| DeadNotSleeping said: 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. It's not that they can't donate them it's just that there organs will no longer be accepted for donation. If someone wants to have the option to donate their organs then they can decide not to do drugs in the first place. 2. Accidents, violent crime and sexual crime are still under-reported. Of that which has been reported, alcohol has been a significant factor. Not nearly to the extent that it was in the thirties expercialy when it came to domestic abuse. 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. Then they should not have done drugs. Someone who eats fatty foods all day and gets little exercise can't run fast and someone who runs fast can't eat fatty foods all day and get little exercise. Yes people can either do drugs or donate blood but the decision as to which should be theirs no yours. 4. It sounds like you don't actually know what racketeering even is. A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. By that definition it sounds like the drug war is a racket as gang related crime involving drugs would not exist but for the drug war. 5. Drug use was a major concern in the '60s and quite problematic in the 50's as well. And it still is just the government is making things a whole lot worse and more costly. 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". That is patently absurd as many criminal organizations will be unable to adapt to these forms of crime and thus be unable to support either themselves or other gang members. If crime is less lucrative then less people will become criminals. Also if this were true would the crime rates for non drug related crimes have gone up considerably if people left the drug tade due to the drug war? 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. Not with drug use has that ever been proven true. The people who do drugs either way simply end up costing us alot of money. 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. The dealers will be unable to compete on price when it becomes legal and they are not as efficient as free market enterprise. Lower cost and reliable quality will make the users of drugs much better off as they won't have such great health risk nor have to resort to crime to pay for drugs made so expensive by the drug war. 9. And increased consumption results in more cases. If their is increased consumption. 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. Are we talking about stopping drugs dealers from getting into Canada or terrorist getting into America? Well while were on the subject drug prohibition has given the taliban a nice profitable industry with which to raise funds for itself. 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. If you make the argument that people who drink heavily are stupid it is likely that those who wanted to drink heavily left the dry counties resulting in higher IQ scores. They are not stupid because they drink lots the are stupid so they drink lots. 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. I believe in the right for people to do as they wish with their own bodies as it is no one else's business at all. Someone's right to do drugs is the same as someone's right to get an abortion as it has nothing to do with anyone else. 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. It's called prison labour and is essentially the new form of slavery and is absolutely disgusting in this day and age. And yes people will still die from impure drugs just at a signifigantly reduced rate. And I don't believe that people whould be able to do whatever they want and saying so is completely absurd and an outright lie. Im saying that if people want to do something that only directly harms themselves such as drugs they should be allowed to as it is no business of yours and a violation of privacy. Deny these people organ and blood donations if you wish but let them make their own decisions rather than locking them in prison. Prison of course being such a great place to get off drugs. 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. Well then don't provide them will healthcare when it comes to drug related problems and problem solved when it comes to cost. If someone wants to risk their health they can either pay higher premiums on their insurance or go without. I don't understand why you think people should not be allowed to decide for themselves. Also 30 billion a year? For drug enforcement alone that is a considerable understatement and just take a look at the prison population and how many of them are in for drug related offences |
At the end of the day its costly, pointless and a violation of a person's right to treat their body how they decide.
This is the Game of Thrones
Where you either win
or you DIE
