- This topic has 30 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
That would be the case if the drug only affected themselves. You think that the drug just makes people high and that’s it? Do you think that people just sit at home and light up? No, they’re outside. Methamphetamines are stimulants. Do you really think that users would just chill out like potheads? No, they’re outside. Robbing shit. Breaking shit. Hurting other people. And I’ll find some way to deal with those FAS babies soon. One problem at a time.
NOPE! I disagree with your disagreement. Lessened demand = lessening supply = higher prices in order to make profit = no buyers which eventually equals no demand.
China does not have a drug problem. They simply kill anyone on the spot that tries to import some, and consequences are very horrible if you are caught with some.
I’m 17, and I have never taken any drugs even if many of my friends pressured me to do so. I don’t need a substance to have fun at parties. One of the main reasons I don’t take drugs is that I have a very highly addictive personality, and I would probably get addicted fast.
I also think people who take drugs are horrible people. I hate everyone who takes drugs. I think applying the same policies china does here would be a very very good idea.Okay, let me break it down for you.
Rep said: That would be the case if the drug only affected themselves. You think that the drug just makes people high and that’s it? Do you think that people just sit at home and light up? No, they’re outside. Methamphetamines are stimulants. Do you really think that users would just chill out like potheads? No, they’re outside. Robbing shit. Breaking shit. Hurting other people. And I’ll find some way to deal with those FAS babies soon. One problem at a time.That’s a VERY small percentage. And even then, it’s population control – we need murders, and human wars to control population. Better technology is not going to solve the issue of diminishing land and higher birth rates. Who cares if a few hundred thousand people die, it won’t matter at this point, because it’s a cycle, so the population gets renewed anyway.
However, if you kill off the people who have drugs, it’s an instant wipe-out. There is no constant reduction, and if you carry out the plan in steps, the drug dealers will always be one step ahead of you. Always.
NOPE! I disagree with your disagreement. Lessened demand = lessening supply = higher prices in order to make profit = no buyers which eventually equals no demand.[/quote]
How will that have lessened demand? By killing off drug dealers, you are only INCREASING demand for it, thus sky rocketing prices, kicking human greed into gear, creating more buyers who want to make a quick buck. Do you think that people won’t buy drugs just because they’re expensive? NO. People pay hundreds of thousands, and private funds from well-off people guarantees the success of the drug industry.
It just can’t be done, don’t think about any further, because it just can’t. No effort in the world will be enough, and you just won’t have support. Look at your class, I bet 90% of the people, at least, disagreed with that opinion. We had a debate on this in a business class, and only a friend and I were arguing from your perspective, the rest of the class wanted to kill us.
So no, just, no.
dee32693 said: 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?
Hey, people die from car crashes and stabbings as well, so why should guns be banned?
Argument is invalid. The end does not justify the means.
Pirkid said:dee32693 said: 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?
Hey, people die from car crashes and stabbings as well, so why should guns be banned?
Argument is invalid. The end does not justify the means.
Unless you have a wealthy organization to back you up!
Then you’re set to do whatever the hell you want!Your first paragraph is supportive of my argument.
There are no steps, David. You catch the person in possession of the narcotic, you detain for a day, you execute. What can the drug dealer do short of blowing the person out of jail?You read it completely wrong. I said execute buyers, not dealers. Unless I fail at Economics, no buyers means no demand.
This is a hypothetical solution. I actually got a few people in my class on this side, as well as my teacher, who suggested this idea. It’s an idea that may or may not be going through the thought processes of the people in government. I just wanted to see some legitimate arguments against this idea, which is why I came here. My class wasn’t doing so good.
@Pir
Cars aid us by moving us to our destinations faster. Guns are used for defense. Granted, they take lives, but they have at least one positive trait. What do illegal drugs do for us?Rep said: Your first paragraph is supportive of my argument.
There are no steps, David. You catch the person in possession of the narcotic, you detain for a day, you execute. What can the drug dealer do short of blowing the person out of jail?You read it completely wrong. I said execute buyers, not dealers. Unless I fail at Economics, no buyers means no demand.
This is a hypothetical solution. I actually got a few people in my class on this side, as well as my teacher, who suggested this idea. It’s an idea that may or may not be going through the thought processes of the people in government. I just wanted to see some legitimate arguments against this idea, which is why I came here. My class wasn’t doing so good.
@Pir
Cars aid us by moving us to our destinations faster. Guns are used for defense. Granted, they take lives, but they have at least one positive trait. What do illegal drugs do for us?Then you’re going to make more people want to buy out of curiosity, only when you get a sizeable chunk of the population killed due to buying will it have any real effect at all.
Plus I mean, how the hell is ANY government or organization gonna pull something of this scale off?
Sides going communist or sumthin like that
[EDIT]I assume we want to stay capitalist and noncommunist correct?I’m against both capitalism and communism, although I’d rather be a capitalist.
How would a death threat make you more curious?
There’s no need for an increase in government activity. The police continue what they’re doing right now, except when they catch someone possessing illegal drugs, they take them, detain them for 24 hours, and execute them. I don’t understand why you think that this would require a lot of manpower, as they are not going to bust into and search every house, rather, they would just execute them as they catch them.The government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. Laws like this will result in the creation of V who blows up the parliament buildings.
Rep said: Your first paragraph is supportive of my argument.
There are no steps, David. You catch the person in possession of the narcotic, you detain for a day, you execute. What can the drug dealer do short of blowing the person out of jail?You read it completely wrong. I said execute buyers, not dealers. Unless I fail at Economics, no buyers means no demand.
This is a hypothetical solution. I actually got a few people in my class on this side, as well as my teacher, who suggested this idea. It’s an idea that may or may not be going through the thought processes of the people in government. I just wanted to see some legitimate arguments against this idea, which is why I came here. My class wasn’t doing so good.
@Pir
Cars aid us by moving us to our destinations faster. Guns are used for defense. Granted, they take lives, but they have at least one positive trait. What do illegal drugs do for us?Unless you count public freedom and substance abuse from either a medical or psychological standpoint, they have no positives. I was just pointing out that the argument cannot be used.
That’s absolutely what I said in the first place, if you execute the BUYERS, you fuck the entire world up, everyone would be dead.
Plus, you do realize how easy it is to slip a pack of marijuana into someone’s jacket, call the cops on them, and get them executed the next day?
Yeah, good option, let’s just kill everyone on this planet, it’d be much easier than solving this problem. Heck, a few nukes would be more humane than arbitrary execution. Plus, what about human rights? Cops would need search warrants to actually bust people, so if people stay at home, doing drugs, they’re absolutely fine.
You’re not killing the root of the problem at all by killing the buyers, because simply, 1) there are too many, and 2) laws prevent this from happening, and 3) capital punishment is already banned in all of the eastern European countries, as well as many other developed countries, thus they won’t agree with this either. You’re not killing demand, because regardless of the abusers, medical institutions use drugs as beneficial aids for patients. You’re not killing demand, in fact, you’re not doing anything except killing a bunch of people for no reason – a person who has a bag of drugs in his pocket might be delivering it to his grandfather who’s sick. A few misunderstandings here, and that person would be dead under the institution that you propose.
The simple fact of the matter is that no, you cannot kill people for doing drugs, because drugs are beneficial. Drugs allow people to do whatever they want, and the only people that they hurt are of such tiny importance that it doesn’t have an overall effect on the natural progression of evolution, and, chances are, it won’t affect you. I agree however, that the government should abandon rehabilitation facilities for drug abusers, since the recovery rate is extraordinarily low.
Overall, there is no alternative – and killing off buyers does not stop the flow of drugs. There will always be new buyers as long as humans exist. Does the fact that there’s a death penalty stop murders from occurring? No, of course not. And it won’t work for this neither. From your ‘Utopian’ outlook, YEAH! It’ll work! But no, not in this world.
This seems more like an “After Hours” thread.
That aside, I’m not taking drugs for any uses other than medical use.
I don’t think killing druggies would do anything: One, its a human being with the chance to be rehabilitated. I understand there is no room in the prison but COME on… Killing? Two, illegal drugs would skyrocket should this happen.
Personally, I don’t like getting in depth with drugs since its such a controversial subject… I pity those addicted to drugs, however.Oh, and, btwz, you do know how much it costs to execute a guy in today’s world right? Litigation fees alone + court = over 20,000$ a case.
Yeah, GL.
How would illegal drugs skyrocket if you put the death penalty in effect for possession?
Countries that already have this in effect(ex. Thailand, Saudi Arabia) have much lower drug trafficking and possession rates than countries that do not (ex. most developed nations).
This may sound like war-on-terror-propaganda, but you forget that money spent on illegal drugs go towards the efforts of extremist groups such as the Taliban.
I’m not talking about medicinal drugs/pharmaceuticals(necessary evil). I mean hard drugs. Who the hell uses crack cocaine or methamphetamines to cure themselves?
And also, if the government fears the people, how will it protect its people? How will it govern? There needs to be a balance, not complete one-side fear.
The government should fear the people, not the people fear the government. If it was the latter, it will be oppressively communist-ish.
I suggest making it legal, and restrict the movement of drugs, ie; only supported retailers are able to sell it. I suppose having an age limit would not be too bad either. The only problem with this is education, whether the people are educated enough to take risks smartly, and know how to prevent themselves from being addicted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.