- This topic has 30 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Inspired by my geopolitics teacher and the ensuing argument.
Every nation on the planet has trouble with illegal drugs, whether it be heroin, crack cocaine, opium, or methamphetamines. The United States spends somewhere between $30,000 to $70,000 (somewhere in there, I forgot.) per person per year to put drug addicts through rehab and detaining, if they can. The government pays welfare, unemployment, etc. to addicts. Children of addicts are affected severely. There aren’t enough jails to put all offenders behind bars, so most addicts with offenses are put back on the streets within 24 hours. Many resources, human and financial, are put into tracking down the drug trade, and while they seem to be successful, supply rarely diminishes.
A method that was discussed (and vehemently protested against, but one that I completely would support) is to execute any and all offenders. Offenders don’t contribute much to society anyway, and fear of death would stop such activity. If the government can’t deal with the supply side, then they can definitely try to take away the demand side. No demand would mean no supply. Governments wouldn’t have to pay for the health care or rehab costs because there would BE no drug addicts to put in rehab.
Do you agree? Can you suggest a better alternative?
One of my classmates suggested that such a heightened risk would encourage more people to try. I laughed, but if you agree, provide your side of the argument.
(While typing this out, I just realized that many people would be out of jobs, since there are many people in the drug rehab and drug enforcement sectors of the workforce. Crap.)
Legalize drugs. Purify them. Make them clean. Make them pay. Boom, you instead gain money instead of lose on something that was originally bad for the government. Tables turned, done.
Arladerus said: Legalize drugs. Purify them. Make them clean. Make them pay. Boom, you instead gain money instead of lose on something that was originally bad for the government. Tables turned, done.Did you just say purify drugs? You realize that’s impossible, right? You can’t make heroine safe. The only way to make heroine safe is to make it not heroine.
Legalizing drugs works for a lot of things, but not seriously dangerous drugs (e.g. heroine).
You forget about the insane health defects and addiction that comes with these drugs. If you’re just talking about cannabis, that’s completely different. I support legalization of cannabis, nothing else.
You also forget about the fact that the drug warlords and extremist groups are funded by the illegal drug trade. If we legalize them, we’re providing them with a LEGAL way to make money, and therefore take over the world faster. (Well, I guess I should have added that into my opening post, my bad.)Kill it dead.
And no, killing people because they are addicts would not fly. At least, not in America.
People don’t want to admit that killing people = ultimate solution b/c it’s regarded as evil in society.
As Gao Ze Dong, I say, down with the druggies!
>=D
No, seriously, you can’t wipe out the population like that. People who do drugs are still human, regardless. ): And killing them would make us inhumane.
RITE?
Right.
Maybe we should just go back to caveman/mammoth days. Or just become like Samurai Jack. I have so much respect for that guy.
dee32693 said: Right.Maybe we should just go back to caveman/mammoth days. Or just become like Samurai Jack. I have so much respect for that guy.
I saw Jack snorting it up one time.
It wouldn’t be a wipe-out of the population. You make it sound as if a majority of the population does illegal drugs (not including cannabis). They gave up their humanity the second they started getting addicted and doing anything in their power to get their next fix. A lot of this country’s property damage/loss is drug-related.
Of course, it wouldn’t be placed in effect immediately. A month-long warning through radio and televised broadcast would sufficiently reach most of the population. After that, it would depend on a person’s own moral and will to survive. If they’re that far in as to continue, they’re probably not doing much to help the country.
Rep said: They gave up their humanity the second they started getting addicted and doing anything in their power to get their next fix.No man, just no. I can’t even begin to state because of just how many levels that statement is wrong on. They need help.
Help? Oh, you mean that rehab that the government pays five digits a year for per person that they attend and then come back out to relapse?
Ask the people in your school if they ever did drugs, trust me, over 50% have. More than 60% have in my school, so, should we wipe out all of them?
You have no idea the scope of it – once you’re on drugs, you’re not necessarily addicted. The addiction level is blown out of proportions because it’s just fear mongering. The percentage of people who are HELPLESS are relatively TINY.
I used to be just like you, believing that killing drug addicts will be fine, but think of ANYONE in this world you like, 1/3 of a chance that he or she did drugs, but you just don’t know about it. I changed my mind when I asked my friends if they tried drugs before, and more than half of them said yes, and more than half of them are Honor/AP Students. Yeah, believe it.
1 month isn’t enough to cure people, maybe not even in a single year. This is a dead issue – drugs have been here since humans existed, it’s not going away, the only way is to regulate it, and they, the government, just won’t allow it, and because 1) they get cockblocked by people who don’t understand fully how the system will work. 2) They are all afraid, and rightly so, because legalizing might create more issues, but the problem is that they don’t try in the first place.
Either way, you can’t kill people who do drugs, it doesn’t work, and it’s not a solution at all.
That’s like saying killing off all the slaves will end slavery. Bullshit, it won’t.
@David’s post.
1. Yep. My school is known for its drug users. However, if this system existed before my time, I bet that percentage would be near zero.2. You’re helping my point here. I did not say execute EVERYBODY. I said execute anyone caught in possession of them. I also said that a minority of people have drugs, otherwise, the method would destroy our workforce.
3. I also did not say to execute EVERYBODY who’s tried drugs. I’ve tried drugs. Okay?
4. A month was just an example period of time. The government can allot however much time it wants. I understand that drugs have existed since humans have, however, the manufacturing process that changes the plants into the various powders and liquids have not. Remember China’s Opium Wars? Opium was legal then. Britain used it to destroy China from the inside. It’s been tried.
5. Wrong metaphor. It’s like killing slaveowners to end slavery. The supply side would be the slave traders. No slave owners = no slave buyers = no market for slaves. Similarly: No drug addicts = no drug buyers = no market for illegal drugs.
LOl my mother says you should legalize all of it. An adult should be able to eff themselves over as much as they want while instead of the government “paying” for it they would pocket the profit. she says just as many kids are screwed up/dead over fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related deaths so why nitpick?
No execution.You said: 5. Wrong metaphor. It’s like killing slaveowners to end slavery. The supply side would be the slave traders. No slave owners = no slave buyers = no market for slaves. Similarly: No drug addicts = no drug buyers = no market for illegal drugs.NOPE! I disagree, they would just become more underground and most likely more volatile. Why not just do the above?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.