Ok I'm new to this one on one thing so lets try it out. My question will be for anyone who actually still believes drugs should be illegal. If anyone wants to take the duel be my guest.

To kick things off I'd like to ask the question: What right does any person have to tell another person what to put in their body? Why do some people think its ok to tell other people that they can't take drugs? To further expand this idea we can look at prostitution (although it can still be considered "putting things in your body"). Someone please answer this question for me. If nobody can I'll assume that nobody has the right to tell another person what to put in their body and hence drugs should be legal. I'll check back tomorrow to see if anyone has accepted the challenge

I'd like to add that I do not take drugs myself, I just find our national debt and tax rate apalling and I can see how legalizing and subsidizing drugs could easily take care of all these problems and then some.

I asked a simple question, and you gave me a vague uniformed answer, but what else would I expect from you. Lets try this again

What right does any person have to tell another person what they can and cannot put into their bodies. If you think that drugs affect more than the people taking them, elaborate and tell me how. I'm really not going to go into any depth in this argument if you are just going to come back with vague 2 line answers and waste my time.

The answer is yes I do.

45+ billion dollars are spent yearly policing drugs

hundreds of billions of dollars are spent yearly by drug users to buy drugs (this figure can't be exactly ascertained obviously but the lowest estimate I found searching online was 64 billion and the highest was around 600 billion).

Billions of dollars are spent yearly to hold "criminals" found guilty of these and other victimless crimes like it in prison.

Add all of this up and you can easily see the HUGE amounts of money that could be made and saved by simply legalizing drugs. While this wouldn't pay off the national debt in a year, it would go a long way and given just several years could pay for the entire debt and then some.

Now since the exact amount of money that could be saved yearly cannot possibly be estimated with any accuracy, and since I would never advocate using it to pay off the national debt if they were legalized (atleast not using 100% of it to pay off the debt) and since this has NOTHING to do with the original topic I was proposing, why don't you answer my question for a change. I really, at this point wish Ro4444 had answered first since you are turning out to be a quite a letdown as debates go. Answer my original question, or let someone else take care of it.

Drugs have a detrimental effect on society as a whole. Additionally, your math is atrocious.

While it is tempting to debate the economicis of drug policy with you I'm going to refrain. Yes I do believe that legalizing drugs could lower our individual tax rate and remove the debt (in time, not overnight) I will not try to access the actual numbers anymore than the vague estimates I have already given as that would be ignorant. There is nobody in this world who can say what the economic effect of legalizing drugs would be or how great it would be (although I'm sure milton could make a damn good guess). My question however is:

Why can't you stick to the topic? Why can't you answer the original question I made from the 1st post on. If you can't understand it I will repeat it a 3rd time for you

What right does one person have to tell another person what to put into their body?

It is not an economic question but rather a philosphical and idealistic question. Any further references to the economics of it will require another thread in which I will happily own you aswell, but for this thread I would like to stick to my original topic. Answer the question.

Again with the extremely vague comment about drug use "affecting society as a whole blah blah blah." Why not explain what is so bad about drugs that it gives you the right to tell others that they can't use them, instead of making generalizations about all drugs in one sentence that has no merit at all.

"Have you ever seen a crack baby?"

You ever see a baby suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Or a baby who is severely underweight because its mother smoked cigarettes? There are about a million different chemicals expecting mothers shoudln't put into their bodies, crack is far from the worst of them. Drugs are not the problem here, responsibility to the unborn child is the problem. Mother's still drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and smoke crack even with drugs being illegal. Congratulations your point has nothing to do with drug legalization.

"Actually, judging by your arguments you see one every time you look into a mirror."

Resorting to meaningless personal attacks, the sign of a desperate troll

"They tend to decrease drive and productivity as a consequence."

Not only is this statement blatant BS, you are failing also to show how this affects anyone but the drug user even if it were true. If I want to do drugs, and my boss fires me because I lose "drive" and "productivity" it is my fault.

"Additionally, many of the people on drugs have no jobs and resort to a life of crime in order to obtain them. Indeed, drugs have a detrimental effect on society."

The people resorting to a life of crime are doing so as a direct result of drugs being illegal. Legalized drugs would be cheaper and weaker. They also would not prevent people from getting jobs because they have a police record from their victimless crime. Drugs do not cause crime, illegalized drugs however create crime. You are taking something that is perfectly ok for an adult to choose to do, and making it criminal thus "inventing" crime.


With all your mindless ranting you still have failed to answer my initial question. Even with this sad attempt at an arguemnent you havne't managed to even come close. I'm done with this discussion, you aren't worth the time. You are much like Sam Adams, boring and predictable.

Rofl I've been owned? LMAO

All you've proven is drugs are bad. Do you want a medal? I'm not saying everyone should light up a crackpipe cause drugs are the cure for cancer. All your arguments are geared toward the "evil" of drugs and the damage they cause. Unfortunately we are not debating the morality of drugs, we are talking about the effects drug prohibition has on society. You've mentioned everything from production (which doesn't even apply at all) to crack babies. The problem with your long and boring post is that you haven't touched the legalization of drugs, only the morality.

Drugs are used, everyday by millions of people. Legal or not they are being used. Crack babies are being born, (for the sake of argument) production is at an all time low *snicker*, people are robbing, killing, and stealing for drugs.

I never once said crack babies will cease to be born with the legalization of drugs. What I am saying is this drug war has failed. It never had a chance. It simply defies the laws of economics which basically say that if something is in demand (legal or not) a supplier will fill the void and supply it if there is gain to be made. You can argue all day about how bad drugs are, it doesn't change the fact that they are being used and we are spinning our wheels and losing ground trying to fight them.

Crack babies will always be born, junkies will always panhandle and steal for drug money, this is a constant and doesn't change whether legal or illegal. Just for the fun of it though I think I'll take your very long and boring argument and slaughter it.

Drugs are drugs, doesn't matter if its crack, tobacco, alcohol, or caffeinne (sp?). There are many things that are unhealthy for an expecting mother to consume and they are hardly related to illicit drugs. This problem boils down solely to responsibility, not drugs.

"Somewhat correct. this doesn't, however, negate the fact that this is both a detriment and a huge cost to society."

This is another constant. This happens regardless of the legal status of drugs.

"Incorrect. It is related to the cost to society. Indeed, the cost of legalizing drugs is much higher than the benefit."

This one is just hilarious. You actually think the hundreds of billions of dollars spent yearly by drug addicts is better off in the hands of drug lords and the mafia? Not only this but you will also kick in more hundreds of billions of dollars of your own money to try and police it, and to give prisoners convicted of possession a free place to stay and cable tv? Wow you truly are a socialist

"Attempting to make up statistics is the sign of a weaksauce debater from the Hangout."

What statistics did I make up? I'd love for you to show me since I didn't give any. The only statistics I mentioned was the yearly spenditure for illegal drugs and I also gave a complete range based on the websites that I visited. If you think I made them up, do the homework that I did and go find out yourself, until then go back to UP troll.

"Decreased productivity has a direct impact on society as a whole."
"Drug abuse is not a victimless crime."

Two statements that are just that, empty statements. No logical backing behind them, just you spouting off, well I'm convinced.

"Incorrect. They deter people from using some harmful substances."

Yes ofcourse they do. That is why nobody uses drugs, because they are against the law. Thats some solid reasoning there.

"If they know it is illegal and they still do it, they have no respect for society nor the rule of law and thus they have no place in society."

Using your logic if a law was passed making it illegal to breathe, you would be of the opinion that anyone who broke it "has no respect for society" and "has no place in society?". You are a pathetic sheep if you believe any law passed to be just or irreversible. Do you actually believe morality and law are tied together? That something can be wrong until it becomes legal? Or that something is right until it becomes illegal? You paid a bit too much attention in middle school methinks. If laws were infallible they would never be reversed, or reviewed, and there would never be a reason to examine them to determine if they were right.

"Incorrect. Your query was asked and answered multiple times."

You still haven't answered my question. All you have done is made a vague statement about drugs having a "detrimental effect on society as a whole". Unfortunately this has nothing to do with what I asked. I would be the first to say that we would all be better off had drugs never been invented or weren't being used, but that is not the case. The case is "What right does one person have to tell another what they can put into their body?". I suspect you still will not answer it and will skirt around it proclaiming the evils of drugs.

The rest of your comments were empty statements just thrown out with nothing behind them. I guess your logical form is "I say it so it must be so". I won't bother commenting on these emtpy statements.


I'd like to also mention two perfect examples of what happens when the government has the moral right to tax an extremely inelastic good. Lets take tobacco and alcohol for example

Prohibition against alcohol did not stop its consumption or production. So what did it accomplish? It made mafia families like the Kennedy's rich while wasting taxpayer dollars to try and police it. They finally wised up, legalized it, and now tax the crap out of it.

Tobacco never had to go through that process, they learned from their mistake with alcohol. Cigarettes currently cost between $3-$5 a pack depending on where you are. All this for a minute amount of tobacco rolled into 20 small pieces of paper? I think not. Most of this money goes to pay the enormous tax on tobacco. This is the goose that has laid the golden egg. A highly inelastic good, that they have the (supposed) moral right to tax.

If they were to to the same thing with all other forms of illegal drugs not only would they finally stop violating our invidividual rights, but they would also be opening up the floodgates for income. Unfortunately the big reason drugs aren't legal is because no politician is going to get re-elected if he decideds to campaign to legalize drugs. It is sad when so many people are as ignorant as you AH but that is the world we live in.

no time right now, hopefully I will have some tomorrow to come back and destroy your, yet again, pathetic and off topic argument.

Indeed, I declare victory.