ProfessorNobody wrote

Aced wrote

ProfessorNobody wrote

Visxal wrote Don't see anything wrong with dealing drugs, its the people who take the drugs that cause harm to others and themselves by taking too much.

The problem isn't that they sell the drugs, it's that they don't sell the drugs ethically.

For the most part, when you go to a pharmacy they will put you on a course of drugs which won't get you addicted and they won't give you any more until you finish that course assuming that you still need them. Drug dealers don't hold themselves to the same standard. They will give addicting substances to people who they know to be addicted because that's just part of the business to them.

If you can point out an ethical drug dealer who provides information pamphlets and clear instructions for use to avoid addiction when they sell their drugs and won't sell to people who they know to be addicted, but will instead offer them rehabilitation and therapy techniques, then you can make the argument that they aren't the problem.

Actually BigPharmas are to blame for being apart of drug addiction.
Drug dealers dont provide information pamphlets and clear instructions because the person buying the drugs already knows the side effects and information plus i doubt providing pamphlets would help as when you buy a pack of cigarettes there is a clear warning on the front of the pack, however cigarettes are still purchased.

I said 'For the most part' because I know that some prescription pain medication can lead to addiction even when used properly.
And I didn't say that the warnings and pamphlets had to work as a deterrent of any kind, only that it makes the drug dealer as ethical as the legal standard, which is BigPharma.

True. My thing also is. If he wants to sentence drug dealers to death right? Then he has to include cigarette manufacturers, certain pharmaceutical manufactures & maybe we can include Alcohol since it is a drug right even though its legal.

Aced wrote

ProfessorNobody wrote

Aced wrote

ProfessorNobody wrote

Visxal wrote Don't see anything wrong with dealing drugs, its the people who take the drugs that cause harm to others and themselves by taking too much.

The problem isn't that they sell the drugs, it's that they don't sell the drugs ethically.

For the most part, when you go to a pharmacy they will put you on a course of drugs which won't get you addicted and they won't give you any more until you finish that course assuming that you still need them. Drug dealers don't hold themselves to the same standard. They will give addicting substances to people who they know to be addicted because that's just part of the business to them.

If you can point out an ethical drug dealer who provides information pamphlets and clear instructions for use to avoid addiction when they sell their drugs and won't sell to people who they know to be addicted, but will instead offer them rehabilitation and therapy techniques, then you can make the argument that they aren't the problem.

Actually BigPharmas are to blame for being apart of drug addiction.
Drug dealers dont provide information pamphlets and clear instructions because the person buying the drugs already knows the side effects and information plus i doubt providing pamphlets would help as when you buy a pack of cigarettes there is a clear warning on the front of the pack, however cigarettes are still purchased.

I said 'For the most part' because I know that some prescription pain medication can lead to addiction even when used properly.
And I didn't say that the warnings and pamphlets had to work as a deterrent of any kind, only that it makes the drug dealer as ethical as the legal standard, which is BigPharma.

True. My thing also is. If he wants to sentence drug dealers to death right? Then he has to include cigarette manufacturers, certain pharmaceutical manufactures & maybe we can include Alcohol since it is a drug right even though its legal.

I'm definitely on the side of legalization of most drugs here because of the blatant hypocrisy of saying that people can't have these mildly addictive - but relatively safe - mind altering substances, but they can have these dangerously addictive - suicide in a bottle - mind altering substances.

Visxal wrote Don't see anything wrong with dealing drugs, its the people who take the drugs that cause harm to others and themselves by taking too much.

I am sure gun crime is caused by the people who deal them also.

Motivational wrote If someone wants to get their hands on a substance, they'll find a way. Especially if they're addicted and dependant on it. There'll always be dealers, no matter the punishment because some people are just desperate for fast money with little effort.

Oozy wrote That is the case with everything. No matter what we do, there will always be some people do what we don't want them to do. But it will definitely stop some people.

No it wont. Dealing any class of drugs within the UK provides a sentence Up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

Dealing Class A drugs can even deliver a life sentence and there's still hundreds of kids who deal those drugs within my area. If a life sentence in prison (the rest of their childhood and most of their Adulthood) doesn't stop them then you can guarentee a death sentence wont either.

Motivational wrote Less dealers just means less competition so higher prices, thus more violence for money to support their addictions.

Oozy wrote I would agree on higher prices, but that does not mean that overall violence will go up. It is very possible that users will commit more crime to feed their addiction, but it is also possible that many people will not be able to afford their addiction regardless of how much crime they commit. And then the violence between drug dealers would hopefully go down due to there being less of them.

There's no agreeing. It's basic economics, <Supply = >Price providing there's a demand, which there very much is.

Oozy wrote many people will not be able to afford their addiction regardless of how much crime they commit

What? Drugs would never be so expensive that you couldn't steal to afford them. That's literally never going to happen, nor is it possible. They're plants that can be grown, not rare gems.

Oozy wrote And then the violence between drug dealers would hopefully go down due to there being less of them

Yet again makes no sense and goes back to the basic economic rule, lower supply with a stable demand increases the price. Drugs would be worth even more which gives an even higher incentive to steal and commit crimes. This would very much increase gang violance and certainly wouldn't decrease it. They're just fighting over even more expensive things which benefits them.

Motivational wrote Not to mention all the kids who are forced to deal drugs because of their upbringing and situation or are pressured into it from gangs, that's hardly their fault. Seems logical to execute a sixteen year old who's selling drugs to try and provide for his family.

Oozy wrote Nobody is forced to do anything in life aside from pay taxes and die. There are people who will help others get out of the situation they are in. And if someone truly wants to provide for there family, then they should get a legit job. The drug game is risky, someone could provide for their family, or they could get caught and mess their family up even more.

I don't know how it works in America but in the UK, you can become unemployed and live off funds from the government. You quite literally live off taxes, nevermind actually paying them.

A congressional study found, pre-recession, that two-thirds of all new jobs are being created in the suburbs (where many city poor do not have transportation to get to). Meanwhile, the study found that three-quarters of welfare recipients live in the inner city or urban areas.

And it found that 95 percent of welfare recipients do not own a car.

You've also clearly been brought up in a nice town where everyone gets along and employment is simple to find, try a ghetto where there's no jobs available and crime is your only option. There's people who don't know where their next meal will come from and have to steal to survive due to no fault of their own. Not everyone can get a job as you can see from the statement above and some people are just born into high-crime areas.

Motivational wrote Best situation would be to legalize drugs completely IMO. Those who were doing drugs anyway would be still be doing them, only they would be much cheaper and wouldn't need to commit crimes to get money since they'd cost so little. It's their body so let them do whatever they want to it.

Oozy wrote Legalizing a majority of drugs would be a great idea. But just because drugs would become cheap, does not mean that everybody will be able to afford them. This would also lead to more addicts and less people contributing to society (aside from paying taxes).

What? If the government legalized weed completely (which they have in certain parts of the world) you would see that it's not expensive at all and very easy to get a hold off. As soon as you legalize the drug, all the risks of importing it and smuggling it go out the window. That's why Class A drugs are so expensive because the risk is so high.

Motivational wrote And those of us who don't use drugs wouldn't be affected because we don't use them anyway.

Oozy wrote Not true. I do not know anybody who starts using drugs and wants to get addicted. But addiction seems to happen to a large group of people. So that means that we will have many people who would have not been addicted prior to legalizing many drugs, who are now becoming addicted and as stated earlier becoming less of contributing members of society. So for example, a single mother who starts off with getting a little high here and there who becomes addicted and can no longer provide for her family. That is just one of many examples of why legalizing a majority of drugs could go wrong.

I'll just leave this here.

according to Serge Brochu (an expert in this field), of a body of data showing that most illegal drug users in Canada and elsewhere will never be regular users. It bears repeating that drug use is still, for the most part, a sporadic, recreational, exploratory activity. Most people are able to manage their drug use without any difficulty. Very few will become regular users, and even fewer will develop a drug addiction.

Your opinion doesn't matter, statistics say that the majority of drug users are recreational and don't become dependant on them. And I have no sympathy for anyone that becomes addicted, don't use them regularly and you wont become addicted.

Plenty of people are FORCED into selling for suppliers by blackmail, for that person caught to get a death penalty could be quite a bit harsh, doubt you'll ever see anything like this ever in law.

The day we start executing people for dimebags is the day the nation fights back lol
Trust me that just wont fly

Worst thing i've heard of in months