do not have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. There is nothing in any Charter or Declaration or Bill that gives people that much freedom over themselves. You may wish people had the right to do whatever they want, but legally speaking, people do not.
Drug abuse currently costs American society 181 billion dollars annually due to health care costs, crime and lost productivity. Alcohol costs 185 billion. The current amount spent by the US government to fight the war on drugs this year is at about 30 billion. The cost to American society will likely be far higher than that if drug prohibition ends; the amount lost in health care costs dwarfs that lost as a result of crime. Statistically speaking, that trillion dollars you speak of is well spent.
