roid rage may be lasting, but reversible

[Oldschool Flip]

I have to agree with Apollo on just about everything he's posted. The fact that legalizing drugs could have an adverese affect in the US is bunk. A good example is the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use in Califorinia. What was the result? The first year it was instituted there was a backlash by many hard core right winged opponents because of the percentage of "users" legally obtaining the drug. However in years past that number has "not" increased by a fraction of 1% compared to previous years. What else has happened? Because of the cost most police officers, courts and jurisdictions won't prosecute anyone with less than ounce on their person because it just ties up time and money. Now since that's happened the cost of marijuana has gone down and their are less "gangs" distributing them because access is easy to the public. It's not profitable for them to risk getting busted by the Feds for such a small return. By the same token businesses took upon themselves to institute a random mandatory drug test to oust any users. The percentage of people being fired for marajuana use was also low. So even though it was readily available and cheap enough to buy, only the "users" were the ones still buying.  

[Johnny Apollo]

I have to agree with Apollo on just about everything he's posted. The fact that legalizing drugs could have an adverese affect in the US is bunk. A good example is the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use in Califorinia. What was the result? The first year it was instituted there was a backlash by many hard core right winged opponents because of the percentage of "users" legally obtaining the drug. However in years past that number has "not" increased by a fraction of 1% compared to previous years. What else has happened? Because of the cost most police officers, courts and jurisdictions won't prosecute anyone with less than ounce on their person because it just ties up time and money. Now since that's happened the cost of marijuana has gone down and their are less "gangs" distributing them because access is easy to the public. It's not profitable for them to risk getting busted by the Feds for such a small return. By the same token businesses took upon themselves to institute a random mandatory drug test to oust any users. The percentage of people being fired for marajuana use was also low. So even though it was readily available and cheap enough to buy, only the "users" were the ones still buying.  

[Johnny Apollo]

I will give the conservatives credit on some things - for example their economic policy.  As history has shown us, based on human nature the more right wing a system is, the better it generally works.  But can I respect a conservative for this?  No.  Their good economic thinking is just the result of the same brainwashing that makes them consider evolution to be a myth.  Brainwashing is brainwashing.  I don't care if somebody is right or wrong as long as they think for themselves.

Actually right wing systems are incredibly unstable and unsuccessful, History shows us this. The more right wing a system is..The more unsuccessful it will be.
National Socalism is a far right wing system...Look at how unsuccessful it was.
Historically speaking...Soceties move toward more liberal systems. America today is 10 times more liberal than it was 50 years ago. 100 times more liberal than it was 200 years ago. Most countries are this way.

[Johnny Apollo]

A freethinker on getbig - I'm impressed.

Canada is not necessarily better than the USA because it is more liberal, or the USA of now may not necessarily be better than the USA of yesterday for that reason either.  There are many far more socialist states out there which are far worse off than countries which are not.  Government oppression is often a big factor.  There may be more to meets the eye.

USA isn't necessairly better BECAUSE it's further right than Canada. What is USA better at? War? USA could beat Canada in a War so USA is better?

In Canada people have more civil liberties.
In Canada crime rates are Lower.
In Canada everyone gets healthcare.
In Canada the poverty rate is lower.

[rocket]

I lived in Germany for 8 years. I know how Americanized europe is.

Go to australia, that is americanised..

That's as stupid as thinking marijuana should stay illegal. Don't you remember Prohibition? It was an absolute failure. That's why alcohol was then decriminalized after prohibition BECAUSE it was a failure.

People would not be able to use drugs if it weren't for the people who sold them firstly..

Secondly...Saying that "they knew it was illegal and they still did it so they deserve the punishment" is a fallacy. It's like saying "The people helping the underground railroad knew it was illegal but still did it,So they deserved to be hung!".

I didn't say they deserved it - What I said was, they were quite clear on their intentions and quite clear about the punishment.  They took a risk.  Ideally, the risk would not be there, but as it is thats the way it goes.  Most of us wouldn't risk our lives for some very hard earned high risk cash.  Some people do, they are foolish.  Whether the law should be there or not.  You're a complete and utter gimp if you risk your life to make money in this way.  You might be a hero if you pull it off but shit, if you're asking me to be sensitive to someone who knowingly exchanges their freedom for a chance to make big then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

I also said that people trafficking mass amounts of drugs have very little respect for the drugs themselves and are merely eager to profit.   I don't have any respect for anybody who is not treating drugs with the utmost respect. 

People already use drugs. Lot of people. Assuming more would use if it were legalized is baseless. If someone wants to use,They will..legal or not. That's as simple as it is.

Absolutely not.  Assuming there wouldn't be more is baseless, the law for many is there as the line.  Take away the line and there is likely to be journeys into the territory of drugs by (unexperienced) people. 

Since they WILL use regardless,Why not just regulate it to make sure it's safer and stop creating a black market around it that causes violent crime and even more problems?

Current users are not the problem.  For them, the law doesn't mean much anyway.

I should not have to worry about what some person will do if he uses drugs. It's Un-American to punish everyone just because a select few are stupid. It's also Un-American to punish people based on what they "might do" as i've already explained.

Idealistic points of view have no place here.  We're talking outcomes, what is going to happen.  You shouldn't have to worry, but you will.  As I said, rid the world of stupid people and you have brought yourself closer to not having to worry.

[rocket]

I have to agree with Apollo on just about everything he's posted. The fact that legalizing drugs could have an adverese affect in the US is bunk. A good example is the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use in Califorinia. What was the result? The first year it was instituted there was a backlash by many hard core right winged opponents because of the percentage of "users" legally obtaining the drug. However in years past that number has "not" increased by a fraction of 1% compared to previous years. What else has happened? Because of the cost most police officers, courts and jurisdictions won't prosecute anyone with less than ounce on their person because it just ties up time and money. Now since that's happened the cost of marijuana has gone down and their are less "gangs" distributing them because access is easy to the public. It's not profitable for them to risk getting busted by the Feds for such a small return. By the same token businesses took upon themselves to institute a random mandatory drug test to oust any users. The percentage of people being fired for marajuana use was also low. So even though it was readily available and cheap enough to buy, only the "users" were the ones still buying. 

A medicinal marijuana program is not an example of why legalisation would not have an effect on the mainstream population.  Infact any example using marijuana is useless.  Marijuana is not a socially dangerous drug.

You seem to forget a key fact about your country.

It is

Full of stupid people in majority (see last election results).

[rocket]

Let's just hope the next religious nut who wins the election is an intelligent man in other areas.

Somewhat of a paradoxical statement..

We can only hope

[240 is Back]

Its just a shame that so many stupid people go out in a blaze of glory taking innocents with them.

I will agree with you on the point that American TV/movies/etc all seem to glorify those that go out in a blaze of glory.  I think if they made it a tad less glorious, we'd see less people taking the 'suicide by cop' option, or shooting up their school/workplace until they're taken down.

I know the US isn't perfect, but I think I'd prefer it to most other places on earth.  Yeah, our govt does get its hands dirty, but we elected them, and the same shit goes on in every other country in the world.  And while the US isn't the safest place around, they do let us pack heat to defend ourselves.

[240 is Back]

In Canada people have more civil liberties.

In Canada crime rates are Lower.

A country that won't let you possess a firearm to protect your family.  Unreal.  Lower crime rate or not, there are still violent people, who in numbers or with blunt weapons can end you and your family should fate lead them to your door. 

So how does CAN have more civil liberties?

[rocket]

A country that won't let you possess a firearm to protect your family.  Unreal.  Lower crime rate or not, there are still violent people, who in numbers or with blunt weapons can end you and your family should fate lead them to your door. 

So how does CAN have more civil liberties?

Believe it or not, if you live in a country like say australia or britain, never does the fact that there is not a protective firearm there ever come to mind. 

I mean I'm sure this another debate entirely but the legality of owning of a firearm clearly has an effect of increasing the murder rate (or at the very least shootings).  People still commit crime in australia, they just don't habitually use guns to do so and they don't end lives for VCR's

[rocket]

You do bring up an interesting point.  It seems like if you're in the US fathoming the idea of no protective gun in the house living in another country is quite hard.

Whereas here, we probably look at the US and think how can you live with such lethality in every home?

Its a shame that its too late to change that fact in the US, its keeping up with the joneses now.  Hope it never becomes acceptable here.  It is definitely one of those situations where civil liberty has a clear detrimental effect on society.

[ricosauve]

lol!

The American government is so moronic when it comes to weed.  Some people SMOKING A JOINT would get five years in jail.

In Canada, grow-ops in my city have been busted and all they get is house arrest lol.  Canada used to be bad but at least now they have common sense.  They need to punish distributors somehow because there is still social stigma surrounding weed.  But knowing there is no true "crime" when it comes to buying/selling drugs (ESPECIALLY weed), they don't give much punishment.

Hey DEA: newsflash - all your efforts don't even put a dent in drug use.  Stop trying, get your heads our of your damn asses, and find a system that WORKS if you want to curb drug use.  Ruining lives of users and dealers doesn't do that.  Get a damn clue.

Maybe spend taxpayer dollars chasing actual criminals.  Just a thought.

could not agree more, but The DEA it is a LAW INFORCEMENT ENTITY (they already know this), we need to address the Law makers r at fault here.

[Matt]

could not agree more, but The DEA it is a LAW INFORCEMENT ENTITY (they already know this), we need to address the Law makers r at fault here.

Good point about that.  They are just doing their job.

[Johnny Apollo]

No, I said that Canada is not necessarily better than the USA because it is more left (re-read, although my wording may not have been the best).

The USA of 2005 may not be better than the USA of 1960 just because it is further left either.  There are other variables at play - social change for instance.

Think about the reasons why USA of today is better than USA of 50 years ago. What reasons are they? Most of them will be due to social change to the left.

Your worldview seems to be one which I've come in contact frequently from my experience with American atheists.  While I agree completely with some of it, some I do not.  I think you are probably a lot like me in that you would probably function well under any system, and probably extremely well under socialism.  This however, is not the same for everyone.  It is not that I don't like socialism, it's that from my experience with human nature, people reply to the incentives capitalism has to offer - the incentives other social systems lack.

I don't like socalism I like capitalism. However this really doesn't have much to do with drug legalization now does it? I never said that I liked far left wing soceties either.

As an example, I've been renting my house to four of my friends who live here with me in order to curtail my bills.  I was extremely lenient with payment schedule and even though they knew exactly what the rules and deadlines were, they continued to take advantage of me because I was being nice and putting friendship before business.  They had no incentive to pay on time since I didn't force it on them (capitalism DOES force incentives, unlike socialism).  Well that ended.  I laid down the law and emphasized the rules - and guess what?  Now they pay on time, every time.  The reality is - being "nice" and trying to do my part to put in place a system where everyone was happy only resulted in them leeching off me.  Likewise in a socialist system, where is my incentive to work hard only to have the government take my earnings in tax and give it to those who want to abuse our social welfare system?  Moreover, where is the incentive of a person on welfare to find employment since he is already enjoying a free ride?

I don't know why you think I support economic socalism. I don't. All I was saying is that generally the great changes that has benefited our society in the last 2 centuries has been due to changes to the left.

Secondly..Have you ever been on Welfare? I am doubting it. What incentive does a person have to get off of welfare? How about having a BETTER LIFE?
Welfare doesn't buy you everything. People on welfare would want to get a job so they can buy the things they want not just get the things they need.
Alot of people do take advantage of welfare but that doesn't mean welfare is invalid. Let's use an example. Say a women has children and then their father leaves without paying child support so the mother is forced to take care of the children all alone. Let's say the mother gets sick and can't work to take care of the children. Do we allow those children to simply be without food or medicine or other essentials since they were delt a bad hand in life? I don't think so. Our society has an obligation to take care of those less fortunate espically within our own society.
How about a man who is injured and can't work,Can't buy insurance..Needs medicine. What does he do? Who pays for his medicine? No one? Should we just let him die?
 

The reality is - most people will only work hard and be productive if they have something on the line.  If there are no incentives to be productive, they won't be productive.  You and I may be exceptions and as such it is easy to assume socialism works - in practice, I don't think it does at all in purist form.

Who brought up absolute socalism? It wasn't me.

I would argue that both capitalists and socialists, whatever their ideological viewpoint, desire to have a high standard of living, a high quality of life for the greatest number of people (basic utilitarianism).  They just have entirely different views about which economic system, markets vs. central planning, is most capable of delivering this stated outcome.  In any case, economists, whatever their ideological stripe, generally agree that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP per capita is the closest, least bad measure of material well being and quality of life that we have for an economy (in spite of its numerous weaknesses as a measure), not necessarily median income or mean income
or anything else.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the topic.

[Johnny Apollo]

Go to australia, that is americanised..

I know.

People would not be able to use drugs if it weren't for the people who sold them firstly..

Ever hear of "Supply and demand"? As long as there is a Demand for something there will be a Supply..Legal or Illegal. It's a law of economics.

In the 1930's during prohibition there was a DEMAND for alcohol. The public wanted it. People wanted to drink it.

Guess what? Bootleggers wanted $. So they saw a market opportunity to make $. By supplying the demand..By brewing Alcohol and selling it.

Thus the criminalization of alcohol produced a "black market" of alcohol and guess what else came along with it? ORGANIZED CRIME.

Guys like Al Capone would not of ever existed were it not for prohibition. Al Capone made his $ with gambling,prostitution and alcohol rackets.(All prohibited in the 30's)

So along with Organized crime...Prohibition also creates a "Black market" around the prohibited substance. Guess what that means? No regulations! People could produce alcohol without regulations and people would still buy it since that's all there was. Meaning the alcohol was ALOT more dangerous being unregulated. The conditions it was created,What was in it..All much more dangerous and inpure.

Disputes... How do 2 "Groups" both of whom produce illegal substances resolve a dispute between the two? Normaly if the substances were legal they would resort to legal means to resolve issues..I.E. Lawsuits.
When the substances are NOT legal..They results to ILLEGAL means to resolve disputes..I.E. Does the St. Valentine's Day massacre ring a bell?

I didn't say they deserved it - What I said was, they were quite clear on their intentions and quite clear about the punishment.  They took a risk.  Ideally, the risk would not be there, but as it is thats the way it goes.  Most of us wouldn't risk our lives for some very hard earned high risk cash.  Some people do, they are foolish.  Whether the law should be there or not.  You're a complete and utter gimp if you risk your life to make money in this way.  You might be a hero if you pull it off but shit, if you're asking me to be sensitive to someone who knowingly exchanges their freedom for a chance to make big then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

Alright then...I guess Harriet Tubman was a "Gimp".

I also said that people trafficking mass amounts of drugs have very little respect for the drugs themselves and are merely eager to profit.   I don't have any respect for anybody who is not treating drugs with the utmost respect.

Fair enough. However I agree, Most drug dealers are scumbags who actually BENEFIT from the drugs being illegal. If they were legal the drug dealers would not even exist, Nor would the violent crime surrounding the illegal drug trade.
The gang drug dealers or the south American drug lords would vanish overnight of the substances they traffic were decriminalized and companies started to produce them. So would all of the violent crime surrounding the illegal drug trade(Slavery,Murder,Bribery,Corruption...)

Absolutely not.  Assuming there wouldn't be more is baseless, the law for many is there as the line.  Take away the line and there is likely to be journeys into the territory of drugs by (unexperienced) people.

I don't feel like discussing that right now so let's ASSUME that drug use would increase if drugs were decriminalized. That's just a necessary evil that would have to be delt with when it happens. I would much rather drug use to increase in exchange for ending violent drug lords reigns,Ending most gangs who are financed by dealing drugs,Ending the massive amount of deaths due to impurity of blackmarket drugs,End the massive amount of "gang wars" over drug selling territory...All of which would vanish overnight if we made drastic changes to our policy on drugs.

Current users are not the problem.  For them, the law doesn't mean much anyway.

Exactly. If someone wants to use...A drug being illegal doesn't make a difference. Seriously now...If you WANTED to use a drug and your friend handed it to you...Would you use it? Even if it's illegal? Of course you would. The drug being illegal doesn't make a difference on the amount of people who will use it.
The amount of illegal drugs coming into this country would not change much if large companies in our country produced them or large poppy plantations in the middle east or coca plantations in south america produced them.

Idealistic points of view have no place here.  We're talking outcomes, what is going to happen.  You shouldn't have to worry, but you will.  As I said, rid the world of stupid people and you have brought yourself closer to not having to worry.

All you're producing are "Idealistc outcomes". You're assuming that outlawing substnaces prevents people from using. This is false. You're assuming that what we're doing now works..it doesn't. You're assuming that if we change..Everything will fall apart,All evidences shows it won't.

Want to talk about "Idealistc outcomes" Let's talk about how idealistic people were when they outlawed marijuana! Now THAT'S idealistic!

[Johnny Apollo]

A country that won't let you possess a firearm to protect your family.  Unreal.  Lower crime rate or not, there are still violent people, who in numbers or with blunt weapons can end you and your family should fate lead them to your door. 

So how does CAN have more civil liberties?

On the contrary Canada is home to several million firearms owned privatly.

[Johnny Apollo]

Believe it or not, if you live in a country like say australia or britain, never does the fact that there is not a protective firearm there ever come to mind. 

I mean I'm sure this another debate entirely but the legality of owning of a firearm clearly has an effect of increasing the murder rate (or at the very least shootings).  People still commit crime in australia, they just don't habitually use guns to do so and they don't end lives for VCR's

Gun prohibition is the same as Drug prohibition..It doesn't work.

If a gang member wants a gun,He will get one...Usually illegally already.

Criminals who use firearms for the most part are using illegally possessed firearms they bought on the street. Outlawing firearms will only do one thing....Make the good guys without guns(Who obey the laws) and the bad guys(Who of course break the laws) will have guns...By breaking the law!

Talk about idealistic...."Ohh,Maybe the criminals will obey the gunlaws!"

[Johnny Apollo]

You do bring up an interesting point.  It seems like if you're in the US fathoming the idea of no protective gun in the house living in another country is quite hard.

Whereas here, we probably look at the US and think how can you live with such lethality in every home?

Its a shame that its too late to change that fact in the US, its keeping up with the joneses now.  Hope it never becomes acceptable here.  It is definitely one of those situations where civil liberty has a clear detrimental effect on society.

On the contrary there isn't any evidence more firearms=More violent crimes by firearms. In many cases there are countries that have several times more firearms than other countries where the country with the less firearms has more crimes from firearms.

Firearms don't kill people..People kill people.

Remember the marine motto? "Without me my firearm is nothing,Without my firearm I am nothing." Without a human pulling the trigger,Firearms are completly safe. They only become dangerous when put into dangerous hands.
This is proof that the problem of the high firearm death rate in America is not due to guns but due to people.

Gun prohibitions only change the equilbrium from the good law abiding citizens from having guns to them not having guns and the criminals from having them since the criminals don't care about the laws and will get guns illegally anyway.


The 2nd amendment says...

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Our forefathers thought of this idea to insure we have civil liberties. Why? Well allow me to quote Thomas Jefferson...

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Would the Government fear the people more if they are unarmed or if they possess over 200 million firearms?

[rocket]

All you're producing are "Idealistc outcomes". You're assuming that outlawing substnaces prevents people from using. This is false. You're assuming that what we're doing now works..it doesn't. You're assuming that if we change..Everything will fall apart,All evidences shows it won't.

Want to talk about "Idealistc outcomes" Let's talk about how idealistic people were when they outlawed marijuana! Now THAT'S idealistic!

I never said anything worked, rather what I said was that there were compelling reasons for both sides.  I never once said I was pro either side.  I also never said that the world would end, what I said was there are significant bodies of people who would treat this as a license to disrespect drugs to a level that could be detrimental on society.  I accept that these people would likely be first time users rather than "old hands" but assumably there would be marginal increase at the outset from current users should drugs made be available.  Some people will get caught up with the tide.

Nothing idealistic..

Idealistic is bringing civil liberties into this discussion when you have little else to back yourself.  I'm presenting an argument for such a debate with potential social outcomes.  I think in the end there could be a strategic solution to this but I personally believe that both sides are somewhat ignorant to each other (generally anti-drug worse).

(An example of when you have little else to back yourself is when you talk about alcohol.  Two ways of looking at it, either its an example of hypocracy or its an example of how irresponsible society is given a civil liberty).  Either way you look at it things could be very dim if drugs were abused like alcohol is.

Why?

Because drugs are way more fun!

[Johnny Apollo]

I never said anything worked, rather what I said was that there were compelling reasons for both sides.  I never once said I was pro either side.  I also never said that the world would end, what I said was there are significant bodies of people who would treat this as a license to disrespect drugs to a level that could be detrimental on society.  I accept that these people would likely be first time users rather than "old hands" but assumably there would be marginal increase at the outset from current users should drugs made be available.  Some people will get caught up with the tide.

The only arguments from the side of pro-prohibition are refutable and I think i've demonstrated that.

Idealistic is bringing civil liberties into this discussion when you have little else to back yourself.  I'm presenting an argument for such a debate with potential social outcomes.  I think in the end there could be a strategic solution to this but I personally believe that both sides are somewhat ignorant to each other (generally anti-drug worse).

I have more than Civil Liberty to back my argument and I've demonstrated that several times. Haven't you been reading it?
Civil liberties however are the most compelling argument. Consider Slavery. In the mid 1800's before slavery was outlawed the slave owners said that the "Economic and social outcome of outlawing slavery would be disasterous." However the fact of the matter is...When civil liberties are being stomped on, We need to WORK AROUND any possible problems that arise when we give people civil liberties. Sure...Freeing millions of slaves would cause damage to the economy. So what? Who cares? I'd rather take a blow to society or the economy than infringe on others civil liberties.

(An example of when you have little else to back yourself is when you talk about alcohol.  Two ways of looking at it, either its an example of hypocracy or its an example of how irresponsible society is given a civil liberty).  Either way you look at it things could be very dim if drugs were abused like alcohol is.

It's an example of Hypocrisy. I've stated that over and over. People have the civil liberty to drink alcohol..Period. The hypocrisy is where the govt allows it but not marijuana for instnace.

[rocket]

Gun prohibition is the same as Drug prohibition..It doesn't work.

If a gang member wants a gun,He will get one...Usually illegally already.

Criminals who use firearms for the most part are using illegally possessed firearms they bought on the street. Outlawing firearms will only do one thing....Make the good guys without guns(Who obey the laws) and the bad guys(Who of course break the laws) will have guns...By breaking the law!

Talk about idealistic...."Ohh,Maybe the criminals will obey the gunlaws!"

You're probably right, it cannot be directly attributed to amount of guns owned.  It probably can be attributed to social progression in an environment where are guns are acceptable though.  There is a reason why your murder rate is so much larger.

Hah, honestly ... you think you're not idealistic and you're quoting the 2nd amendment. 

That must have really hurt me calling you idealistic, you've tried (unsuccessfully) to pin it back on me several times now.  Never will win that one, not whilst you're pimping civil liberty

Civil liberty or not I feel a whole lot safer here than over in the US - and guess what? according to the statistics I am a whole lot safer.  Oh but maybe guns should be legal in australia, that would make me even safer

[rocket]

The only arguments from the side of pro-prohibition are refutable and I think i've demonstrated that.

No you've quite correctly admitted that there are unknown variables and there will be victims should legalisation occur.  At this point we are only in disagreement as to whether the amount of victims and effect on society outweighs what is happening now.  I don't pull to either side but I think the example of alcohol shows that it is likely to be quite detrimental to society.

I have more than Civil Liberty to back my argument and I've demonstrated that several times. Haven't you been reading it?
Civil liberties however are the most compelling argument. Consider Slavery. In the mid 1800's before slavery was outlawed the slave owners said that the "Economic and social outcome of outlawing slavery would be disasterous." However the fact of the matter is...When civil liberties are being stomped on, We need to WORK AROUND any possible problems that arise when we give people civil liberties. Sure...Freeing millions of slaves would cause damage to the economy. So what? Who cares? I'd rather take a blow to society or the economy than infringe on others civil liberties.

It is true, you have given more arguments for the case.  However you cannot at any stage make them stick.  It all falls back to civil liberty.  Take a blow to society for your own personal gain? That much is evident, but its remarkably selfish don't you think. 

It's an example of Hypocrisy. I've stated that over and over. People have the civil liberty to drink alcohol..Period. The hypocrisy is where the govt allows it but not marijuana for instnace.

I don't know how many more times I need to explain my take on this, you are correct it is hypocrisy but it is not an argument FOR drug legalisation.  Nobody in their right mind would determine that an evil justified another.  Only one who was (selfishly) buried into the idea of his/her liberty rather than the good of society. 

The hypocrisy is at government level yes, my point is (and always has been) that pro drug legalisation people make childish use of this concept by calling it hypocrisy and then knowingly using it to justify another hypocrisy - (failing that they fall back on civil liberty which is exactly what you did early on in this discussion).

[Johnny Apollo]

You're probably right, it cannot be directly attributed to amount of guns owned.  It probably can be attributed to social progression in an environment where are guns are acceptable though.  There is a reason why your murder rate is so much larger.

Our society...Not the number of firearms.

Hah, honestly ... you think you're not idealistic and you're quoting the 2nd amendment.

And?

Civil liberty or not I feel a whole lot safer here than over in the US - and guess what? according to the statistics I am a whole lot safer.  Oh but maybe guns should be legal in australia, that would make me even safer

It probably would considering criminals will get guns regardless of their legality.

[Johnny Apollo]

No you've quite correctly admitted that there are unknown variables and there will be victims should legalisation occur.  At this point we are only in disagreement as to whether the amount of victims and effect on society outweighs what is happening now.  I don't pull to either side but I think the example of alcohol shows that it is likely to be quite detrimental to society.

Alcohol is alot more damaging than Marijuana is. I have stated this several times but you don't listen...I have said that different drugs would be treated differently. For instance I'm not condoning one being able to sell cocaine at the local gas station...Marijuana? Sure.

It is true, you have given more arguments for the case.  However you cannot at any stage make them stick.  It all falls back to civil liberty.  Take a blow to society for your own personal gain? That much is evident, but its remarkably selfish don't you think.

It doesn't all fall back onto civil liberity. It falls back onto economics also.

Marijuana is the 4TH LARGEST CASH CROP in the united states! The FOURTH LARGEST!
DESPITE the federal govt spending over 20 billion a year trying to criminalize it.

However i've also already explained how the civil liberity example is solid...You didn't even address the slavery example.

I don't know how many more times I need to explain my take on this, you are correct it is hypocrisy but it is not an argument FOR drug legalisation.  Nobody in their right mind would determine that an evil justified another.  Only one who was (selfishly) buried into the idea of his/her liberty rather than the good of society.

1.I'm not using hypocrisy as an argument for legalization..Just a point.

2.You say that it's ok to take away civil liberties as long as society as a whole benfits? Then how about slavery? In the 1800's Society as a whole benefited from the exploitation of slaves. I assume you would be Pro-Slavery since it benefited society and taking it away would of hurt the economy and society.

The hypocrisy is at government level yes, my point is (and always has been) that pro drug legalisation people make childish use of this concept by calling it hypocrisy and then knowingly using it to justify another hypocrisy - (failing that they fall back on civil liberty which is exactly what you did early on in this discussion).

That makes no sense...How would legalizing marijuana be hypocrisy?

Also i've explained how 1.The civil liberity argument is solid and 2.It's far from the only argument as i've demonstrated.

[rocket]

Alcohol is alot more damaging than Marijuana is. I have stated this several times but you don't listen...I have said that different drugs would be treated differently. For instance I'm not condoning one being able to sell cocaine at the local gas station...Marijuana? Sure.

No arguments here, I'm not against weed and have said numerous times that marijuana is not really what I'm talking about.

It doesn't all fall back onto civil liberity. It falls back onto economics also.

Marijuana is the 4TH LARGEST CASH CROP in the united states! The FOURTH LARGEST!
DESPITE the federal govt spending over 20 billion a year trying to criminalize it.

However i've also already explained how the civil liberity example is solid...You didn't even address the slavery example.

I don't recall any slavery example.. Its time consuming to answer you so I may have missed it.  It looks like its coming up later in this post anyway.

1.I'm not using hypocrisy as an argument for legalization..Just a point.

Its not a point, its an attempt to win the argument with faulty logic.  It might work with someone who does not pay attention but its not going to work with me (or the people who make the decision to take on amendments) so why bother even bringing it up.

2.You say that it's ok to take away civil liberties as long as society as a whole benfits? Then how about slavery? In the 1800's Society as a whole benefited from the exploitation of slaves. I assume you would be Pro-Slavery since it benefited society and taking it away would of hurt the economy and society.

See now you're getting ridiculous. 

Taking away slavery does not endanger lives.  Infact in the whole it is significantly effective at making it "fair" for the mainstream to conduct their lives rather than a select few.  Society didn't benefit from slavery, a section of society did. 

Having drugs illegal is a far more complex situation and I don't think its necessary to go any further. 

That makes no sense...How would legalizing marijuana be hypocrisy?

We're not talking about marijuana specifically and we have never been.  Several times I've made it clear whilst I dislike marijuana personally it is not the crux of this discussion.  I have gone so far as to state that marijuana is not a socially damaging drug. 

Sometimes you forget that I'm neither for or against drug legalisation.