Welcome to PlagueFest.com! Log in or Sign up to interact with the Plague Fest community.
  1. Welcome Guest! to interact with the community and gain access to all the site's features.

War On Drugs?

Discussion in Everything & Anything started by jookbob, Aug 1, 2012

What do you think about the War on Drugs?

It is completely retarded 7 vote(s) 13.7%
It is not necessary 4 vote(s) 7.8%
It is necessary 4 vote(s) 7.8%
IDK 1 vote(s) 2.0%
WE NEED MORE DEA! 1 vote(s) 2.0%
jookbob is a dumb slut who fucks up the simple process of creating a poll 34 vote(s) 66.7%
  1. Mar 19, 2012
    Posts
    What is your opinion on this war on drugs?

    MY OPINION

    We have spent over a trillion dollars fighting the war on drugs. Yet today more people do illegal drugs than ever before. Where did that 1 trillion dollars go?

    When these "drugs" are legal who makes the money off them? government and stores.
    When it is illegal who makes the money? Criminals, cartels, Dangerous people...

    How is it a crime to do something that affects nobody but yourself?

    When these substances are illegal there is no way to regulate the quality of them and this makes them dangerous.


    Very educational video that everyone should watch.

    via http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-UIe7l3-Q


    EDITED because the poll offended people somehow.
    • Agree Agree x 1
      jookbob, Aug 1, 2012 Last edited by jookbob, Aug 5, 2012
    • Apr 2, 2011
      Posts
      Fuck your Goddamn poll. You make it one sided as to make anyone who disagrees with you look stupid and turns it into a witch burning against them. Congrats @jookbob You are a waste of resources.
    • Feb 14, 2012
      Posts
      Look I'm not exactly for taking perfectly normal people off the street punishing them for a plant and giving them a completely training in how to be reofenders / worse criminals. But this poll is fucking asinine. What are you 12? This thread is never going to be a serious discussion. It clearly wasn't started with that in mind.
    • May 31, 2012
      Posts
      You still give two options for nope and one for yes, that's racism or something.
      • Funny Funny x 1
      • May 15, 2011
        Posts
        [IMG]
        • Funny Funny x 1
        • Mar 19, 2012
          Posts
          I accidently hit enter when making the poll idiot
          • Funny Funny x 1
          • Feb 9, 2012
            Posts
            kinda figured out your opinion just by reading how you chose to word the poll choices without having to read your first post.

            Anyways i think it's a worthy investment. There's been many debates on this already and both sides already have good point and im not saying we should trust every low that passes...but if it's still currently illegal then the pros must be outweighing the cons on this.

            Anyways polls that are obviously biased do not deserve opinions of others, if you want a reasonable and credible opinion of others, change your poll to saying '' it is pointlesss'' and '' it is worth it''

            But that short opinion is all im including in this thread as this thread is meaningless.
            • Like Like x 1
            • Aug 1, 2011
              Posts
              I wanna vote "it's completely retarded".

              Just like this thread!
              • Agree Agree x 1
              • Nov 29, 2010
                Posts
                You may be the only member of Pf who's achieved the highest number of neutral ratings...

                I don't know whether to be impressed or stupefied
              • Mar 19, 2012
                Posts
                Yea because tons of you circlejerks dont like me and fill all my threads with all this shit like you are doing now and disagree with everything i post. This was a legitimate thread until you guys come in here and post nothing about the topic besides the fact that i fucked up the poll. you must be high if you think that I give a flying fuck about these imaginary respect points, but you bring it up after you rate my post disagreement for no reason? Care to explain why you disagree with the facts and questions i posted in my thread?
                • Like Like x 1
                • Mar 4, 2012
                  Posts
                  It's unconstitutional to tell people they cannot use drugs. And no I'm not a drug user myself. Just legalize that shit and tax it heavily and create laws to prevent its abuse while operating machinery and give heavy fines and punishments for breaking those laws and society will be fine.
                  • Like Like x 1
                  • Agree Agree x 1
                  • May 15, 2011
                    Posts
                    ur dumb topic. el oh el smiley face
                  • Mar 19, 2012
                    Posts
                    Nobody said you had to post in it? You all who dont want to talk about the topic can GTFO?
                    • Agree Agree x 1
                    • Nov 6, 2011
                      Posts
                      who cares man i dont see why ppl care so much i would just let ppl do what they wanted
                      • Agree Agree x 1
                      • Sep 26, 2010
                        Posts
                        Worthy investment? Dollars that could be spent on social, mental, educational, and infrastructure-related projects are squandered on housing people who either use drugs for recreation, or people who thrive on the black market that distributes the drugs. One has to open their eyes to the fact that our own government (US) allows drugs to flood the streets from across the border in order to support the War on Drugs. I.e. an organization who profits from drugs can't profit if the problem is resolved.

                        As for the valid points from both sides, most of the "valid" points I see from supporters of the War on Drugs don't even consider the overall effects of drugs on society. (both economically and socially) Just like with prohibition of alcohol, a black market is established by *cough cough* preventing people from using drugs. It encourages people in lower tiered communities to make their living off of drugs, which usually involves a less than peaceful life-style and non-nurturing environment for future generations to be raised properly. In other words, it's a deadly cycle which encourages people to continue living a poor lifestyle rather than obtaining an education to become productive citizens.

                        People should be allowed to do as they please as long as they don't rely upon or hinder another individual's life style. Constrained indulgence has its benefits since total abstinence can lead to negative compulsory behavior.

                        @Brian
                        • Agree Agree x 1
                          MuffinFuhrer, Aug 1, 2012 Last edited by MuffinFuhrer, Aug 3, 2012
                        • Apr 12, 2012
                          Posts
                          While I agree more or less with the first two paragraphs (although I don't think the "War on Drugs" is a business and is actively letting drugs into the country), I have to strongly disagree with this: "People should be allowed to do as they please as long as they don't rely upon or hinder another individual's life style. Constrained indulgence has its benefits since total abstinence can lead to negative compulsory behavior."

                          The majority of illegal drugs (cocaine/crack, meth, heroin, acid), do NOT fit the requirement of not hindering another's lifestyle. You could make strong arguments for and against drugs like painkillers, alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, even mushrooms and ecstacy. But the harder drugs should NOT be legal even if they are controlled. We need to clarify what type of drugs we're talking about here, mmmk.

                          I might also argue that for the average person, constrained indulgence eventually leads down the slippery slope to uncontrolled addiction (in things other than the constrained ones), but that's not really on topic, and isn't really something either of us can prove :/
                        • Jan 31, 2011
                          Posts
                          I'll join you in taking the question seriously. =p

                          It is not unconstitutional to tell people that they cannot use drugs. That would only be true if the consumption of drugs never had detrimental effects on other people. Insofar as drugs result in the harm and death of the user AND other people, it's very much constitutional to outlaw/regulate it.

                          The original poster contradicted himself. First he said that it had cost the country a billion dollars. Then he said the government was making ridiculous profit thru enforcing drug laws. Those strike me as mutually exclusive.

                          If you want to use drugs personally at home, the chances of getting into legal trouble are near zero. However, when you begin growing/manufacturing quantities that constitute distributable quantities and driving around with them in your vehicle and on your person, you've crossed into a different realm.

                          Nobody cares about the millions of people who sit at home and smoke a little weed. The "War on Drugs" did not result in a black market like MuffinFuhrer suggested. The "War on Drugs" was declared in RESPONSE to the black market industrialization of drugs that involved lots of guns, cash and murders. You've got your cause and effect mixed up.

                          There would be no war on drugs if drug use in our country was limited to people sitting around in their houses smoking a joint. Unfortunately, drug use is a much larger scheme than that. But the idea that the government earns millions of dollars by doing drug operations is ridiculous. It costs ten times the money to staff and operate drug units, staff and operate the judicial system, etc. than is received from handing out fines and jail terms.
                        • Mar 4, 2012
                          Posts
                          It's not the government's job to spoon feed us with that perfect dose of cocaine that won't make us go off the hinges and kill everyone in the room.
                          Post Merged, Aug 1, 2012
                          Well you can say that with just about anything. Alcohol being the obvious one.

                          If you look at prohibition, when they outlawed alcohol, they didn't simply create a law that banned it. They added an entire Amendment to the Constitution. They knew if they tried to create a law banning alcohol that the courts would strike it down (because the courts back then actually cared about the Constitution).

                          It should be the same concept with drugs. The government shouldn't have the power to tell people they cannot use drugs. Just because you use drugs doesn't mean you're going to hurt yourself or others. Sure there is a possibility but the government's job isn't to baby sit us 24/7 making sure we don't kill ourselves and each other.
                        • Mar 19, 2012
                          Posts
                          To clarify what I meant, When the drug is legal and taxed, the government can profit. When it is illegal, we only spend money trying to prohibit it.
                          • Like Like x 1