Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[Grungebob]

Hey fellas. This has been a fascinating discussion. I just wanted to pop in and say that Imax and I are very similar in our political ideals (I think we've known this but didn't mention it). We are mostly liberal in our beliefs, but both of us do not support abortion. I personally see abortion as murder of a human life. I agree that in cases where the mother's life is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, that abortion should be allowed as an option. But I can't think of any other conditions that would make it ok with me.

I would however legalize most relatively safe drugs for personal adult use, adult gambling, and prostitution among consenting adults. I see absolutely no reason for my tax dollars to be spent on these victimless adult recreations. I see no lapse in morality in any of this.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

Fezzik, while your argument certainly highlights issues in consistency, I know I couldn't be the one to tell a woman that she had to carry to term the child she was about to have with a rapist.

I think a big part of the difference, and the reason most people just assume that rape and incest require a different set of rules, is that usually, the woman chose to engage in activities likely to result in fertilization. Otherwise, she's a victim, and making her have the baby continues to make her a victim. Another reason is entirely practical - in the case of a woman who has a child due to irresponsibility, she is a lot less likely to take matters into her own hands if denied a legal recourse. I would have trouble blaming a woman for a coat-hanger abortion if the kid was started by rape.

Happily, these particular distinctions can be put to one side thanks to the fact that they make up such a small percentage of abortions. I think every opponent of abortion can agree that stopping abortion as after-the-fact birth control would be one hell of a win, and even those people who could honestly tell a rape victim that she had to have her attacker's illegitimate son would be willing to sign off on an exception if it meant stopping the much bigger problem.

Fair enough, and I redily concede that these types of cases make up such a small percentage as to be almost unimportant. Really, you nailed it in the opening line, I just want consistency in a person's rational, that's all.

Along those lines, if a victem of rape or incest were to carry their child to term but a few weeks after the birth of the child smother it in a crib, claiming post-partum depression exasperated by the circumstances of the child's conception, would you aquit her if seated on her jury?

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

I would however legalize most relatively safe drugs for personal adult use, adult gambling, and prostitution among consenting adults. I see absolutely no reason for my tax dollars to be spent on these victimless adult recreations. I see no lapse in morality in any of this.

I understand the argument for legalizing drugs. I still have a gut-level problem with it though. I understand that it would greatly reduce drug related crime and violence, would free up police efforts to focus on other crimes, and would raise additional tax revenue (assuming that the government would tax the heck out of it just as they do with alcohol and cigarettes.)

My main problem is that I think making it legal and safer would increase the use of drugs, and that just doesn't sound like a good thing. The other thing is that you say "safer" drugs, which I guess means that some drug would remain illegal. But isn't one of the problems with drug addiction that users tend to need to move on to harder drugs to achieve a high? Or is that just a myth.

Then there is the problem of underage use, just as there is now with alcohol.

I don't know...I'm not convinced yet.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by jbbnbsmith

I understand the argument for legalizing drugs. I still have a gut-level problem with it though. I understand that it would greatly reduce drug related crime and violence, would free up police efforts to focus on other crimes, and would raise additional tax revenue (assuming that the government would tax the heck out of it just as they do with alcohol and cigarettes.)

My main problem is that I think making it legal and safer would increase the use of drugs, and that just doesn't sound like a good thing. The other thing is that you say "safer" drugs, which I guess means that some drug would remain illegal. But isn't one of the problems with drug addiction that users tend to need to move on to harder drugs to achieve a high? Or is that just a myth.

Then there is the problem of underage use, just as there is now with alcohol.

I don't know...I'm not convinced yet.

The under-age part is not a factor. It would still remain illegal for under age kids to posess or do drugs. 30 billion dollars a year is spent on trying to criminalize victimless adult recreational behavior. It is an extreme and ridiculous waste of time, money, and resources. It seems so insane to me that I cannot understand why we put up with it.

And frankly I have no idea if drug usage leads to heavier more risky drugs. I simply don't do drugs. But I drink beer and it hasn't lead me to more powerful forms of alcahol. This idea that society's unacceptible behavior leads to more and more unacceptible behavior just doesn't seem true to me.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

I would however legalize most relatively safe drugs for personal adult use, adult gambling, and prostitution among consenting adults. I see absolutely no reason for my tax dollars to be spent on these victimless adult recreations. I see no lapse in morality in any of this.

I am so completely on board with all this. There are too many compelling arguments for legalizing drugs (and yes, some would need to stay illegal, because some stuff is just too bad for anyone). And most of the reasons for keeping it illegal, I can refute with anecdotal evidence, having known a relatively impressive number of people who actively enjoyed their non-pharmaceuticals.

Gambling - why the heck do I have to drive to Oklahoma to play poker? That's crap. If it's so bad, why don't we close Vegas? And if it's OK in Vegas, why isn't it legal in Houston?

Prostitution is a victimless crime - unless it's illegal. When it's illegal, prostitution is a horrible way for a woman to make a living, and comes with pimps, beatings and all manner of horrible abuse. If it's legal (like in a Nevada brothel), the women flat-out love their jobs, quit whenever they want, and make a ton of money. The best thing we could do to take the victimization out of prostitution is make it legal.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

I am so completely on board with all this. There are too many compelling arguments for legalizing drugs (and yes, some would need to stay illegal, because some stuff is just too bad for anyone). And most of the reasons for keeping it illegal, I can refute with anecdotal evidence, having known a relatively impressive number of people who actively enjoyed their non-pharmaceuticals.

Gambling - why the heck do I have to drive to Oklahoma to play poker? That's crap. If it's so bad, why don't we close Vegas? And if it's OK in Vegas, why isn't it legal in Houston?

Prostitution is a victimless crime - unless it's illegal. When it's illegal, prostitution is a horrible way for a woman to make a living, and comes with pimps, beatings and all manner of horrible abuse. If it's legal (like in a Nevada brothel), the women flat-out love their jobs, quit whenever they want, and make a ton of money. The best thing we could do to take the victimization out of prostitution is make it legal.

The funny thing about prostitution is that it is none of my business!! What others do in private has no bearing on me or society if there are no victims. What they do and how much they pay is not my business and why should I try and criminalize private adult behavior.

[Gulp]

I think marijuana leads to harder drugs, but the pot isn't what causes the jump. Alcohol is motivating factor for someone to try harder drugs. The pot only puts them in a situation that could involve riskier drugs because it is illegal.

In other words, if you hang out with someone who drinks, you'll occasionally befriend a guy who smokes pot. If you hang out with someone who smokes pots, you'll occasionally have some dude pull out cocaine at a late night party. Pot doesn't make you think coke would be interesting. Alcohol makes you think cocaine might be fun to try once. Most of these situations involve alcohol. It's the gateway drug.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by Gulp

I think marijuana leads to harder drugs, but the pot isn't what causes the jump. Alcohol is motivating factor for someone to try harder drugs. The pot only puts them in a situation that could involve riskier drugs because it is illegal.

In other words, if you hang out with someone who drinks, you'll occasionally befriend a guy who smokes pot. If you hang out with someone who smokes pots, you'll occasionally have some dude pull out cocaine at a late night party. Pot doesn't make you think coke would be interesting. Alcohol makes you think cocaine might be fun to try once. Most of these situations involve alcohol. It's the gateway drug.

BS! That reads more like a hunch than anything.

[Agent Minivann]

A problem with a lot of the illegal drugs is that there isn't anything that you can go by to verify what you are buying/using. In that way, yes, drug use leads to more drug use. Some nimrod somewhere is going to pass something harder to his clients. Sure if you always buy from a "trusted source" that doesn't happen, but there still isn't any real assurance that the guy you know is noble. My experience with users over the years suggests that there aren't that many that are really that careful apart from being paranoid(of course the fact that a good number of them were in jail on work release might cloud that assessment).

I think an unaccounted for problem with legalizing all of the victimless crimes already mentioned is that there will still be an illegal market. It would be a mess at first. Existing dealers are probably not going to readily step forward and start paying taxes, etc. I can see pharmaceutical companies stepping up to be the big legal suppliers, and then we are right back in the same boat with prescription prices.

I think prostitution would be the most ready to go live with legalized prostitution, but I'm sure there will still be those that want to keep their income, but won't be able to meet new regulations (STD testing is the real obvious one) and/or won't want to pay their taxes. There will still probably be a market with "Johns" that will think they will show up in the system if they go to a licensed prostitute.

[SuperflyTNT]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

BS! That reads more like a hunch than anything.

Well, without revealing too much I think I can contribute here. Yes, the idea that pot is a gateway drug is absolutely true. It's like a barrier: "If I'm morally OK with smoking a little weed, how bad could some speed or acid be...I mean they're all drugs...". And Gulp is right - if you are a partyer and like to drink you will almost certainly be exposed to dope. They go hand-in-hand. When one gets involved with the 'dope scene' you will end up meeting all kinds of individuals and trying all kinds of drugs. I think cocaine is down the road, though, and the people that smoke pot will generally have shrooms before coke. Funny, but it's a 'natural' thing - no additives in pot or shrooms, so they are considered 'more safe' by most people who are not opposed to all things.

Personally, I think that they should only keep the following illegal:
Heroin - this is a life-ending addictive substance ... not like any other drug.
Cocaine - this is a BANK ACCOUNT killer, as well as uber addictive.
Ketamine - Bad stuff - kills people and bursts brains.

Pretty much anything else is safe and should be sold by pharmacists.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Hey. I've been reading this discussion for several pages now and it's been very interesting.

Fezzik brings up an interesting point, and I agree with him. On the grounds that I think abortion is murder, I oppose abortion being legal in any case except when the mother's life is at stake (which I understand is very rare in America). In the cases of rape or incest, the only reason I would readily accept abortion being legal in those circumstances is that I don't believe that an anti-abortion law could be passed (or abortion made into a state's decision) without those pre-conditions tacked on. At this stage, I'll take what I can get when it comes to abortions being made illegal or harder to obtain.

As for drugs being legalized, I think its effects would be similar to alcohol's. Many (probably most) people can enjoy alcohol responsibly, but many cannot (with terrible consequences for themselves and, more importantly, others). If legalized, drugs would be used responsibly by some people, and irresponsibly by others (just like how people treat pharmaceuticals). The problem I see with legalizing drugs is that if there are unforeseen consequences that deem drugs being forbidden again, it will be near impossible to make them illegal. We've seen how our nation rejected prohibition of a substance that was previously legal. In addition, with drugs being made "safer" (I read "not as potent"), there would still be a black market for stronger substances, which I am assuming would still be illegal, thus not really reducing the number of arrests for illegal drugs.

On the issue of being a gateway drug, I think that comes down to the individual. I have a close friend who chooses to smoke pot who would never dream of going on to harder drugs. In high school, though, when I engaged in such activity, I don't know of a single person in my group of drug doers who didn't go on to use harder drugs. The difference might be age or maturity. That is just personal experience though, and I would like to see reliable statistics (if there are any) telling what percentages of folks who smoke pot regularly go on to use harder drugs.

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

The under-age part is not a factor. It would still remain illegal for under age kids to posess or do drugs. 30 billion dollars a year is spent on trying to criminalize victimless adult recreational behavior. It is an extreme and ridiculous waste of time, money, and resources. It seems so insane to me that I cannot understand why we put up with it.

And frankly I have no idea if drug usage leads to heavier more risky drugs. I simply don't do drugs. But I drink beer and it hasn't lead me to more powerful forms of alcahol. This idea that society's unacceptible behavior leads to more and more unacceptible behavior just doesn't seem true to me.

What I meant regarding kids is that the drugs would be much easier for them to obtain illegally than it is now. In many suburban areas the most abused drugs by kids are prescription drugs that they steal from their parents and grandparents. Then there is the issue of teens having an older friend buy the drugs for them.

You use beer as an example that drugs do not have to lead to stronger drugs. The problem with that argument is that beer and wine can be consumed without the intention of getting drunk. I don't drink much, but a beer with my dinner has no discernable impact on my reasoning or reaction time. If I had a few more and I would likely begin to feel the onset of the proverbial buzz, but would still have the common sense to know that it is time to stop and to wait a while before driving. Drugs on the other hand are consumed for the sole purpose of getting high. So of course someone who enjoys a beer with his friends and is not drinking to get drunk is not going to be interested in smoking pot or dropping acid. But someone who smokes pot for the sole purpose of getting high seems much more likely to want to obtain a "better high" from something else.

If, as another posted suggested, we are still keeping heroine, cocaine, and other drugs illegal, then I'm not convinced there will be any significant decrease in drug related crime and the associated expense.

And finally, while legalization of drugs sounds reasonable when discussing the theoretical "adult recreational drug user" who holds a good paying job during the week and enjoys a weekend high at a party, the vast majority of people doing drugs are impoverished and addicted. They are the victims. Their spouses are the victims, as are their children. When they overdose and must be put on a ventilator while their bodies recover, the tax payers are the victims who pay the bill (my wife is a respiratory therapist at the local hospital and this is a regular occurence.) When an addict cannot get the money to buy his legal recreational drugs, someone will be the victim of robbery.

Still not convinced, but I'm listening.