Bad hypothesis considering the VAST majority of those who use illegal drugs NEVER commit any other type of crime. Not even a good effort, rookie. Try again when you develop some debating skill or even a modicum of logic.
Hypothesis: People who lack the strength of character and will power to resist going to topless bars are the same people who lack the strength to resist masturbating twelve times a day. Prosecuting these people under the Sexually Oriented Business ordinance is a way to weed out people who have hair growing on their palms and those who are well on their way to blindness (although they will never get prostate cancer). DISCUSS
I would like to thank those that reported posts in this thread. Without this reporting I doubt I would have had the laugh I needed today. Thank you.
When you provide a link that provides any substantiation to your hypothesis, I might be willing to do some research (it will only take me 10 minutes at most to support my assertion), but until you do ANY due diligence, I do not feel it is incumbent upon me to prove ANYTHING to the likes of you. However, without a shred of research at all, even if only 1% of the population used illegal drugs regularly (of course, the numbers are FAR higher than that), that would be 3 million people with the proclivity to commit crimes per your hypothesis. If even a substantial percentage of these actually committed crimes, our crime rates would be FAR higher than they are today. Again, if you would care to engage in an intelligent discussion, bring some actual facts or any evidence at all to the table and I will be more than happy to destroy your arguments with supported facts. I suspect you will run away, but I will give you yet ANOTHER chance.
Jorge: I followed your lead and told Kobe Bryant nobody wanted to see him shoot the basketball so much -- that we were all sick of it and that if anyone really cared, they'd defend him better. He challenged me to a game of horse, but I informed him that I was way out of his league and couldn't be bothered. And, guess what! You were right! Saying it made it so and now I'm an indisputably better shooter than Kobe! Thanks for the tip, buddy!
I'm surprised police chiefs would be against it...the War on Drugs gives them extra powers and huge boosts to their funding. All law enforcement has to do is claim that someone has a meth lab and all reasonable restraint is thrown out with less effort than a cigarette butt on the interstate (see: Branch Davidians; Waco) I'm also surprised so many conservatives are for continuing to fund the unsuccessfull drug war (see: The War on Poverty; LBJ), considering the huge drain to the taxpayer it creates, and the giant beauracracy it perpetuates to maintain itself. And you never really escape the fact that it is in essence an attempt at legislating morality. Even if it did force the nation's homeless to resort to paint sniffing and Night Train instead of shooting tar and smoking crack rocks, it still wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to inner-city plight. That big chunk of change could be better spent (or better yet not at all) rather than inflating the value of drugs in America's black market. And I'll be the first to laugh at all of you for badgering andymoon's pet cause when the government decides that junk food needs to be taxed, tobacco criminalized, or whatever Nanny-state nonsense the nation's busybodies want to enforce. It's hypocritical. Besides, when is the last time you ever heard anyone robbing a 7-11 to support their pot habit?
Only in the D&D would their be any question about which site is valid. Lets review ... a website that diplays data collected from independant studies gathered over 20 years, billion dollar govermental agencies spanning many administrations, university studies, health care agencies, corrections facilites, and surveys given to millions in every imaginable sect of society or stopthedrugwar.org a site that picks editorial articles from newspapers, magazines, and individual interviews and makes no reference to a consistant source in which it derives its data. If you were going to base an educated decision off one of the above sources, what would you pick? I guess I already know your answer.
I would argue that stopthedrugwar.com derives its information from a far wider variety of sources than the WHODCP does. Both are just as biased as the other and neither has a monopoly on the truth. The difference really is that one of those publications has consistently reported the truth and the other consistently displays government misinformation and propaganda. I already showed how your links above were not really giving any real data regarding drug use and abuse in our society and every single page on the government site is rife with inaccuracies, flush with propaganda, and packed with out and out lies. BTW, I guess you are just assuming that stopthedrugwar.com only uses editorials since at least 20% of that publication is dedicated to reporting of scientific studies and statistical references. I also continue to notice that you have not made even a single comment about the information contained in the article (you know, the survey where 84% of the top cops in America report that they believe that the drug war requires at least "major changes"), choosing instead to attack the source as biased and then in a fit of hypocracy citing the freaking White House Office of Drug Control Policy for God's sake.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me that much since policing drug "crimes" takes police resources away from enforcing REAL crimes. Police officers know the difference and most of them are well aware that possession and use of drugs should not be crimes at all. Personally, if I were to change things, I would keep police funding levels at roughly the same level they are now even as drugs became regulated. That would give the police more than enough resources to track down and catch REAL criminals and, due to the resulting open jail cells, real criminals could serve their entire sentence. I wouldn't have any problem with "do the crime, do the time" if drugs were not considered criminal. Let violent criminals serve their entire sentence and we will see an even BIGGER drop in violent crime than has happened over the past ten years. I agree. One of the most outspoken conservatives on this issue is William F. Buckley. He has waxed eloquently about the folly of prohibition. Yeah, IMO, if we are to legislate morality, the only behavior we should be able to criminalize would be behavior that 90% of the populace agrees should be banned (which would cover things like murder, rape, robbery, and virtually all of the violent and property crime). And that is not even considering the increase in services we would see from the tax revenue collected. No kidding. In addition, in a regulated market we would be able to track drug use to identify probable abuse and addiction cases before they get so severe that they cause the user to commit crimes to support their habit.
Besides, in a real debate, the hypothesis is presented after which the affirmative (person supporting the hypothesis) presents their case. Only after the affirmative presents a case (complete with evidence supporting the assertion that the hypothesis is true) is the negative (person arguing that the hypothesis is faulty) required to present a case. Present your case and I will present mine.
You missed my point entirely. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't do that on purpose. My point was that an educated decision cannot be based only on one source. When the government's policy is being challenged, it makes even less sense to use the administration's own justifications for its policy as your only source of evidence in support of it. It's like looking to the fox to explain why the chicken coop must be raided. Anyway, I'm not here to defend andy's sources. My personal opinion on this matter is rooted more in simple common sense than research. My take stems from a much broader conviction about our government's role in our lives, and that is that it should not be getting embroiled in the consentual acts of its adult citizens unless other citizens are being harmed. That covers a lot more than drug use, and is at the core of what we call freedom. To suggest that drug use harms anyone but the user is a stretch. Also, to assert that drug use is responsible for crime opens the door to playing mind police. I doubt any reasonably thinking person wants to go down that road. What if the conventional wisdom of the time, in the future, is that people who eat fatty foods are more likely to commit crimes. Besides, fatty foods are harmful to you so you shouldn't be eating them anyway. Should we then criminalize potato chips?
So you think government doesn't has any responisbility in the ethics and morals of the people they govern? Thats a pretty extreme belief. Just so I am clear, what are your thoughts on incest, beastality, polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, and suicide? REASONABLE? I cant stop laughing. Drug use doesnt lead to crime. ha ha ha ha ha ha. You CANT be serious. Please provide a single source that can support that comical theory.
I cant comment because it is a faulty study. The information contained in the article is based off data gathered by the Police Foundation who's home page states that they are an organization that "acts as a catalyst for change and an advocate for new ideas." Certainly a source with a motive and not one that should be selected for a scientific study. The data I posted was all from many independant studies just aggregated on the governments website. The article doesnt make any mention to how the data was collected or where they "selected" the 300 police chiefs from. Heck, I can find an organization that believes the moon is made out of cheese. Have them survey a handfull drunk scientists and publish a study that 80% of scientists believe the moon is made out of cheese. Then post an article in the D&D and make people comment on why they dont think the moon isn't made out of cheese when 80% of scientist have proven it to be true. When posting an article that makes a claim based off a survey of 300 police chiefs did you do any further research? How many chiefs of police are there in the US? Why did they only survey 300? Where did the 300 come from? How were they asked? What do the others think? Well, The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has 19,000 members. Their stance on drug legalization is a stark contrast to the picture this article paints. But again, your article only surveys 300 "selected" police chiefs. Here is the link if you would like to know what the vast majorty think. http://www.theiacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_type_id=1&document_id=135 In all actuality, the article doesnt even prove its own point. I can interpret the same data presented to disprove the entire purpose of the article. The article only states that the "selected" cops dont believe that their efforts are effective at further reducing drug use. They did NOT state or produce any data that shows alternative methods will be more effective. Maybe current strategies have been so effective at reducing drug use over the years that a further reduction is not expected. A certain portion of society will not follow rules no matter what they are. Maybe we have reached the point where no policy will reduce the numbers any further.
No, you won't comment because you don't have a substantive rebuttal. Again, just more source bashing with no substantive discussion. Let me point out that the source you use (the White House Office of Drug Control) is EASILY as biased as the Police Foundation or even stopthedrugwar.com. BTW, the information you posted was NOT from "independant studies," it is all from studies commissioned by the government in one way or another. Certainly a source with a motive and not one that should be selected for a scientific study, particularly given the government's propensity for lying about this issue. Well, I guess you can discount it (in your own mind at least) if you like, but in this survey of 300 police chiefs, at least 250 said that they thought the drug war requires at least "major changes." Why does any of this matter? Out of the 300 police chiefs surveyed, over 250 said that the drug war needs either "major changes" or a "fundamental overhaul." Again, you can discount it without thought (as you seem to have) if you like, but it is apparent for all reading this that you have NO reasonable rebuttal to this survey. I personally believe that the public stance compared to the anonymous, private thoughts of police chiefs paints a stark contrast all right. It shows me that they certainly cannot come out in public with their views because of the repercussions. BTW, that website makes NO claim that all (or even a majority) of its members believe that legalization is a bad idea. In addition, the page you reference WAS WRITTEN BY A DEA ADMINISTRATOR FOR CHR!ST'S SAKE! Here is a website you might find interesting, though you seem closedminded enough that you probably won't take the time to read what any of these law enforcement officers have to say. http://www.leap.cc/ That wasn't the point of the survey. They surveyed police chiefs (you know, the people in charge of law enforcement for their area) to find out if they believe prohibition is working. It is pretty obvious that they do NOT and it is also very clear that they believe that the strategy needs to be changed in a major way (over 250 of them believe that). If that is the case, then the politicians really ARE lying to us. They keep claiming that they want to "cut drug use in half by 20XX" (the actual year cited changes year after year) and say that they know they can do it. Current strategies have not done a whit to reduce drug availability or usage, particularly by minors. Half of our young people use drugs before they leave high school and that statistic has been the same since Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs" in 1972. Contrast that with Holland, where teen use of marijauana specifically is about half what we see here. HALF! I completely disagree. A system of strong regulation that is geared to, over and above all other considerations, take drugs out of the hands of our children will raise the average age at which our people can acquire and use drugs. Since age of first use is one of the main factors that plays into addiction rates, keeping drugs out of the hands of our children will reduce overall addiction rates. In addition, the education that will have to be completed to become a licensed purchaser will also reduce drug usage, particularly usage of the most dangerous chemicals. Education is one of the other main determinants in addiction rates, the more you have (general education helps, but education about drugs, use, and abuse specifically) the lower your chances of addiction. When it comes to adults, you may be right about not being able to reduce the numbers further. In a study done comparing adult usage of mar1juana in San Francisco (where pot is illegal) and usage in Amsterdam (where it is tolerated) is very similar. The stark difference is in use of mar1juana by minors, which again is half what we see here. We can get drugs out of the hands of our children, but we will have to get our heads out of our collective a$$es first.
