More gang activity

[DaveTN]

So, DUI laws prevent people from drinking and driving then?

Yes. Have you noticed how many bars have closed? People don’t go out and drink like they did in the 70’s and 80’s because of the crack down on DUI. When I was young a DUI was not a big deal; it is now. Not only can it land you in jail; it can destroy a career.

[RichardR]

Well from a liberty standpoint I believe that an adult should be able to consume anything they want, be it transfats or heroin.

From a fathers standpoint I have seen the negative impact mary-j has had on one of my kids, granted they are an adult and they arnt in danger of OD'ing but it sure does make a person lazy and unmotivated!

If it (the decision to legalize) was up to me, I would probably side with liberty, for no other reason than the fact that we should be free to make those decisions for ourselves, even if they are bad or unhealthy ones.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's already illegal to operate heavy machinery, airplanes, automobiles, etc. I'm not so sure I care whether or not the

drugs themselves are legal or not, but the usage is going to cause the problem. I know if I smoked a joint and succeeded

in getting on my train and taking it to Bruceton, I would be extremely lucky, because one or more people would notice

something and I would likely be pulled out of service and dealt with(fired). The same thing would most likely happen in

other occupations, also. There are heavy regulations out there, already, and, I think I might not worry about the legality

of drugs when considering that.

Is it the drug, or the person's individual responsibility we are having to deal with?

[daddyo]

Yes. Have you noticed how many bars have closed? People don’t go out and drink like they did in the 70’s and 80’s because of the crack down on DUI. When I was young a DUI was not a big deal; it is now. Not only can it land you in jail; it can destroy a career.

Do you have data to back that up? If it's true, why would not the same thing apply to dope if it was legalized?

Edited September 26, 2012 by DaddyO

[RobertNashville]

So you are for more regulation on alcohol. Innocent people die with current alcohol laws. I have no doubt than some lived would be saved if we banned it. Alcohol has one purpose, recreation. It is very selfish for a person to think their personal enjoyment of alcohol is more important than the innocent lives lost today

Maybe we should make all recreational drug use of any drugs legal; no controls...BUT...if you are caught driving under the influence or operating machinery under the influence or if, under the influence, you do anything else that puts the lives of others in danger then you go to JAIL for 10 years if no one is actually harmed or killed; and you go away FOREVER if someone is injured/killed.

Also, anyone who uses any drug of any kind has to pay for their own medical care 100%...their choice to use a drug cannot have any negative financial impact on someone else...no subsidized medical care...medical insurance...welfare, AFDC, food stamps, or any other form of tax payer support.

I might go along with those changes

[Tennjed]

Maybe we should make all recreational drug use of any drugs legal; no controls...BUT...if you are caught driving under the influence or operating machinery under the influence or if, under the influence, you do anything else that puts the lives of others in danger then you go to JAIL for 10 years if no one is actually harmed or killed; and you go away FOREVER if someone is injured/killed.

Also, anyone who uses any drug of any kind has to pay for their own medical care 100%...their choice to use a drug cannot have any negative financial impact on someone else...no subsidized medical care...medical insurance...welfare, AFDC, food stamps, or any other form of tax payer support.

I might go along with those changes

Would alcohol users have to pay 100% of their medical care? It is absolutely a drug, no different than the others

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That couldn't be compared without a lot of manipulation of the data. Bars aren't the same. Every Ruby Tuesday

and O Charleys etc is a bar, which probably dwarf the number of bars in yesteryear.

[JayC]

I think anybody who thinks outlawing a substance that is addictive somehow makes things better is naive.

But, lets look at the current drug problem...

First we have to separate crimes and issues caused by use, from those caused by prohibition.

The first won't go away, it might even get a little worse....

But, for the sake of argument lets pretend you're 100% correct... that the level of crime doesn't change at all, it stays at the current level (history seems to disagree with you, looking at the end of prohibition and crime rates)....

So we end prohibition tomorrow... and make all 'drugs' legal to own and sell...

1. My taxes go down, first from the increased revenue from the now legal selling of drugs... second from all the police officers, and border patrol agents who we no longer need to have on the government payroll.

2. My civil liberties get restored... no more need to search my car during a traffic stop... no more need to have Terry Stops, etc...

So worse case looks a lot better for me than what we have today... and I suspect we'd see additional benefits as well.

For someone who doesn’t particularly like pot I don’t really understand why you keep going back to pot as what you want to discuss? Further, I find the argument about pot and its relation to crime odd - most aficionados of de-criminalizing marijuana are quick to say how it doesn’t make sense for alcohol to be legal to consume while marijuana is illegal…how, for various reasons, it’s a much better “drug†than alcohol (not physically addictive [while ignoring psychological addiction] etc.). You also seem to be implying that legalizing marijuana will positively affect (i.e. decrease) crime but I’m left to wonder exactly how that will happen?

I wonder because by the very argument for legal pot, those who chose to imbibe aren’t negatively affected…they aren’t addicted…they lead normal, productive lives, etc. etc. and if that’s the case; how many of those potheads who aren’t addicted and lead normal, productive lives are breaking into homes to steel stuff to sell so that they have money to buy pot? Is pot really THAT expensive that potheads can’t afford it without steeling money or things they can sell for money? If they are leading normal, productive lives shouldn’t they have all the money they need to buy their drug of choice?

Moreover, if people want to legalize drugs then shouldn’t ALL drugs of any kind be “legal†to buy…buy without a prescription…without a doctor being involved at all…without “liquor stores†or “pot storesâ€â€¦just put it all on convenience store and grocery store shelves for anyone who wants it with no controls of any kind? If not, why not and if not; if we, as a society shouldn’t legalize all drugs and eliminate all controls what possible argument makes sense to make “some†legal and uncontrolled while making others illegal/highly controlled?

Maybe all drugs should be legal; maybe they shouldn’t be but it’s my opinion that anyone who believes that legalizing drugs will have any positive impact on society or crime is, at best, being naive.

[RobertNashville]

Yes I go back to pot because I hope the future generations have a safer alternative to alcohol when they are young and wanting to experiment. I have 3 kids and I would prefer them to not do any mind altering drug, but I hope they have the chance to make a safer choice

Well, I've never been and never will be a parent but it's been my understanding that a man's (or woman's) children making good (safer) choices was what parenting was about; not wanting them to have "safer" drugs to chose from.

Your argument ignores the most important part of the crime/marijuana connection. The money associated with selling it. People die of the money not the drug. Take the money out if the gangs hands, it is a very simple concept

I'm not ignoring it; I just don't buy it as a valid connection. Gangs aren't going to go away just because you legalize pot and especially so if "pot" is all you legalize.

Edited September 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Would alcohol users have to pay 100% of their medical care? It is absolutely a drug, no different than the others

Was there some part of the phrase "all recreational drug use of any drugs" that was unclear?

I know they don't pay 100% now and didn't say that they did.

Edited September 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Maybe we should make all recreational drug use of any drugs legal; no controls...BUT...if you are caught driving under the influence or operating machinery under the influence or if, under the influence, you do anything else that puts the lives of others in danger then you go to JAIL for 10 years if no one is actually harmed or killed; and you go away FOREVER if someone is injured/killed.

Also, anyone who uses any drug of any kind has to pay for their own medical care 100%...their choice to use a drug cannot have any negative financial impact on someone else...no subsidized medical care...medical insurance...welfare, AFDC, food stamps, or any other form of tax payer support.

I might go along with those changes

Robert,

Here again you're not focused on the root cause... The issue isn't why should we be paying for drug users healthcare... the issue is we should be paying for anybodies healthcare.

This is a perfect example of trying to use a band-aide to fix a 'symptom' instead of fixing the root cause...

The government (any level) should not be involved in social welfare, period. I shouldn't be paying your healthcare bills because you're gorked out on drugs anymore than I should be paying your healthcare bills because you're 400 lbs from eating Twinkies all day long. And here is the great thing, if I'm not paying for your healthcare then it doesn't matter to me if you're doing either.

The drugs aren't the real problem, it's the government doing things it has no business doing, and then we find all sorts of excuses to allow the government to manage our lives.

But, the problem with your argument is it doesn't matter... drug addicts get all of those things today... being a drug addict is considered a disability... you're paying for them to sit home and do drugs today already... so unless you believe ending prohibition would somehow cause the number of drug addicts to sky rocket, how is it anymore of a burden on you than the 'war on drugs' is today?

Edited September 26, 2012 by JayC

[Guest nicemac]

Should we find out? Should we legalize drugs and see if drug usage and the crime that goes along with it skyrockets? I have no doubt that it would, but I’m not ready to sacrifice family or friends for an experiment so some people can have their dope.

It would be like removing the DUI laws; innocent people will die.

What experiment? Just look at other countries that have legalized drugs. In places that have de-criminalized drug use, use has gone down. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

It is kind of like the hysteria around legalizing carrying a gun. (gunfight in the streets, etc…) In places that have done it (TN), there has been no increase in gunfights in the streets because of the carry laws.

Prohibition never works.

[Tennjed]

Well, I've never been and never will be a parent but it's been my understanding that a man's (or woman's) children making good (safer) choices was what parenting was about; not wanting them to have "safer" drugs to chose from.

I'm not ignoring it; I just don't buy it as a valid connection. Gangs aren't going to go away just because you legalize pot and especially so if "pot" is all you legalize.

Never said it was going away, I said it would decrease, it is basic economics. They are a ton more users of weed than other illegal drugs. Reduce the criminals customer base. Will it solve the problem, no. Will it help, absolutely. To disagree is naive

[daddyo]

Gangs aren't going to go away just because you legalize pot and especially so if "pot" is all you legalize.

Proof?

[RobertNashville]

Never said it was going away, I said it would decrease, it is basic economics. They are a ton more users of weed than other illegal drugs. Reduce the criminals customer base. Will it solve the problem, no. Will it help, absolutely. To disagree is naive

To disagree is only logical because you are simply making an assumption - assumptions are fine so long as you recognize an assumption for what it is.

My assumption is that gangs exist because gangs exist and will continue to exist and do their gang-related crimes whether drugs are or aren't legalized; just like they always have. They may move to different illegal activity to make their money but to think they that making something legal that used to be illegal is going to have any significant impact simply isn't logical.

Edit: I didn't realize we measured the number of potheads by the ton.

Edited September 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Jonnin]

One dead, one wounded in double-shooting on Jones Street

The victims told officers they were sitting in a vehicle smoking marijuana in front the house when unknown parties began shooting at the vehicle

chalk one up to the death by pot numbers for this year.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Jonnin

[Tennjed]

To disagree is only logical because you are simply making an assumption - assumptions are fine so long as you recognize an assumption for what it is.

My assumption is that gangs exist because gangs exist and will continue to exist and do their gang-related crimes whether drugs are or aren't legalized; just like they always have. They may move to different illegal activity to make their money but to think they that making something legal that used to be illegal is going to have any significant impact simply isn't logical.

Edit: I didn't realize we measured the number of potheads by the ton.

The way potheads eat it is logical to measure them in tons

They may move to another activity but does it not makes sense to make it harder? Eliminating their customer sure seems like a logical way to make it harder.

As an alcohol user do you feel marijuana should be illegal?

[Tennjed]

One dead, one wounded in double-shooting on Jones Street

The victims told officers they were sitting in a vehicle smoking marijuana in front the house when unknown parties began shooting at the vehicle

chalk one up to the death by pot numbers for this year.

That is called justification. If you think pot killed them then you are trying (poorly) to justify your belief. Their we're killed by people not weed. If those two people could have bought their weed legally they may still be alive.

It is absurd to blame weed on those deaths

[Jonnin]

It is absurd to blame weed on those deaths

Correct, I was being absurd on purpose.

[TMF]

Blaming pot for crime is like blaming bullets for murder.

[Jonnin]

see above, it was just a silly remark --- I am in total agreement that apart from a few cases of cancer (again, those hide in the tobacco related numbers anyway) pot does not usually kill anyone, might get the odd allergic reaction to a first timer or something.

Given how it works, I even wonder if it might HELP diabetes and obesity, by messing with blood sugar.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Jonnin

[Tennjed]

Correct, I was being absurd on purpose.

My bad, I am still learning how to post from tapatalk. I missed your other post. Sorry

[RobertNashville]

As an alcohol user do you feel marijuana should be illegal?

I see zero reason to single out "pot"...I believe that if we are going to make any changes to drug laws as they now exist; then either it should ALL be legal or ALL be illegal. That's what I was trying to get across when I said...

Maybe we should make all recreational drug use of any drugs legal; no controls...BUT...if you are caught driving under the influence or operating machinery under the influence or if, under the influence, you do anything else that puts the lives of others in danger then you go to JAIL for 10 years if no one is actually harmed or killed; and you go away FOREVER if someone is injured/killed.

Also, anyone who uses any drug of any kind has to pay for their own medical care 100%...their choice to use a drug cannot have any negative financial impact on someone else...no subsidized medical care...medical insurance...welfare, AFDC, food stamps, or any other form of tax payer support.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Or you could take it in a completely different direction like whether the drug user is a victim of making a

bad choice or was born that way. Like other things we love to argue about, this discussion is almost gay.

[Chucktshoes]

I see zero reason to single out "pot"...I believe that if we are going to make any changes to drug laws as they now exist; then either it should ALL be legal or ALL be illegal. That's what I was trying to get across when I said...

I fully agree with that. I don't try and softly dance around the subject and talk about decriminalization of pot. I am willing to walk things out to their logical conclusions. I support the repeal of ALL drug prohibition laws. What I choose to ingest is nobody's business, especially the government. That is a simple matter of personal liberty. As long as I don't take actions that directly endanger others (like operating a car under the influence) they what right does anyone have to determine what I can or cannot choose to do to myself? What right do I have to make that determination for somebody else? I don't.