Addictiveness is not a good reason for making a drug illegal. People have already mentioned the many drugs that are currently legal which are incredibly addictive, but that still isn't the point. Addiction is a serious medical problem which we must address, but the best way to address it is absolutely NOT by simply locking up those who are afflicted. This is not how to reduce the number of addicts. Addicts who truly want to recover are put into a terrible legal position thanks to prohibition.
This video is pure truth. if Penn and Teller are ever wrong about any issue I'm going to stay inside that day because the sky might literally be falling.
A lot of things are addictive; they aren't ILLEGAL THOUGH! And if you watch the whole episode they explain how alcohol came to be prohibited; there was a strong religious (protestant) component that forced politicians to ammend the constitution to make alcohol illegal.
drug addiction is a problem, there is no question about it, but i do agree that by regulating illegal drugs, violent crimes will decrease, we already know that this war on drugs is making this worse, just when alcohol was illegal.
it has been shown, that drug laws cause more crime, a very sharp increase in crime, and that is not the whole "possession: thing, it is "Violent Crime" rates. It happened during the prohibition, and happened during Nixon's drug laws. Weather or not someone gets addicted, is their problem. And alot of violent crime would be avoided if they were regulated, meaning safer, better ingredients, and less severe side effects, and easier to get, so as to not cause unwanted deaths.
How about drugs that aren't addictive? Not all are, you know.
And if addictive drugs should be illegal, then why not nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances on the face of the planet, or how about my personal drug of choice, caffeine? I don't care for coffee (unless I modify the hell out of it), but I loves me some fresh-brewed tea.
@SailorBarsoom You ignorant twat. Caffeine in coffee & tea? Comparing Class A & B drugs to CAFFEINE IN TEA & COFFEE!!!!!! This pathetic argument is only trolled out by people with IQ's not worthy or recording. Can't believe you found 12 people to give this shite a thumbs up. Hope you win a Darwin award very soon.
Perhaps instead of just telling me how amazingly stupid I am, you could tell me what's wrong with my argument. I'm sure it's very obvious, but since I'm such a dim bulb, you need to explain it to me.
Besides, even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn, so you need to explain what's wrong with my argument, and why this ignorant twat isn't right, perhaps through dumb luck.
@SailorBarsoom well if I spoon feed you you'll never learn independent thought, but I'll give you a start. Drug assessment is not based on one single criteria - it's based on cumulative risks inc. Perceiveable and imperceivable physical, mental and social harms (both voluntary and involuntary) to user and the same harms to other people and society around the user - the latter being the most important. Also consider cost to user/society, toxic amount and the method of funding for production.
Thank you. Now this argument can be more than, "You're stupid!"
"No I'm not!"
"Yes you are!"
"No I'm not!"
You are correct when you say that drug assessment, the decision on whether a given drug should or should not be legal, is not based on one thing only, such as addictiveness.
But some here were suggesting that addictiveness alone is enough. I was pointing out that this standard is not applied evenly. I don't pretend that I was addressing every possible question.
@SailorBarsoom The risk level tariff is not fixed either - it's a balancing act which is not directly proportional is all situation. Theoretically, if cannabis could be safely mass farmed, taxed and distributed with predictable psychotic effects reduced (not going to happen as THC is too volatile and unpredictable) and the limits of social harm outside the user reduced to within certain limits then it could be legalised....but this is also a vast simplification....
@SailorBarsoom When people use the "tea coffee/alcohol" arguments it makes me mad because they are clearly passionate about what they want but have "gone to war" with empty water pistols. You clearly want change - it's never going to happen if you just spout trite uninformed and simplistic ideas at people. The pro-cannabis movement needs to get brainier, not louder or angrier. Of course, their is an irony there due tot he imperceivable psychotic effects to the user.
@SailorBarsoom Not sure what you're implying. But nicotine is of course slightly different. The law is meant to help society function so in the case of class A and B drugs they've been around a fairly short time amongst wider society and a smaller % has access to them compared to cigarettes. Tobacco has been around hundreds of years and gone through many years of being actively promoted out of ignorance of the negative social effects. If tobacco was discovered now, it would be a class B drug.
@SailorBarsoom The problem is that trying to outlaw tobacco as a class B drug is unenforceable due to sheer numbers of people affected. Any law would have to make provision to help those addicted and that would cost too much to be socially acceptable. Regardless of what we might hope for the future of smoking, we're kind of stuck with it for the time being, but that doesn't make it right (like the religious cutting of boys and girls genitals for example)
Look at the War on Drugs. Prohibition of cannabis, MDMA, and other banned substances is unenforceable. Swarming multitudes are imprisoned, thousands of kilos are interdicted, and still the drugs flow from those willing to provide them to those willing to consume them.
I take it that Class A and Class B are the same as Schedule One and Schedule Two.
Did you even take the time to watch the actual episode of the show, or did you please your already blinded facsistic mentality by puking all over a 30 second clip?
Seriously dude, YOU take a moment and think for yourself, then read about the subject, then think again.
telling people on the internet that you work in law enforcement is a brave move...
The price of drugs arises directly out of their illegality, you don't pay for the actual product, you pay for people to break the law to get it for you.
I've seen lots of drugs use in my day; pot, lsd, speed, ecstasy cocaine. Haven't partaken in most of them... but for the most part, I was always a looker-on, you know college parties and shit.
From my experience, the drug that always caused the most trouble, was alcohol. It got people sick, they'd start fights, break shit, and we all know how fun it is to deal with a drunk friend.
Strangely, alcohol is the most accepted drug, but it causes the most trouble.
I agree to the points that (1) criminalization of any drug is useless (2) better to benefit all with the profits than foreign gang overlords (3) when your business is illegal, disputes are not negotiable peacefully. But to the point that "legalizing drugs would eliminate the criminal element completely", we still have human trafficking, graft and protection to keep organized crime going in some form or another.
And yeah, I guess we should legalize marijuana. Why not? We need the money lol (in California). The social impact of such a decision would be hard to predict though... However, it's not that likely any sane politician would ever advocate it. haha ... food for thought.
My idea is that instead of having this entire fight is to simply focus on prevention. As you admitted, "We do not need drugs. Howe ver, drugs exist [and] will continue to exist."So... if we prevented kids from being hooked in the first place wouldn't that be better? I know you'll probably disagree, but I feel that keeping most of the drugs illegal for now while moving toward a less drug-dependent society would be better than taking only A or B.
You are self-contradictory: "I agree wholeheartedly that we do not need anymore drugs" but conclude that "Legalizing drugs would eliminate the criminal element completely. "
We can already see the problems with alcohol. Legalizing crack, heroin, pot and the rest might help us economically (tax revenue, no more war on drugs, etc) but whether it would help us socially is the real question. It's not that simple. Just like banning drugs is not the solution, neither is legalizing all drugs.
..and drugs really don't just impact you or me or whoever is taking it, it impacts everybody around them.
Their parents, their other family, coworkers, friends, neighbors and so on. I would totally vouch for a drug that makes you happy and mellow (i think i'm describing marijuana) but the problem is, too many drugs alter people's minds and cause them to do stupid things. alcohol is a good example. Once again, do we really need any more drugs?
Do we "need" more drugs? What a asshole rhetorical question. You're talking about jailing and imprisoning people. Marijuana should have been legalized 40 years ago.
Well, although I agree with your well-articulated points, I can't help but notice how impossible it is to legalize every single drug as you said before in a previous post. From a logistical standpoint, losing the war on drugs might be a way to win. However, I feel that indiscriminately reversing drug legislation would impact society in a far worse manner. Great supply means more people have access to it. Our society doesn't need any more drugs... and..
Furthermore, it's important to note why the government cannot just legalize a seemingly "harmless" drug as marijuana. Once the law or case is established, it will lead to other cases arguing on the same lines of "well, this is harmless too." Really, that's how laws get to where they are today.
Since a seemingly harmless herb is stricken from our country, why aren't Twinkies illegal? No nutrition, we have an obese problem, these tantalizing snack cakes cannot serve any purpose but for ill. Oh, they taste good, but they pack a deadly wallop, and we as Americans cannot bear the shame of the obese dead because we allowed their sale.
When Twinkies are illegal, will you then see how we have lost our liberty?
Hmm.. about marijuana. You seem like a pretty intelligent person, so this question is for you, Qermaq.
Would it be better to legalize marijuana but attach an oppressive tax to it or just keep the status quo? The purpose of the tax would be to discourage consumption much like how there are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.
Personally, I feel that legalizing marijuana but with oppressive tax on it is the best way to go. + using money raised by the tax to pay for drug prevention/rehab.
I would not say "oppressive". Think, does the tax on alcohol really stop you from having a beer? Don't most people you know who smoke still buy cigarettes, even though they are over twice the price they were 15 years ago?
Taxes, on the whole, don't stop behaviors, they just make people re-budget. The purpose of a "sin tax" should only be to pay for education and assistance to people regarding abused/addictive substances.
Well, an oppressive tax makes sense on from a business perspective. The people will do anything to get their drugs, why not take advantage of that fact?
take Amsterdam as an example, the city is not overrun by drug addicts, who are just looting everything in sight to pay for their addictions,,, i agree prohibiting serious drugs that can potentially kill you or turn you into a derranged maniac but some should be legalized.
ya there isnt much proof of that, except for all the proof thats in front of you. But even if you wanna take that stand and say there isnt proof that legalizing drugs has benefits, juss look at how great criminalizing them works...
The problem, professor, is that not everyone will stay mellow and to themselves. Maybe you have the restraint to keep from violence and crime, but drugs are not for everyone.
Yeah, the War of Drugs is sort of stupid. I think what we should do is prevention vs focusing on fighting addicts and the economy based on them.
Your last comment was sad. So the prices of drugs go down. I don't see how this is helpful to people as a whole. It certainly benefits you, but what about me and everyone else?
There certainly are benefits to legalizing marijuana, and I do feel that marijuana isn't that bad of a drug compared to alcohol, but ultimately if we legalize marijuana we will be setting a legal precedent for the legalization of other drugs which both you and I admit are "bad." The definition of "bad" will change over time and I certainly do not believe that an infusion (even if gradual) of currently illicit drugs can ever help our society.
I am very familiar with the Prohibition. Many people have often cited it as a reason to legalize drugs. They also say that crime would be significantly lowered (as all crimes come from the drug trade but never the druggies) and also people have the right to do whatever they want "in the pursuit of happiness."
I, however, disagree. The prohibition of alcohol is vastly different from that of marijuana. Drug trade crimes might fall but you're forgetting that some commit crimes to pay for drugs.
How do you figure that? The Mafia makes billions off the import and sales of illegal drugs, and addicts rob, steal and kill in order to get money to support their habits.
Teens get hooked on drugs and wind up dead. And addicted pregnant women pass off their addictions to their unborn babies, who are born screaming in agony.
The mafia doesnt exist everywhere. Few addicts commit crimes to support their habit. Teens that OD deserve to die. I have seen it first hand. People dont have to be slave to drugs. They choose to be. AND choice is what this is all about.
The mafia is worldwide, my friend. And my dad is a police officer and the majority of the street criminals he arrests are drug addicts. They rob, they shoplift, they do prostitution; (women & men) and yes, they even commit murder for drugs as well.
I'm all for choice, but I'm not concerned with the freedoms of addicts and criminals who choose to kill themselves with this shit , only with decent citizens who choose to live a free life where they are not victimized by all these damn addicts!
Everyone's arguments about drugs in this thread are coming back to the point that drugs empower crime. The counter argument is that if it wasn't illegal there would be no killing involved, no organized crime involved, and more oversight. Prohibition taught us such, please come up with something that isn't so easily contended. Noone dies in picking up cigarettes from their dealer, instead they get a receipt. It's the usage you need to focus on.
I've never been able to express my thoughts on illegal drugs as fluid as you have.
It's ALL about usage.
Exploring your mind and creativity with substances, using substances to give you a boost in energy or clarity or to suppress physical pain are all perfectly fine uses.
Getting addicted, selling possessions, stealing, committing suicide, abusing others or driving while under the influence are deserving of punishment.
Most people don't commit crimes just for fun. There is a reason or goal behind their actions. Some people do it for money, some for drugs, or others for revenge. Drug abusers (not all) typically commit crimes because a) they want drugs b) the drugs cost money and c) because druggies aren't the model employees, they typically don't get good jobs to sustain their drug use. Thus, they are forced to get their "fix" through illegal methods and even resort to prostitution.
If your consumption of drugs leads you to commit crime, you are a criminal whether drugs are legal or not. I am not personally victimized by "all these damn addicts" at present, and don't think it'd be vastly different if they were decriminalized. Those who can peacefully and respectfully use them without bothering others are OK. The rest are breaking the law anyway, and probably would have even without the drugs. They will be arrested.
I personally know or have known hundreds of people who use drugs on a regular basis, and none of them have ever committed a a crime other than "position" or "under the influence". Most of them only do drugs in the privacy of their own homes.
The link between drug use and crime is almost non-existent and is a negative stereotype equal to saying all blacks like watermelon.
"In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for state prisoners (19% in 1997)." These are the Bureau of Justice's statistics. Non-existent? Not really. Also, it has nothing to do with black people who like watermelon lol.
75- 90% of those prisoners were under the influence of alcohol, not illicit drugs. Up to 85% of people who do illicit drugs never commit a violent crime.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't know where you get your statistics because you don't cite your sources but assuming they are true then... 15% of people who do illicit drugs commit violent crimes. If 15% of people who do illicit drugs commit violent crimes, then how many commit nonviolent crimes? A crime is still a crime. The point is, while many people probably do not commit crimes while they're high, you can't say that nobody does. Also, when talking about thousands of prisoners, 15-25% is a lot of people.
the first one is also from the bureau of justice. the second is from NA. I think it's obvious most of the people with a drug related charge are arrested for possession. Most nonviolent crimes are morally objective, and shouldnt be crimes at all.
so you want to blame thousands of people for the bad decisions of a few hundred. sounds like you suffer from a major case of bigotry.
15% is pretty bad for your case; that is quite high. Much less than 15% of the population at large commits a violent crime.
I think I a better argument would be that just as pot is a gateway drug, drugs are a "gateway crime." I think the link between drugs and violent crime (and there is one) exists primarily because drugs are innately criminal.
@Chinua3 if the price of illicit drugs had not been artificially inflated by the government, perhaps those people wouldn't have been so desperate to get some money for their fix. In fact, if all drugs were available at cheap prices, most addicts would be able to live much more normal lives instead of being a burden on society. Read the facts, drug prohibition is wrong and stupid.
I have to disagree with you, although I don't think goverment should be able to take ones right away to use drugs in a responsible matter. I work In law enforcement, i would say that around 65% Of robberies,muggings,B&E's, prostitution, and murders are drug related. Maybe even higher, very seldom when reviewing a suspect for these types of crime, do i find no history of drug use. Most drug addicts can't afford there habits so they turn to crime.
The reason that they cant afford it is because of drugs being illegal. If they were legal and controlled it would make it much more easier to regulate who gets drugs and how. Not to mention the benefits in tax legalizing would bring.
Drugs are associated with crime simply because they are illegalized.
Do you think prohibiting drugs, resulting the black market, would provide overpriced, profitable items to those opportunistic people who do real crime? Or maybe, do you think the stats would lower if drugs can be legalized into the free enterprise for consumer choice, establishing drug control to prevent contamination overdose, and taking the huge black market profits away from people who do real crime?
Probably true outlaw27870, but Id say during alcohol prohibition most crimes would have been related to that as well. Most drug addicts cant afford their habits b/c they are illegal, which in turn drives the prices up. If legalization occurred, illegal activities would not be required to obtain these substances and the prices would drop dramatically as there would be less difficulties in supply. This would in turn reduce drug related crime. Just a theory
The mafia is an enterprise that exists solely to sell those things that cannot be legally purchased elsewhere. Legalize drugs and hookers, the mafia goes out of business.
My friends ex, in court, accused him of taking drugs she gave NO proof whatsoever. My friend had to pay the 300.00 for testing, it came back clean. His accuser DID NOT have to reimburse him; he receive no apology.
Pennbut we also think that business owners have the right to run their stores any way they want to.
Therefore,even if private business receive state or local tax breaks or government funds its THEIR business and may dictate potential or current employee take a compulsory drug test.
Tyranny:a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
See: War on Drug(witch hunters)and Tyranny of the Majority(sheep)
Hmm... what about instead of prison sentences, we charge them a fine. $100 for possessing a small amount. Then a lot more and possibly up to a month in county if you're a small time dealer (haha like me, except I sell drugs that have uses beyond getting you high and giving you hallucinations). If you're dealing by the kilo, we make that a felony + you pay a major fine. This way, we can combat our deficit and at the same time, discourage illegal drug use rather then try to stop it. Fair?
Certainly in an ideal world we could do that, but how do you know if a person is or isn't going to hurt someone while they are under the influence? I have no problem with them hurting themselves, but hurting others can be a problem especially when you are not really alert.
True, but what would you rather have? The risk of people doing something bad legally, or the same risk illegally with all the other crap that the failed War on Drugs has brought.
Alchohol is legal even though it's far more dangerous than pot, and far more people hurt others while under the influence of alchohol, yet pot remains illegal while alcohol isn't.
That's a very interesting point, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.
The Prohibition failed because there was already too many people hooked on alcohol. If you stopped alcohol in the very beginning, then maybe there wouldn't have been such an explosion of crime and corruption. Marijuana, on the other hand, is probably just as well established but not legally. Once it is legal, what will stop it from becoming like cigarettes or alcohol? And how would you know it wouldn't be just as bad?
You're aware that once upon a time marijuana was legal in the US? The guys who wrote our Constitution were smoking it at the time.
And what would be so bad about it becoming like cigarettes or alcohol? Marijuana is a much safer and healthier substitute to alcohol, yet it's not legal and alcoholic beverages are.
In the beginning would be like before everybody got hooked on alcohol. Of course, the tradition is way too old to just suddenly end and we all know what happens when people don't get their ice cold beers...
Meanwhile, marijuana is still relatively young as far as I know. Drinking fermented fruit juice from your harvest is more probably than deciding to smoke some plant with weird leaves.
--- And yeah, people used to have cocaine all the time. Even Sherlock Holmes. Good times...
Alcohol is legal until you decide to start driving while under the influence of it. In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. - Alcohol Alert
I don't know much about marijuana, I'm pretty sure it makes you unable to drive a car right? There lies the problem. If you could get high without impairing your driving ability, then I would have nothing against you.
The only reason alcohol is ok is because a) it's a long established drug that even a constitutional amendment has failed to bring down b) Taxes on it pays for your schools and highways c) Most people aren't that adverse to the idea of alcohol. Ironically, legalizing a drug just as bad (i.e. marijuana) is somehow "worse" to them.
As you have proved, alcohol has a very bad influence on society. It obviously shouldn't be legal. Then why should marijuana? Does our sh*t society really need it?
I have some friends who do weed. They aren't violent, in fact, they just don't do anything when they're high. This is obviously detrimental because now they won't be able to continue their education. And for others, they won't be able to do work or anything else productive...
Don't get me wrong, if I were to choose between alcohol and pot, I'd definitely pick pot. But just because pot-users aren't violent, it doesn't mean pot is any better.
"Lazy" is a vague term. Your definition of "productive" might be my definition of "lazy." (not saying that it is; this is just to prove how vague these terms are)
So let's use society's definition. Out of curiosity, what job do you do? (You don't have to answer here, or answer at all, but it would help us understand your position on drugs).
Your reasoning is an example of a "false dichotomy." You're saying that I can only pick either option A or option B. Well, I pick C. I think that it would be better if kids were educated not to take drugs. We don't take away any freedoms they already have, just encourage them not to do drugs. Easy.
For now, keep marijuana illegal, and continue to discourage alcohol and tobacco consumption. Less smokers, less drunk drivers or wife beating idiots and less lazy people.
so you are saying that it is better to take away people's right to smoke weed, smoke tobacco under 18, and drink under 21 than to truely be free? are you not in charge of your own destiny? Can you not make decisions regarding your own drug consumption? if so, why isnt that enough? what gives you the right to take away other people's free will it they dont take away anyone else's rights and do not harm anyone?
First of all, I didn't say that, but isn't that's what already going on? Drinking age is 21 and you can't smoke until you're 18. My plan is to keep the status quo with a few changes here and there.
"What gives you the right to take away free will?" Hmm... Firstly, I don't exercise that right. Secondly, believe or not, I can't vote yet. However, the gov't does do that and to them, it's great that -you- don't harm anyone, but what about the other people that do when they're high? Chew on that.
"but what about the other people that do when they're high? Chew on that."
Okay, so you advocate mass punishment? Take away the rights of all because of the crimes of a few?
Should we take away other rights because of that then? If a criminal abuses his fifth amendment rights, should we just go ahead and repeal it since many more criminals might do so?
I don't advocate mass punishment. I advocate prevention. Look, there's nothing wrong with you sneaking a hit in your own home. It's the people that are not afraid of the law, that we are afraid of. By keeping it illegal, ppl like you will be more sneaky about their drug habits and stop bothering the rest of us about how it should be legalized. You do it anyway ... now you want to do it in the public? What does legalization mean to you?
I don't care if I can't do it out in the streets or in certain places. Those same rules exist for alcohol and tobacco. I just want to be able to do it legally somewhere.
How does my smoking pot in my home bother you? How does it affect you in the slightest? And how is that affect different from alcohol or tobacco?
Go live in Amsterdam where you can "do it legally."
Your smoking pot does not bother me at all. And like I said before, it isn't that much different. Also I said, I'd prefer pot legalization over alcohol. However, there is no need for pot currently or in the foreseeable future and pot serves no use for healthy people. So we don't need it... Keep on doing it illegally and don't tell anyone and you'll never get caught... I test smoke bombs in my suburban backyard - no one cares.
Like I said before, tobacco and alcohol are not good things and there certainly is no need for them. However, they have been here longer than anyone can remember. In fact, the United States was founded on the trade of tobacco. Virginia's nickname was "the Colony Founded on Smoke." Another thing to consider is that all the big cigarette corporations control Washington. No one is lobbying for marijuana and no politician who wants to be elected again will support it...
So unfortunately for you, no matter how deep your desire is, I don't see marijuana becoming legal in the foreseeable future.
People want a lower age of consent, people want cocaine to be legal, people want McCain to be president, people want abortion to be illegal, people want a 120mi wall on the Mex-US border ... there is a lot of things that people -want-.
The United States cannot cater to the will of the minority much to all of our disappointment. Just deal with it.
That is a very good question. I think people are just afraid of marijuana and drugs in general. A lot of people are Christian and Scripture teaches that drugs are bad. Plus, as I said before, no politician will advocate the legalization of marijuana or any other drug not already legal. It looks bad and Christians feel that it marks the degradation of society.
You can't really compare drug users to drivers...
Actually, you can compare them. Driving is a privilige. Drinking is a privilege. Drug use should be.
As long as you drive and don't hurt anyone else or abuse your priviliges you're free to keep doing them. It's the same with alcohol and should be the same with pot.
Scotty, it has been very fun debating with you. I always look forward to bothering you on youtube.. But I have to tell you something.
As much as I argue for the opposite side, I personally could care less what you do at home. Smoke all the weed you want - I don't think police shouldn't punish "responsible" drug users. The only problem is that nobody will ever be serious about legalizing pot and other drugs. No matter how strongly you feel about this, politicians will ignore you. So...
I wasn't expecting the government to suddenly change its views on pot just because of a comment I left on Youtube. You just left your point of view on this video, and I responded by leaving mine.
well i think u'l find that contrys across europe canada and some states in the us have decriminalised possesion and are also alowing sick people to finaly get medical cannabis.. and with in the next 20 years or so id be very suprised if more contrys didnt start making similar steps, maybe even legalisation if were lucky. after all its about libertys, look at the video again.
That's a weak analogy too. Fifth amendment rights and "the right to get high" are very different.
Yes, some criminals get away. But ever since Miranda v. Arizona, cops are getting better at it. You can't repeal it even if you wanted to. Do you have any idea how much it takes to just get an amendment passed?
And anyway, the right to not self-incriminate is important (gov't can't force you to confess). Whereas the right to get high - well, it's not that important in American justice.
It's not a weak analogy. Freedom of choice is just as much a right as every bit as important as due process and protection against self incrimination.
Actually, it's not. The War on Drugs is the one that provides the false dichotomy.
It's either "Don't use drugs" or "use drugs and risk being arrested."
Well, why can't it be "Use drugs and not be arrested."
No, let's not keep marijuana illegal. Like Penn says, it's a matter of freedom of choice. It's my body. I should be allowed to put whatever the hell I want into it.
As I recall, you do marijuana regardless the law. What are you complaining about then? Go smoke a bong and chill. Your angry exhortations toward the government that you served will do no good. Are you hoping that you're talking to a senator or representative or something? Nope.
"Treatment of addiction? Addicts treat themselves. They overdose and then there's one less to worry about."-Gen. Salazar, movie "Traffic" (2000).
I'm complaining about the fact that I can't "go smoke a bong and chill" without worrying about a cop bursting through my door and arresting me,and I shouldn't have to worry about that.
Think about something you like. How would you feel if you couldn't do it without worrying about getting arrested?
Then a logical person, seeing the follies of his way would probably just stop or at least try to stop. Marijuana does you no good both healthwise and legal wise so why don't you stop living your life in fear and just quit? You'd save some money and you wouldn't have to be afraid of the cops knocking on your door... It's easy!
Oh I thought you were talking about being a dick. Same argument right? I mean, it applies to your statement seamlessly, so it must be, right? Why don't you leave people the right to choose for themselves?
Or was it perhaps that sometime in your life, someone forcibly stuck their boot up your ass and told you there was nothing you could do about it, and so you took that line of reasoning everywhere you went..
"Why don't you leave people the right to choose for themselves? "
As I've stated earlier, I'm against illicit drug use, but I'm not going to do anything about it. Smoke, snort, inject away - I don't care.
What I do care about is how you (and others) keep claiming this is a right. What is the point of legalizing your drugs? Prohibition did fail badly, but alcohol is still involved in countless domestic abuse cases and car accidents (13,000/yr). Do we really need drugs??
A "right"? If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean I'm allowed to choose what I put into my body and if I want to experiment with my consciousness, then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the hemp it's printed on.
Ending drug prohibition makes us safer. No gang wars. Nobody going blind from drinking moonshine like in prohibition. No Al Capones. No military police raids (google for "Cheye Calvo"). No violence in Mexico. A better world without prohibition awaits. End of story.
For a while, I did feel the same way. Why not legalize pot so we could tax it? Who really cares what people do to themselves? Shouldn't it be their right to "happiness"? But at the end, I concluded that despite all the benefits, that the cons would weigh more. All you listed were the benefits with no consideration of the alternate but equally possible reality. Pot gets legalized and more drugs will follow. And what good are drugs? They're taxable but then again, they killed Nick Adenhart.
There really isn't much proof for this. There is much speculation but not much evidence.
"Bill of Rights isn't worth the hemp it's printed on."
Oh the irony! Forget about smoking anything. Without the Bill of Rights the government could imprison you indefinitely for your ideas and waterboard you for good measure.
-It's great that you want to smoke but really... smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the US and alcohol kills too.
and why is that? they are also both addictive and cause lots of internal damage. Why would you exclude them and not consider or relate them to a drug?
"Both addictive and cause lots of internal damage"???
I've never heard of a caffeine or fast food "addict." Of course, someone sued McDonalds for making them fat under that same premise and ... failed. And though you may experience withdrawal symptoms from abstaining from caffeine after prolonged and heavy use of it, it's not even close to qualifying as an addiction.
Lastly, I could care less.
If you have any more questions, send me a message.
There are so many gateway drugs you don't even know...
There is no "The gateway drug." And also, this discussion on gateway drugs bears no relevance to the fact that illicit drugs (drugs that will land you in prison just for possession. They exclude alcohol, coffee and your mother's milk...)
Fine. I concede to you that legal drugs are dangerous too.
But where are you going to go for hypertension? Coke?
What about to prevent heart attacks? Is LSD going to be your replacement?
And if you're just feeling bad, you should take marijuana right?
Illegal drugs cannot replace what legal drugs can do. Yes, people do die from "my industry's" drugs but even more would die or suffer unnecessarily without them. (Quote this and respond to me. I dare you.)
You know another way to die? Drinking water. Yep. There was a case a young woman who had attempted suicide with my industry's medication. Of course, halfway through, she decided that maybe life was worth living. So she began drinking copious, and mean copious, amounts of water to dilute her blood. Of course, it was so successful that she died from having such low levels of electrolytes.
Water can kill you. Don't drink it! It's a government conspiracy to poison you. Hahaha...
Yes, big difference. Alcohol is somehow worse than "illicit drugs."
We can't keep abusers from continually abusing drugs. But we can -Prevent- people with promising lives from leading one involving illicit drugs (which benefit them in no way at all) and being constantly surrounded by bad company.
1) I'm small time pharmacist. I could care less about my "industry."
2) I'm not here on a propaganda mission that'll affect at most 5 people. I'm just trying to help -you- understand that illicit drugs have no place in society and that is the truth. Sorry.
Btw, the side effects of illegal drugs are worse than any of those by legal drugs: loss of friends, family, job, health, property, and for some, reason to live.
Numbers don't mean anything. More people use legal drugs than illegal drugs.
It's quite possible that people MISUSE these drugs (i.e. mix medications, drink alcohol with their medication, overdose intentionally or not, have an allergic reaction, be prescribed the wrong medicine, and more...).
Another point. Illegal drugs are illegal for several reasons: a) They have NO medical use b) They hurt both your mental and physical health and possibly inhibit your ability to function in society.
Certainly marijuana itself is not the worst drug in the world, but it can definitely lead to worser drugs. You are probably familiar with the effects of marijuana and should know that it will bring you no good. 1) It's illegal. If you get caught you can pay quite a lot and even spend some time in jail or prison. 2) It's an expensive habit. 3) It doesn't help you in any way. You shouldn't use drugs or food for that matter, to deal with your problems.
I feel that alcohol and tobacco are extremely destructive to people's health. Certainly a bit of alcohol at times can be tolerated, but constantly drinking it will bring you no good.
Tobacco, in my opinion, is just plain bad. Your chances of dying from lung cancer skyrocket, your secondhand smoke is destructive to those around you and it just makes you someone nobody wants to be by (thanks to your bad breath and the stigma attached to smokers).
Addictiveness is not a good reason for making a drug illegal. People have already mentioned the many drugs that are currently legal which are incredibly addictive, but that still isn't the point. Addiction is a serious medical problem which we must address, but the best way to address it is absolutely NOT by simply locking up those who are afflicted. This is not how to reduce the number of addicts. Addicts who truly want to recover are put into a terrible legal position thanks to prohibition.
LaCerca 4 weeks ago
car guy sent me
lordadam47 1 month ago
BADASS!
Gerstein1 5 months ago
Spend more money on education, research and rehab programs rather than enforcement and interdiction .
bcreason 8 months ago
The WoD is a failure. We would be better to sue for peace and retreat with our collective tail between our collective legs as befits a defeated army.
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
This video is pure truth. if Penn and Teller are ever wrong about any issue I'm going to stay inside that day because the sky might literally be falling.
truthslap 1 year ago
yeah i have a question, what does this have to do with drugs? i understand the liberties part, because the gov. will do anything to make money
xenomann442 1 year ago
This video makes about a million times more sense than that anti drug video it's parodying. haha "any questions?"
phrimburger 1 year ago
lmao that was right on the money
blargh2blargh 1 year ago
Excellent
111oooo 1 year ago
even caffinee is addictive, pornography too, hey whose gonna stop the standard
fixitluis 1 year ago
A lot of things are addictive; they aren't ILLEGAL THOUGH! And if you watch the whole episode they explain how alcohol came to be prohibited; there was a strong religious (protestant) component that forced politicians to ammend the constitution to make alcohol illegal.
surgeyX 2 years ago
hahaha fucking brilliant...
libertarian principles at its finest.
BreakinGuitarz33 2 years ago
Comment removed
eastofakron 2 years ago
drug addiction is a problem, there is no question about it, but i do agree that by regulating illegal drugs, violent crimes will decrease, we already know that this war on drugs is making this worse, just when alcohol was illegal.
rick4777 2 years ago 3
it has been shown, that drug laws cause more crime, a very sharp increase in crime, and that is not the whole "possession: thing, it is "Violent Crime" rates. It happened during the prohibition, and happened during Nixon's drug laws. Weather or not someone gets addicted, is their problem. And alot of violent crime would be avoided if they were regulated, meaning safer, better ingredients, and less severe side effects, and easier to get, so as to not cause unwanted deaths.
GearsofFate101 2 years ago 12
@GearsofFate101 I heard Milton Friedman say that he estimated that an additional 10,000 homicides each year were a result of drug prohibition.
phrimburger 1 year ago
Inform yourself.
Qazic12 2 years ago
How about drugs that aren't addictive? Not all are, you know.
And if addictive drugs should be illegal, then why not nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances on the face of the planet, or how about my personal drug of choice, caffeine? I don't care for coffee (unless I modify the hell out of it), but I loves me some fresh-brewed tea.
Legalize. Regulate. Tax.
SailorBarsoom 2 years ago 18
@SailorBarsoom You ignorant twat. Caffeine in coffee & tea? Comparing Class A & B drugs to CAFFEINE IN TEA & COFFEE!!!!!! This pathetic argument is only trolled out by people with IQ's not worthy or recording. Can't believe you found 12 people to give this shite a thumbs up. Hope you win a Darwin award very soon.
MusicStudyMan 9 months ago
@MusicStudyMan
Perhaps instead of just telling me how amazingly stupid I am, you could tell me what's wrong with my argument. I'm sure it's very obvious, but since I'm such a dim bulb, you need to explain it to me.
Besides, even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn, so you need to explain what's wrong with my argument, and why this ignorant twat isn't right, perhaps through dumb luck.
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
@SailorBarsoom well if I spoon feed you you'll never learn independent thought, but I'll give you a start. Drug assessment is not based on one single criteria - it's based on cumulative risks inc. Perceiveable and imperceivable physical, mental and social harms (both voluntary and involuntary) to user and the same harms to other people and society around the user - the latter being the most important. Also consider cost to user/society, toxic amount and the method of funding for production.
MusicStudyMan 8 months ago
Comment removed
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
@MusicStudyMan
Thank you. Now this argument can be more than, "You're stupid!"
"No I'm not!"
"Yes you are!"
"No I'm not!"
You are correct when you say that drug assessment, the decision on whether a given drug should or should not be legal, is not based on one thing only, such as addictiveness.
But some here were suggesting that addictiveness alone is enough. I was pointing out that this standard is not applied evenly. I don't pretend that I was addressing every possible question.
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
@SailorBarsoom The risk level tariff is not fixed either - it's a balancing act which is not directly proportional is all situation. Theoretically, if cannabis could be safely mass farmed, taxed and distributed with predictable psychotic effects reduced (not going to happen as THC is too volatile and unpredictable) and the limits of social harm outside the user reduced to within certain limits then it could be legalised....but this is also a vast simplification....
MusicStudyMan 8 months ago
@SailorBarsoom When people use the "tea coffee/alcohol" arguments it makes me mad because they are clearly passionate about what they want but have "gone to war" with empty water pistols. You clearly want change - it's never going to happen if you just spout trite uninformed and simplistic ideas at people. The pro-cannabis movement needs to get brainier, not louder or angrier. Of course, their is an irony there due tot he imperceivable psychotic effects to the user.
MusicStudyMan 8 months ago
@MusicStudyMan
I notice you leave out nicotine.
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
@SailorBarsoom Not sure what you're implying. But nicotine is of course slightly different. The law is meant to help society function so in the case of class A and B drugs they've been around a fairly short time amongst wider society and a smaller % has access to them compared to cigarettes. Tobacco has been around hundreds of years and gone through many years of being actively promoted out of ignorance of the negative social effects. If tobacco was discovered now, it would be a class B drug.
MusicStudyMan 8 months ago
@SailorBarsoom The problem is that trying to outlaw tobacco as a class B drug is unenforceable due to sheer numbers of people affected. Any law would have to make provision to help those addicted and that would cost too much to be socially acceptable. Regardless of what we might hope for the future of smoking, we're kind of stuck with it for the time being, but that doesn't make it right (like the religious cutting of boys and girls genitals for example)
.
MusicStudyMan 8 months ago
@MusicStudyMan
Look at the War on Drugs. Prohibition of cannabis, MDMA, and other banned substances is unenforceable. Swarming multitudes are imprisoned, thousands of kilos are interdicted, and still the drugs flow from those willing to provide them to those willing to consume them.
I take it that Class A and Class B are the same as Schedule One and Schedule Two.
SailorBarsoom 8 months ago
Please read about the Prohibition, when alcohol was an illegal drug. Why was it made illegal? Something emotionally based?
VCat2006 2 years ago
Did you even take the time to watch the actual episode of the show, or did you please your already blinded facsistic mentality by puking all over a 30 second clip?
Seriously dude, YOU take a moment and think for yourself, then read about the subject, then think again.
Sawkawraw 2 years ago
that was a great metaphor
rick4777 2 years ago
why is it a great video, what do you agree with it about?
eastofakron 2 years ago
their reference at the end with the government hindering a person's choice to put whatever he or she wants into their body.
rick4777 2 years ago
"The freedom to do what people want you to do, is not freedom at all."
Penn Jillette.
Bucket1Head3 2 years ago 2
@Bucket1Head3
That's beautiful, when did he say that?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
beautiful
Valetudo21 2 years ago
beautiful indeed! love it!
rick4777 2 years ago
I love Penn's :| face before he starts moving.
t3chsnip3r 2 years ago
Also, I find it interesting that you work in law enforcement, yet your name is outlaw - as they say "who watches the watchmen?"
DividedYouFall 2 years ago
telling people on the internet that you work in law enforcement is a brave move...
The price of drugs arises directly out of their illegality, you don't pay for the actual product, you pay for people to break the law to get it for you.
DividedYouFall 2 years ago
brilliant
darknessstare666 2 years ago
I've seen lots of drugs use in my day; pot, lsd, speed, ecstasy cocaine. Haven't partaken in most of them... but for the most part, I was always a looker-on, you know college parties and shit.
From my experience, the drug that always caused the most trouble, was alcohol. It got people sick, they'd start fights, break shit, and we all know how fun it is to deal with a drunk friend.
Strangely, alcohol is the most accepted drug, but it causes the most trouble.
Kajayacht 2 years ago 4
I agree to the points that (1) criminalization of any drug is useless (2) better to benefit all with the profits than foreign gang overlords (3) when your business is illegal, disputes are not negotiable peacefully. But to the point that "legalizing drugs would eliminate the criminal element completely", we still have human trafficking, graft and protection to keep organized crime going in some form or another.
Qermaq 2 years ago
And yeah, I guess we should legalize marijuana. Why not? We need the money lol (in California). The social impact of such a decision would be hard to predict though... However, it's not that likely any sane politician would ever advocate it. haha ... food for thought.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Lol, they're both pretty bad options.
My idea is that instead of having this entire fight is to simply focus on prevention. As you admitted, "We do not need drugs. Howe ver, drugs exist [and] will continue to exist."So... if we prevented kids from being hooked in the first place wouldn't that be better? I know you'll probably disagree, but I feel that keeping most of the drugs illegal for now while moving toward a less drug-dependent society would be better than taking only A or B.
Chinua3 2 years ago
You are self-contradictory: "I agree wholeheartedly that we do not need anymore drugs" but conclude that "Legalizing drugs would eliminate the criminal element completely. "
We can already see the problems with alcohol. Legalizing crack, heroin, pot and the rest might help us economically (tax revenue, no more war on drugs, etc) but whether it would help us socially is the real question. It's not that simple. Just like banning drugs is not the solution, neither is legalizing all drugs.
Chinua3 2 years ago
i just wanna know how in the world they cleaned that up afterward...
lukeee17 2 years ago
I'm a pro legalization guy, even for stuff like crack or heroin.
But the method of P&T argumentation is bullshit. The cloying Teller, with his lil head shake, after the "liberties" were crushed.
sigh.
Embarrassingly stupid.
itpduder 2 years ago
..and drugs really don't just impact you or me or whoever is taking it, it impacts everybody around them.
Their parents, their other family, coworkers, friends, neighbors and so on. I would totally vouch for a drug that makes you happy and mellow (i think i'm describing marijuana) but the problem is, too many drugs alter people's minds and cause them to do stupid things. alcohol is a good example. Once again, do we really need any more drugs?
Chinua3 2 years ago
Do we "need" more drugs? What a asshole rhetorical question. You're talking about jailing and imprisoning people. Marijuana should have been legalized 40 years ago.
day50912A 2 years ago 2
Well, although I agree with your well-articulated points, I can't help but notice how impossible it is to legalize every single drug as you said before in a previous post. From a logistical standpoint, losing the war on drugs might be a way to win. However, I feel that indiscriminately reversing drug legislation would impact society in a far worse manner. Great supply means more people have access to it. Our society doesn't need any more drugs... and..
Chinua3 2 years ago
Furthermore, it's important to note why the government cannot just legalize a seemingly "harmless" drug as marijuana. Once the law or case is established, it will lead to other cases arguing on the same lines of "well, this is harmless too." Really, that's how laws get to where they are today.
Chinua3 2 years ago
The other argument is also true, you know.
Since a seemingly harmless herb is stricken from our country, why aren't Twinkies illegal? No nutrition, we have an obese problem, these tantalizing snack cakes cannot serve any purpose but for ill. Oh, they taste good, but they pack a deadly wallop, and we as Americans cannot bear the shame of the obese dead because we allowed their sale.
When Twinkies are illegal, will you then see how we have lost our liberty?
Qermaq 2 years ago
Hmm.. about marijuana. You seem like a pretty intelligent person, so this question is for you, Qermaq.
Would it be better to legalize marijuana but attach an oppressive tax to it or just keep the status quo? The purpose of the tax would be to discourage consumption much like how there are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.
Personally, I feel that legalizing marijuana but with oppressive tax on it is the best way to go. + using money raised by the tax to pay for drug prevention/rehab.
Chinua3 2 years ago
I would not say "oppressive". Think, does the tax on alcohol really stop you from having a beer? Don't most people you know who smoke still buy cigarettes, even though they are over twice the price they were 15 years ago?
Taxes, on the whole, don't stop behaviors, they just make people re-budget. The purpose of a "sin tax" should only be to pay for education and assistance to people regarding abused/addictive substances.
Qermaq 2 years ago
Well, an oppressive tax makes sense on from a business perspective. The people will do anything to get their drugs, why not take advantage of that fact?
Chinua3 2 years ago
It's certainly a much better proposal to me to make money off pot instead of waste money by failing to keep it off the street.
RichardMNixon 2 years ago 3
Ok... but why do we need drugs in the first place???
Chinua3 2 years ago
take Amsterdam as an example, the city is not overrun by drug addicts, who are just looting everything in sight to pay for their addictions,,, i agree prohibiting serious drugs that can potentially kill you or turn you into a derranged maniac but some should be legalized.
555roman555 2 years ago
I've been to Amsterdam, and your description of it cant be any farther from the truth. Stop watching propaganda and see the world for yourself.
datonz 2 years ago
ya there isnt much proof of that, except for all the proof thats in front of you. But even if you wanna take that stand and say there isnt proof that legalizing drugs has benefits, juss look at how great criminalizing them works...
555roman555 2 years ago
criminalizing drugs doesn't work
datonz 2 years ago
The problem, professor, is that not everyone will stay mellow and to themselves. Maybe you have the restraint to keep from violence and crime, but drugs are not for everyone.
Yeah, the War of Drugs is sort of stupid. I think what we should do is prevention vs focusing on fighting addicts and the economy based on them.
Your last comment was sad. So the prices of drugs go down. I don't see how this is helpful to people as a whole. It certainly benefits you, but what about me and everyone else?
Chinua3 2 years ago
There certainly are benefits to legalizing marijuana, and I do feel that marijuana isn't that bad of a drug compared to alcohol, but ultimately if we legalize marijuana we will be setting a legal precedent for the legalization of other drugs which both you and I admit are "bad." The definition of "bad" will change over time and I certainly do not believe that an infusion (even if gradual) of currently illicit drugs can ever help our society.
Chinua3 2 years ago
I am very familiar with the Prohibition. Many people have often cited it as a reason to legalize drugs. They also say that crime would be significantly lowered (as all crimes come from the drug trade but never the druggies) and also people have the right to do whatever they want "in the pursuit of happiness."
I, however, disagree. The prohibition of alcohol is vastly different from that of marijuana. Drug trade crimes might fall but you're forgetting that some commit crimes to pay for drugs.
Chinua3 2 years ago
if we throw our liberties at the government, we can mess up their paint job
car000333 2 years ago
pwned.
dionepon 2 years ago
LOL, there was no use for the pan.
wattaaa 2 years ago
drugs causes crime and kills children, and THAT ain't bullshit!
virus20021 3 years ago
Thats the biggest bullshit ever
datonz 3 years ago
Comment removed
virus20021 3 years ago
How do you figure that? The Mafia makes billions off the import and sales of illegal drugs, and addicts rob, steal and kill in order to get money to support their habits.
Teens get hooked on drugs and wind up dead. And addicted pregnant women pass off their addictions to their unborn babies, who are born screaming in agony.
The world doesn't need drugs. Period!
And THAT, ain't bullshit!!
virus20021 3 years ago
The mafia doesnt exist everywhere. Few addicts commit crimes to support their habit. Teens that OD deserve to die. I have seen it first hand. People dont have to be slave to drugs. They choose to be. AND choice is what this is all about.
datonz 3 years ago
The mafia is worldwide, my friend. And my dad is a police officer and the majority of the street criminals he arrests are drug addicts. They rob, they shoplift, they do prostitution; (women & men) and yes, they even commit murder for drugs as well.
I'm all for choice, but I'm not concerned with the freedoms of addicts and criminals who choose to kill themselves with this shit , only with decent citizens who choose to live a free life where they are not victimized by all these damn addicts!
virus20021 3 years ago
Your dad is an idiot and a liar or you live in the biggest shit hole ever.
datonz 3 years ago
Everyone's arguments about drugs in this thread are coming back to the point that drugs empower crime. The counter argument is that if it wasn't illegal there would be no killing involved, no organized crime involved, and more oversight. Prohibition taught us such, please come up with something that isn't so easily contended. Noone dies in picking up cigarettes from their dealer, instead they get a receipt. It's the usage you need to focus on.
banditracer489 2 years ago
God damn that's a good comment.
I've never been able to express my thoughts on illegal drugs as fluid as you have.
It's ALL about usage.
Exploring your mind and creativity with substances, using substances to give you a boost in energy or clarity or to suppress physical pain are all perfectly fine uses.
Getting addicted, selling possessions, stealing, committing suicide, abusing others or driving while under the influence are deserving of punishment.
Legalize and regulate like alcohol.
Deathofatiger1389 2 years ago
No he isn't, and I doubt you'd have the balls to say that to his face, douche bag!
And for your information, I live in a normal, large North American city! You on the other hand, are living in a fools paradise! Assclown!!
virus007911 2 years ago
And did it ever once occur to you that all those criminal addicts your dad arrests are in the minority of drug users?
Or did you just decide to go by stereotypes and that this small group represents everyone?
Do you believe alcohol and tobacco should be legal?
If so give me one reason why pot should be illegal and then explain why that shouldn't also be a reason to outlaw alcohol and tobacco.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Most people don't commit crimes just for fun. There is a reason or goal behind their actions. Some people do it for money, some for drugs, or others for revenge. Drug abusers (not all) typically commit crimes because a) they want drugs b) the drugs cost money and c) because druggies aren't the model employees, they typically don't get good jobs to sustain their drug use. Thus, they are forced to get their "fix" through illegal methods and even resort to prostitution.
Chinua3 2 years ago
If your consumption of drugs leads you to commit crime, you are a criminal whether drugs are legal or not. I am not personally victimized by "all these damn addicts" at present, and don't think it'd be vastly different if they were decriminalized. Those who can peacefully and respectfully use them without bothering others are OK. The rest are breaking the law anyway, and probably would have even without the drugs. They will be arrested.
Qermaq 2 years ago
I personally know or have known hundreds of people who use drugs on a regular basis, and none of them have ever committed a a crime other than "position" or "under the influence". Most of them only do drugs in the privacy of their own homes.
The link between drug use and crime is almost non-existent and is a negative stereotype equal to saying all blacks like watermelon.
datonz 2 years ago
"In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for state prisoners (19% in 1997)." These are the Bureau of Justice's statistics. Non-existent? Not really. Also, it has nothing to do with black people who like watermelon lol.
Chinua3 2 years ago
75- 90% of those prisoners were under the influence of alcohol, not illicit drugs. Up to 85% of people who do illicit drugs never commit a violent crime.
datonz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't know where you get your statistics because you don't cite your sources but assuming they are true then... 15% of people who do illicit drugs commit violent crimes. If 15% of people who do illicit drugs commit violent crimes, then how many commit nonviolent crimes? A crime is still a crime. The point is, while many people probably do not commit crimes while they're high, you can't say that nobody does. Also, when talking about thousands of prisoners, 15-25% is a lot of people.
Chinua3 2 years ago
the first one is also from the bureau of justice. the second is from NA. I think it's obvious most of the people with a drug related charge are arrested for possession. Most nonviolent crimes are morally objective, and shouldnt be crimes at all.
so you want to blame thousands of people for the bad decisions of a few hundred. sounds like you suffer from a major case of bigotry.
datonz 2 years ago 4
15% is pretty bad for your case; that is quite high. Much less than 15% of the population at large commits a violent crime.
I think I a better argument would be that just as pot is a gateway drug, drugs are a "gateway crime." I think the link between drugs and violent crime (and there is one) exists primarily because drugs are innately criminal.
RichardMNixon 2 years ago
@Chinua3 if the price of illicit drugs had not been artificially inflated by the government, perhaps those people wouldn't have been so desperate to get some money for their fix. In fact, if all drugs were available at cheap prices, most addicts would be able to live much more normal lives instead of being a burden on society. Read the facts, drug prohibition is wrong and stupid.
phrimburger 1 year ago
I have to disagree with you, although I don't think goverment should be able to take ones right away to use drugs in a responsible matter. I work In law enforcement, i would say that around 65% Of robberies,muggings,B&E's, prostitution, and murders are drug related. Maybe even higher, very seldom when reviewing a suspect for these types of crime, do i find no history of drug use. Most drug addicts can't afford there habits so they turn to crime.
outlaw27870 2 years ago
The reason that they cant afford it is because of drugs being illegal. If they were legal and controlled it would make it much more easier to regulate who gets drugs and how. Not to mention the benefits in tax legalizing would bring.
PS. I do not use nor like drugs.
CelticofFl 2 years ago
To outlaw27870:
Drugs are associated with crime simply because they are illegalized.
Do you think prohibiting drugs, resulting the black market, would provide overpriced, profitable items to those opportunistic people who do real crime? Or maybe, do you think the stats would lower if drugs can be legalized into the free enterprise for consumer choice, establishing drug control to prevent contamination overdose, and taking the huge black market profits away from people who do real crime?
XlPackratlX 2 years ago
Probably true outlaw27870, but Id say during alcohol prohibition most crimes would have been related to that as well. Most drug addicts cant afford their habits b/c they are illegal, which in turn drives the prices up. If legalization occurred, illegal activities would not be required to obtain these substances and the prices would drop dramatically as there would be less difficulties in supply. This would in turn reduce drug related crime. Just a theory
mspill01 2 years ago
The mafia is an enterprise that exists solely to sell those things that cannot be legally purchased elsewhere. Legalize drugs and hookers, the mafia goes out of business.
RobertGary1 2 years ago
Exactly.
XlPackratlX 2 years ago
Penn! you are the shit
EmJay0001 3 years ago
My friends ex, in court, accused him of taking drugs she gave NO proof whatsoever. My friend had to pay the 300.00 for testing, it came back clean. His accuser DID NOT have to reimburse him; he receive no apology.
We the People of the United States of Salem
umbrasleeps 3 years ago 2
yeppers
plottotakethemdown 3 years ago
Penn should have say-and private business
Penn&TellerBullshit!Beast Hysteria
Pennbut we also think that business owners have the right to run their stores any way they want to.
Therefore,even if private business receive state or local tax breaks or government funds its THEIR business and may dictate potential or current employee take a compulsory drug test.
Tyranny:a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
See: War on Drug(witch hunters)and Tyranny of the Majority(sheep)
umbrasleeps 3 years ago
Hmm... what about instead of prison sentences, we charge them a fine. $100 for possessing a small amount. Then a lot more and possibly up to a month in county if you're a small time dealer (haha like me, except I sell drugs that have uses beyond getting you high and giving you hallucinations). If you're dealing by the kilo, we make that a felony + you pay a major fine. This way, we can combat our deficit and at the same time, discourage illegal drug use rather then try to stop it. Fair?
Chinua3 3 years ago
No, how about instead of that, we don't punish them at all as long as they don't hurt anyone else?
Scotty7617 3 years ago 2
Certainly in an ideal world we could do that, but how do you know if a person is or isn't going to hurt someone while they are under the influence? I have no problem with them hurting themselves, but hurting others can be a problem especially when you are not really alert.
Chinua3 3 years ago
True, but what would you rather have? The risk of people doing something bad legally, or the same risk illegally with all the other crap that the failed War on Drugs has brought.
Alchohol is legal even though it's far more dangerous than pot, and far more people hurt others while under the influence of alchohol, yet pot remains illegal while alcohol isn't.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
That's a very interesting point, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.
The Prohibition failed because there was already too many people hooked on alcohol. If you stopped alcohol in the very beginning, then maybe there wouldn't have been such an explosion of crime and corruption. Marijuana, on the other hand, is probably just as well established but not legally. Once it is legal, what will stop it from becoming like cigarettes or alcohol? And how would you know it wouldn't be just as bad?
Chinua3 2 years ago
Define "in the beginning".
You're aware that once upon a time marijuana was legal in the US? The guys who wrote our Constitution were smoking it at the time.
And what would be so bad about it becoming like cigarettes or alcohol? Marijuana is a much safer and healthier substitute to alcohol, yet it's not legal and alcoholic beverages are.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
In the beginning would be like before everybody got hooked on alcohol. Of course, the tradition is way too old to just suddenly end and we all know what happens when people don't get their ice cold beers...
Meanwhile, marijuana is still relatively young as far as I know. Drinking fermented fruit juice from your harvest is more probably than deciding to smoke some plant with weird leaves.
--- And yeah, people used to have cocaine all the time. Even Sherlock Holmes. Good times...
Chinua3 2 years ago
Alcohol is legal until you decide to start driving while under the influence of it. In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. - Alcohol Alert
I don't know much about marijuana, I'm pretty sure it makes you unable to drive a car right? There lies the problem. If you could get high without impairing your driving ability, then I would have nothing against you.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Glad you brough up cars.
Marijuana does impair your driving ability but not nearly to the extent that alcohol does.
I don't drive either while drunk or high, and I don't believe anyone else should.
And yet once again, alcohol is okay, even though it impairs driving ability to an even greater extent?
Scotty7617 2 years ago
The only reason alcohol is ok is because a) it's a long established drug that even a constitutional amendment has failed to bring down b) Taxes on it pays for your schools and highways c) Most people aren't that adverse to the idea of alcohol. Ironically, legalizing a drug just as bad (i.e. marijuana) is somehow "worse" to them.
As you have proved, alcohol has a very bad influence on society. It obviously shouldn't be legal. Then why should marijuana? Does our sh*t society really need it?
Chinua3 2 years ago
How often do oyu hear about people getting violent and getting into bad fights while drunk? Constantly.
But while high on pot? Never.
How often do people beat their spouses or kids while drunk? Constantly.
When's the last time you hear about someone beating their wives or kids while high on weed?
Never, because it's never happened.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
I have some friends who do weed. They aren't violent, in fact, they just don't do anything when they're high. This is obviously detrimental because now they won't be able to continue their education. And for others, they won't be able to do work or anything else productive...
Don't get me wrong, if I were to choose between alcohol and pot, I'd definitely pick pot. But just because pot-users aren't violent, it doesn't mean pot is any better.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Thank God for stereotypes, huh?
Smoking marijuana does NOT, I say again, NOT, impair your ability to be a productive member of society.
I've smoked weed plenty of times. Yeah, you're lazy while the high is in effect, but it wears off.
I'm no more or no less lazy overall since the first time I tried it.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
"Lazy" is a vague term. Your definition of "productive" might be my definition of "lazy." (not saying that it is; this is just to prove how vague these terms are)
So let's use society's definition. Out of curiosity, what job do you do? (You don't have to answer here, or answer at all, but it would help us understand your position on drugs).
Chinua3 2 years ago
If you must know I go to college full time. I was in the military, and they're giving me money to go to school, so I don't need to work.
Although if I did need to, my use of marijuana would have no impact, negative or positive on it.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
And what would you rather have? More people who are occasionally very lazy or more people abusing their families?
i'd prefer more lazy people over abusive people, but even that's a bad generalization.
Pot makes you lazy when you use it but not 24/7 contrary to what those ridiculous anti-drug commercials claim.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Your reasoning is an example of a "false dichotomy." You're saying that I can only pick either option A or option B. Well, I pick C. I think that it would be better if kids were educated not to take drugs. We don't take away any freedoms they already have, just encourage them not to do drugs. Easy.
For now, keep marijuana illegal, and continue to discourage alcohol and tobacco consumption. Less smokers, less drunk drivers or wife beating idiots and less lazy people.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Chinua, I think you might just be the most educated person on youtube. I thank you for that.
ItchyDoughnut 2 years ago
No, he's not. Chinua is just another gullible person swayed by those stupid, ridiculous anti-drug commercials.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
I heartily agree... NOT! They don't run anti-drug commercials where I live and I haven't seen one since 6th grade.
Chinua3 2 years ago
so you are saying that it is better to take away people's right to smoke weed, smoke tobacco under 18, and drink under 21 than to truely be free? are you not in charge of your own destiny? Can you not make decisions regarding your own drug consumption? if so, why isnt that enough? what gives you the right to take away other people's free will it they dont take away anyone else's rights and do not harm anyone?
USBMUndergroundFan 2 years ago
First of all, I didn't say that, but isn't that's what already going on? Drinking age is 21 and you can't smoke until you're 18. My plan is to keep the status quo with a few changes here and there.
"What gives you the right to take away free will?" Hmm... Firstly, I don't exercise that right. Secondly, believe or not, I can't vote yet. However, the gov't does do that and to them, it's great that -you- don't harm anyone, but what about the other people that do when they're high? Chew on that.
Chinua3 2 years ago
"but what about the other people that do when they're high? Chew on that."
Okay, so you advocate mass punishment? Take away the rights of all because of the crimes of a few?
Should we take away other rights because of that then? If a criminal abuses his fifth amendment rights, should we just go ahead and repeal it since many more criminals might do so?
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Wow... Straw man much?
I don't advocate mass punishment. I advocate prevention. Look, there's nothing wrong with you sneaking a hit in your own home. It's the people that are not afraid of the law, that we are afraid of. By keeping it illegal, ppl like you will be more sneaky about their drug habits and stop bothering the rest of us about how it should be legalized. You do it anyway ... now you want to do it in the public? What does legalization mean to you?
Chinua3 2 years ago
Okay, so why can't I do it in my home legally?
I don't care if I can't do it out in the streets or in certain places. Those same rules exist for alcohol and tobacco. I just want to be able to do it legally somewhere.
How does my smoking pot in my home bother you? How does it affect you in the slightest? And how is that affect different from alcohol or tobacco?
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Go live in Amsterdam where you can "do it legally."
Your smoking pot does not bother me at all. And like I said before, it isn't that much different. Also I said, I'd prefer pot legalization over alcohol. However, there is no need for pot currently or in the foreseeable future and pot serves no use for healthy people. So we don't need it... Keep on doing it illegally and don't tell anyone and you'll never get caught... I test smoke bombs in my suburban backyard - no one cares.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Again, that's a very bad argument. Why should I have to move to another country to be able to exercise my freedom of choice legally?
True, there's no need for pot. It's a want issue.
There's also no need for alcohol or tobacco, yet they're still there for anyone who WANTS them. I'd like pot to b available too in case I WANT it.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Like I said before, tobacco and alcohol are not good things and there certainly is no need for them. However, they have been here longer than anyone can remember. In fact, the United States was founded on the trade of tobacco. Virginia's nickname was "the Colony Founded on Smoke." Another thing to consider is that all the big cigarette corporations control Washington. No one is lobbying for marijuana and no politician who wants to be elected again will support it...
Chinua3 2 years ago
So unfortunately for you, no matter how deep your desire is, I don't see marijuana becoming legal in the foreseeable future.
People want a lower age of consent, people want cocaine to be legal, people want McCain to be president, people want abortion to be illegal, people want a 120mi wall on the Mex-US border ... there is a lot of things that people -want-.
The United States cannot cater to the will of the minority much to all of our disappointment. Just deal with it.
Chinua3 2 years ago
Well, let me give you a better comparison. Let's use a privilege instead of a right.
Should everyone have their driving privileges revoked or scaled back because of all the bad drivers out there causing accidents?
Scotty7617 2 years ago
That is a very good question. I think people are just afraid of marijuana and drugs in general. A lot of people are Christian and Scripture teaches that drugs are bad. Plus, as I said before, no politician will advocate the legalization of marijuana or any other drug not already legal. It looks bad and Christians feel that it marks the degradation of society.
You can't really compare drug users to drivers...
Chinua3 2 years ago
Actually, you can compare them. Driving is a privilige. Drinking is a privilege. Drug use should be.
As long as you drive and don't hurt anyone else or abuse your priviliges you're free to keep doing them. It's the same with alcohol and should be the same with pot.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Comment removed
donmalachai 2 years ago
Scotty, it has been very fun debating with you. I always look forward to bothering you on youtube.. But I have to tell you something.
As much as I argue for the opposite side, I personally could care less what you do at home. Smoke all the weed you want - I don't think police shouldn't punish "responsible" drug users. The only problem is that nobody will ever be serious about legalizing pot and other drugs. No matter how strongly you feel about this, politicians will ignore you. So...
Chinua3 2 years ago
I wasn't expecting the government to suddenly change its views on pot just because of a comment I left on Youtube. You just left your point of view on this video, and I responded by leaving mine.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
well i think u'l find that contrys across europe canada and some states in the us have decriminalised possesion and are also alowing sick people to finaly get medical cannabis.. and with in the next 20 years or so id be very suprised if more contrys didnt start making similar steps, maybe even legalisation if were lucky. after all its about libertys, look at the video again.
ciaranfox2008 2 years ago
That's a weak analogy too. Fifth amendment rights and "the right to get high" are very different.
Yes, some criminals get away. But ever since Miranda v. Arizona, cops are getting better at it. You can't repeal it even if you wanted to. Do you have any idea how much it takes to just get an amendment passed?
And anyway, the right to not self-incriminate is important (gov't can't force you to confess). Whereas the right to get high - well, it's not that important in American justice.
Chinua3 2 years ago
It's not a weak analogy. Freedom of choice is just as much a right as every bit as important as due process and protection against self incrimination.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Actually, it's not. The War on Drugs is the one that provides the false dichotomy.
It's either "Don't use drugs" or "use drugs and risk being arrested."
Well, why can't it be "Use drugs and not be arrested."
No, let's not keep marijuana illegal. Like Penn says, it's a matter of freedom of choice. It's my body. I should be allowed to put whatever the hell I want into it.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
As I recall, you do marijuana regardless the law. What are you complaining about then? Go smoke a bong and chill. Your angry exhortations toward the government that you served will do no good. Are you hoping that you're talking to a senator or representative or something? Nope.
"Treatment of addiction? Addicts treat themselves. They overdose and then there's one less to worry about."-Gen. Salazar, movie "Traffic" (2000).
Chinua3 2 years ago
What am I complaining about?
I'm complaining about the fact that I can't "go smoke a bong and chill" without worrying about a cop bursting through my door and arresting me,and I shouldn't have to worry about that.
Think about something you like. How would you feel if you couldn't do it without worrying about getting arrested?
Scotty7617 2 years ago
I would be terrified. Then I'd just smoke one and get over that fear.
Chinua3 2 years ago
True, getting high does reduce fear and tension, but the thing you're scared of can still happen.
Even if I'm not afraid of being busted it can still happen, and eventually the effects of the pot are going to wear off, and the fear comes back.
Scotty7617 2 years ago
Then a logical person, seeing the follies of his way would probably just stop or at least try to stop. Marijuana does you no good both healthwise and legal wise so why don't you stop living your life in fear and just quit? You'd save some money and you wouldn't have to be afraid of the cops knocking on your door... It's easy!
Chinua3 2 years ago
They used that same argument for alcohol during prohibition. Worked wonders didn't it?
Lots of things are unhealthy, yet they're still completely legal. It's one's choice whether or not to use them. Marijuana should be no dofferent.
Scotty7617 2 years ago 2
Oh I thought you were talking about being a dick. Same argument right? I mean, it applies to your statement seamlessly, so it must be, right? Why don't you leave people the right to choose for themselves?
Or was it perhaps that sometime in your life, someone forcibly stuck their boot up your ass and told you there was nothing you could do about it, and so you took that line of reasoning everywhere you went..
infinitechimp 2 years ago
"Why don't you leave people the right to choose for themselves? "
As I've stated earlier, I'm against illicit drug use, but I'm not going to do anything about it. Smoke, snort, inject away - I don't care.
What I do care about is how you (and others) keep claiming this is a right. What is the point of legalizing your drugs? Prohibition did fail badly, but alcohol is still involved in countless domestic abuse cases and car accidents (13,000/yr). Do we really need drugs??
Chinua3 2 years ago
A "right"? If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean I'm allowed to choose what I put into my body and if I want to experiment with my consciousness, then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the hemp it's printed on.
Ending drug prohibition makes us safer. No gang wars. Nobody going blind from drinking moonshine like in prohibition. No Al Capones. No military police raids (google for "Cheye Calvo"). No violence in Mexico. A better world without prohibition awaits. End of story.
ichbindaswalross 2 years ago
For a while, I did feel the same way. Why not legalize pot so we could tax it? Who really cares what people do to themselves? Shouldn't it be their right to "happiness"? But at the end, I concluded that despite all the benefits, that the cons would weigh more. All you listed were the benefits with no consideration of the alternate but equally possible reality. Pot gets legalized and more drugs will follow. And what good are drugs? They're taxable but then again, they killed Nick Adenhart.
Chinua3 2 years ago
"A better world without prohibition awaits."
There really isn't much proof for this. There is much speculation but not much evidence.
"Bill of Rights isn't worth the hemp it's printed on."
Oh the irony! Forget about smoking anything. Without the Bill of Rights the government could imprison you indefinitely for your ideas and waterboard you for good measure.
-It's great that you want to smoke but really... smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the US and alcohol kills too.
Chinua3 2 years ago
LOLLOLLOL
555roman555 2 years ago
That's not the point. The point is that you should have the right to smoke marijuana.
socer777 2 years ago
I watched it and I agree. I do watch P & T episodes. After all, if I didn't, I wouldn't have met such a fine gentleman as yourself.
That episode is about the War on Drugs. yes, the WoD is stupid. Still, it can't hurt to keep illicit drugs illegal.
Chinua3 3 years ago
Ok, so you responded to my alcohol & tobbacco question. Now what do you think about caffeine and fast food?
LordGorgoroth 3 years ago
I could care less.
Chinua3 3 years ago
and why is that? they are also both addictive and cause lots of internal damage. Why would you exclude them and not consider or relate them to a drug?
LordGorgoroth 3 years ago
"Both addictive and cause lots of internal damage"???
I've never heard of a caffeine or fast food "addict." Of course, someone sued McDonalds for making them fat under that same premise and ... failed. And though you may experience withdrawal symptoms from abstaining from caffeine after prolonged and heavy use of it, it's not even close to qualifying as an addiction.
Lastly, I could care less.
If you have any more questions, send me a message.
Chinua3 3 years ago
Chinua3 : youve never heard of a caffeine addict??? its the 2nd most addictive substance in the world.
baileytehkid 3 years ago
An addiction and a habit are two different things.
Chinua3 3 years ago
There are so many gateway drugs you don't even know...
There is no "The gateway drug." And also, this discussion on gateway drugs bears no relevance to the fact that illicit drugs (drugs that will land you in prison just for possession. They exclude alcohol, coffee and your mother's milk...)
Chinua3 3 years ago
... cause way more harm than alcohol, coffee and milk combined.
Chinua3 3 years ago
Fine. I concede to you that legal drugs are dangerous too.
But where are you going to go for hypertension? Coke?
What about to prevent heart attacks? Is LSD going to be your replacement?
And if you're just feeling bad, you should take marijuana right?
Illegal drugs cannot replace what legal drugs can do. Yes, people do die from "my industry's" drugs but even more would die or suffer unnecessarily without them. (Quote this and respond to me. I dare you.)
Chinua3 3 years ago
You know another way to die? Drinking water. Yep. There was a case a young woman who had attempted suicide with my industry's medication. Of course, halfway through, she decided that maybe life was worth living. So she began drinking copious, and mean copious, amounts of water to dilute her blood. Of course, it was so successful that she died from having such low levels of electrolytes.
Water can kill you. Don't drink it! It's a government conspiracy to poison you. Hahaha...
Chinua3 3 years ago
Yes, big difference. Alcohol is somehow worse than "illicit drugs."
We can't keep abusers from continually abusing drugs. But we can -Prevent- people with promising lives from leading one involving illicit drugs (which benefit them in no way at all) and being constantly surrounded by bad company.
Chinua3 3 years ago
/watch?v=zEyKAzXqVkA&feature=related
Boxwoodz 3 years ago 2
you should watch the full episode of this...
Boxwoodz 3 years ago
"you want to protect your industry."
Protecting my industry? On Youtube?
1) I'm small time pharmacist. I could care less about my "industry."
2) I'm not here on a propaganda mission that'll affect at most 5 people. I'm just trying to help -you- understand that illicit drugs have no place in society and that is the truth. Sorry.
Btw, the side effects of illegal drugs are worse than any of those by legal drugs: loss of friends, family, job, health, property, and for some, reason to live.
Chinua3 3 years ago
Numbers don't mean anything. More people use legal drugs than illegal drugs.
It's quite possible that people MISUSE these drugs (i.e. mix medications, drink alcohol with their medication, overdose intentionally or not, have an allergic reaction, be prescribed the wrong medicine, and more...).
Another point. Illegal drugs are illegal for several reasons: a) They have NO medical use b) They hurt both your mental and physical health and possibly inhibit your ability to function in society.
Chinua3 3 years ago
Marijuana: a) Yes it does b) you can function in society... just dont drive
LordGorgoroth 3 years ago
Certainly marijuana itself is not the worst drug in the world, but it can definitely lead to worser drugs. You are probably familiar with the effects of marijuana and should know that it will bring you no good. 1) It's illegal. If you get caught you can pay quite a lot and even spend some time in jail or prison. 2) It's an expensive habit. 3) It doesn't help you in any way. You shouldn't use drugs or food for that matter, to deal with your problems.
Chinua3 3 years ago
and what is your opinion/view of alcohol and tobbacco?
LordGorgoroth 3 years ago
I feel that alcohol and tobacco are extremely destructive to people's health. Certainly a bit of alcohol at times can be tolerated, but constantly drinking it will bring you no good.
Tobacco, in my opinion, is just plain bad. Your chances of dying from lung cancer skyrocket, your secondhand smoke is destructive to those around you and it just makes you someone nobody wants to be by (thanks to your bad breath and the stigma attached to smokers).
Chinua3