8 ms·

Here is another way: line up all the drug dealers and shoot them. Then line up all the drug users and shoot them. Problem solved. (I am being serious.)

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
moe 18y ago
Will you be first in line? Then we are talking!
- newt0311 18y ago
  Nope. I have never used or dealt in drugs. Nor do I plan to. How about you?
  - ajkirwin 18y ago
    Caffeine? Tobacco? Alcohol?
    - arundelo 18y ago
      Aspirin?
    - newt0311 18y ago
      Um... All those are legal. Also, the first and third have known beneficial medical effects which would still be allowed if my proposal is enacted.
      - unalone 18y ago
        So in other words, you're persecuting people not based on whether they've done good or not, but based on whether they're obeying drug laws that were often as not passed for political gain? Isn't that a despicable reason to demand somebody's death?
      - ajkirwin 18y ago
        Also, what the fuck is the medical benefit of vodka?
        pg 18y ago
        Alcohol (in small quantities, like 1 drink a day) seems to be associated with lower risk of heart disease, for men.
        ivankirigin 18y ago
        A recent study showed the benefits of red wine were linked to breaking down some of the worse components in red meat. It just happens consumption of both are so correlated that it looked like red wine in moderation was really healthy. The healthiest choice would be to drink tea and avoid red meat. But what kind of a pansy wants to do that?!
        pg 18y ago
        I actually read a study saying that mere alcohol had benefits, regardless of the form. Where is rms when you need him?
        rms 18y ago
        That does seem to be a common meme. Here's an unsourced article claiming various benefits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/ The American Heart Association, however, recommends against starting to drink to be healthier. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 While light alcohol consumption does have small benefits, you could make a much, much bigger difference in your overall health by exercising and following a healthy diet. One drink a day probably does have marginal benefits, but from a public health perspective I can see why organizations don't actually recommend it -- people in the aggregate would think it is more meaningful as a recommendation than it actually is and use it as an excuse to drink to excess. One thing to keep your eye on is Sirtris Pharmaceuticals's (now a subsidiary of GSK) amped-up resveratrol (the good stuff in red wine) derivative. The idea is to get the benefit of drinking 1000 glasses of red wine a day without actually killing yourself. It will be approved for treating diabetes but will be of interest to absolutely everyone that can afford it. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080108 http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080...
      - jonknee 18y ago
        Known medical effects has no bearing on the legality of drugs. Cocaine and heroin have known medical uses and are even currently used for medicine. Same with Cannabis. Another check in the medical use department for MDMA (ecstasy). Even meth has legitimate medical uses. Curiously, many illegal drugs are just (if not more) effective than their patented prescription drug counterparts. You want to kill people who buy heroin, but governments spend billions buying synthetic heroin for their citizens. It's madness. If the government mobilizes to kill millions of its citizens, how are you confident that the line will be drawn at the point you think is acceptable? (Why we should let you set the line is another debate, but luckily you aren't in a position of power.) Perhaps there's someone else like you, but who takes it a step farther and believes something you do and don't think is immoral should be a capital offense. Your wanting to kill pot smokers is no more crazy than me wanting to kill coffee drinkers.
  - moe 18y ago
    Yep actually I have. Not professionally but among friends. Seems like a strong opinion to have about something that you have zero expirience with, no?
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      That's not a good tack. I have strong opinions about murder, though I've never been involved in a murder.
      - jonknee 18y ago
        Drugs aren't in the same category as murder (or any violence). Most obviously, they are personal. Drugs don't bust into your house at night and kill you. We don't [typically] see suicide as a crime because of that even though the result is the same.
        whughes 18y ago
        Drugs are not completely personal. Depending on drug and supply chain, we are also talking about drug gang activity, drug-fueled economies in the developing world, social problems related to drug abuse, and so on. If you grow a harmless drug on your own or get it from a harmless source, you're probably okay, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that drugs are completely down to the individual.
        jonknee 18y ago
        Prohibition causes most of the troubles though (especially cartel violence). And I think the social aspects of any increased addiction rates would be more than offset by not imprisoning hundreds of thousands annually on drug charges. It's vastly cheaper to subsidize rehab for the relatively small number of actual addicts than it is to pay to arrest and process a million people a year. Not to mention the effect on GDP of the lost production from all the incarcerated people.
  - pstuart 18y ago
    I'm curious, who else do you want to shoot?
    - newt0311 18y ago
      Lets see... We start with murderers. Then move on to rapists. All violent gang members and those involved in organized crime (this should be handled by a quasi-military organization). Anybody convicted of serious assault. Ie. permanent injury etc... Need I go on or is this enough?
alecst 18y ago
I assume the reasoning behind this method is to insure that they don't reproduce and create more drug dealers.
- newt0311 18y ago
  Nope. The reasoning is that continued use of this policy will convince possible dealers that the action is not worth the effort. Econ 101. If you want to reduce some activity, increase the costs of engaging in it. That is exactly what this does.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
swombat 18y ago
I don't think that would be wise given the current economic circumstances. Losing over 50% of the population would surely harm economic growth.
- unalone 18y ago
  50%? Are you sure? If you're counting anybody who's tried, I'd guess the percentile is much higher than that. (Lower if we go by the assumption that marijuana shouldn't be illegal on account of near-harmlessness, but even then I'd imagine it's pretty high.)
  - newt0311 18y ago
    If you really want, limit it to people in immediate knowing possession of the drugs. However the initial massacre is necessary to establish a precedent. If the US government had not squandered its credibility in law enforcement matters, this would not be necessary. We could instead offer unconditional amnesty to current users and dealers. Give them some small time period (like a week or a month -- less than half a year) to clean up their act and then put these laws into effect. As it is, it is a recognized fact that the government will not take extreme action without the n to the nth-level of bureaucratic paperwork and thus to establish an effective deterrent, the punishment needs to be exercised.
    - unalone 18y ago
      I'm going to assume that you're a younger guy? Back when I was in high school I might have thought the same way - this was before I actually made friends with some drug users and tried some myself in college. Drug users are not bad people. Most drug dealers are not bad people. On my floor in college, the kid who sells drugs is a pretty cool kid: good student, active in sports. There's some social problems he runs across because he's "the kid that sells drugs," but he's a pretty cool guy. He's a typical college student who just happens to sell drugs to the kids who want to buy drugs. That is not deserving of death. When you talk about killing somebody, you're talking about ending a life, unconditionally terminating a person's future. Some things are worth that (I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live), perhaps, but drug selling and drug use? No. Not at all. As I said: I tried marijuana a handful of times, and I thought it was pretty relaxing. Nobody was harmed. (To go to the extreme, if you use a vaporizer, you're not even risking lung damage, which means that your body seriously is not injured in any way, even minute.) It was voluntary on the part of myself and some friends. We were okay with paying for those drugs; the kid who sold them was fine with trading them for money. Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? Does the dealer deserve to die because he gave a product to somebody who wanted it? Who is the criminal here? Enforcing drug rules is basically punishing people not for actually doing anything bad, but for doing something that the government is telling you is a no-no. If I told you that it was bad to, say, whistle, and you whistled, and I told you I'd kill you if you didn't stop, maybe you'd stop, but that doesn't solve the real problem, which is "unalone is a dick who's setting arbitrary, pointless rules". The problem isn't your whistling, it's me. It's fun thinking of things so black-and-white when you're young, but once you reach the ripe old age of 18, you'll start maturing a little bit.
mcslee 18y ago
This would probably work for about 1 month. After everyone finished reeling in horror from the senseless murders of many of their families and loved ones, some subset of the people would quickly realize that all the competition had just been eliminated from the drug market, rendering it extremely profitable and lucrative. Time to stop whatever they were doing to start producing and selling drugs instead. (Were you really being serious?)
- newt0311 18y ago
  At which point, we kill them as well. And yes, I really am being serious. For countries which have implemented this proposal or slightly watered down versions: see Singapore and China and note that even though they are in the middle of a drug heavy region, they have still managed to keep their countries relatively drug free.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    China is not drug free. Various opiates are making a strong comeback. Ecstase use has been growing unchecked for quite a while as well.
  - mcslee 18y ago
    I guess I just don't see the end goal of what you're proposing. What is the merit of having a drug-free society if it comes at the cost of damaging or destroying productive, happy human lives? Do you think the world you are describing would be a better world to live in than the one we have today? Or one in which more drugs were legal? As various other commenters have pointed out, between prescriptions, over-the-counter pills, vitamins, and additives in the foods we buy, we're all drug users. This whole argument seems to rest upon an absolutist view that all currently illegal drugs are absolutely destructive and have no merit. Countries like Singapore and China have radically different ideological approaches to policy than most Western nations. They are comfortable enforcing absolutist positions that limit individual freedoms. Such a position is against America's founding principles. They may statistically report less drug use, but is their society actually any better off for it?
DenisM 18y ago
While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare? Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?
- newt0311 18y ago
  "While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare?" Because people who skip bus fare are usually not involved in large organized crime units. Also, skipping bus fair is not addictive (in the medical sense of the word). "Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?" See criticism above.
  - unalone 18y ago
    So... you're suggesting that most people who use drugs are organized in large crime units rather than just hanging out with friends rolling blunts? Because I'm pretty sure the average drug user isn't involved in crime beyond buying an illegal substance.
    - newt0311 18y ago
      No but most suppliers are and if the users aren't removed from the situation, we will continue to get suppliers: supply-vs-demand all over again.
      - unalone 18y ago
        My college supplier buys it from a guy, who buys it from another goy, who homegrows his stuff. It's a peaceful if illegal business. Answer me this, before the conversation goes further: what is bad about using drugs, beyond their being illegal, and beyond problems started due to illegality?
        newt0311 18y ago
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death. These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places without such penalties. How much more severe can you be? Seems like immediate death doesn't deter drug use. Does that idea still make sense to you? Or perhaps in all of those places it just hasn't been done correctly yet? Prohibition (which took a constitutional amendment, btw) had zero effect on alcohol use -- it actually probably encouraged it and the organized crime that came with it. We're still cleaning that mess up. Anything you put into your body changes the way your body and brain operate -- including tap water. So everything is a drug. It's just a matter of degree. I remember hearing about kids in the 60s who smoked pot laughing about their parents who were way more hooked on valium. In fact, misuse of legal drugs is much more pervasive than illegal drug use. We live in a society where you pop a pill for everything. Nope -- shooting folks doesn't make much sense: unless you just don't like people and want to get rid of a few. I'm a libertarian and opposed to constraints on what government tells me I can do with my own body, but I wouldn't want crack being sold out of vending machines either. It's a tough subject, and part of the problem is that people need to acknowledge that it's tough. Only through socialization and education can we have an intelligent discussion about where the limits are -- just like we did with alcohol. Quick fixes aren't going to work.
- newt0311 18y ago
  "There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death. These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places without such penalties." Examples please. I have examples to the contrary: Singapore and China. What are yours?
  - moe 18y ago
    Sigh. Didn't they teach you in school that name-dropping makes no argument? About China, includes even a history lesson for you: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1402269 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14... And about Singapore: What are your sources? Last time I checked there was no data from Singapore because their government is not particularly interested in allowing independent studies to be made. There is data about their execution rate (death penalty), though. Amnesty international considers it to be amongst the highest worldwide. cf. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/singap17616.htm http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/singa... cf. http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/singapore http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/singap...
newt0311 18y ago
[Edit 1]: Naturally, this policy would be continued in the future. If anybody is ever found to be knowingly in possession of illegal drugs, they are shot.
jcromartie 18y ago
That would mean executing our last three presidents.
- pg 18y ago
  And JFK.
chris11 18y ago
Really? Are you saying that the student who screws up and decides to experiment with drugs deserves to die? And what about all of the addicts whose drug use correlates with other serious problems? There is a strong correlation between serious mental illness like schizophrenia and drug use. And what about all the veterans? Over a quarter of soldiers in combat teams are at risk for developing PTSD. And around have of people with PTSD abuse drugs. I can't ethically support the death penalty for someone who risked their life in the army and whose only crime is abusing drugs. Sure, every drug addict made a choice to use drugs. But I can't say that I would have not abused drugs if I was born with some serious mental illness or had gone through some traumatic event. PTSD/Drug use stats in veterans:http://www.veteransforamerica.org/2007/11/29/hidden-wounds-lead-to-drugs/ http://www.veteransforamerica.org/2007/11/29/hidden-wounds-l...
- newt0311 18y ago
  "Really? Are you saying that the student who screws up and decides to experiment with drugs deserves to die?" Deserve? who knows. You could form 5 different opinions based on 5 different lines of reasoning from the exact same data. My argument is that rigorous use of the death penalty for drug users and dealers will result in greater aggregate wealth and certainly get rid or at least significantly reduce the current enforcement problem. The solution to high crime rates, if one is convinced of the correctness of the law in question, is to crack-down on illicit activities. In this case, I am convinced of the need for anti-drug legislation and given this, I think that the government should enforce this law. Furthermore, I don't have a problem with controlled use for medical purposes. Ie. painkillers, etc...
tlb 18y ago
This would have the effect of encouraging legalization of some drugs. In some sense, the worst situation is where things are illegal but widely tolerated and practiced. This gives authorities a lot of scope for locking up people they don't like. Currently, middle-class taxpayers who smoke pot don't worry much about getting busted, because it's fairly rare to end up in jail. But if they saw serious consequences, they'd lobby for legalization of all but a few hard drugs.
time_management 18y ago
The worst thing about drugs is drug-related violence. Cocaine and heroin are quite bad for the body, but most of the harm they do comes from their illegal status and the crime surrounding them. Even addiction's not as terrible as it's made out to be. There are a number of drug addicts who've had productive lives. Drug addiction can be horrible, but most users don't become addicts, and not all addicts become useless, parasitic human beings. There's a wide spectrum. Your "solution" is absurd: you're proposing that, in response to a small amount of violence, the government should respond with an absurd and unnecessary large amount of violence? I'm going to call "troll".
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  I wish I could upvote this with all my karma. alcohol causes more deaths than all illegal drugs combined.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    Ever stopped to consider that maybe that is because of anti-drug laws?
jrockway 18y ago
Such strong feelings about something that doesn't matter that much! Your body makes chemicals -- these regulate your mood, control your feelings, and so on. Plants also make similar chemicals. You can consume these plants to make up for chemicals that your body doesn't make. That's what drug use is. I don't see why there's any reason to murder someone else over this. Drugs don't really cause any of society's ills, you can commit crimes and be generally worthless without any help from "illicit" substances. Also, why do we have such arbitrary lines drawn for what is OK and what should get you killed? Why is it OK to take Tylenol, alcohol, and caffeine, but not marijuana? (Incidentally, marijuana has never caused me ill effects, but non-prescription pain killers have. All drugs have risks, even "legal" ones!) Anyway, if you have actual answers to these questions, I would really like to hear them.
dgordon 18y ago
I'm pretty sure mass murder an order of magnitude above the Holocaust is not the answer here.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

moe 18y ago

Will you be first in line? Then we are talking!

newt0311 18y ago
Nope. I have never used or dealt in drugs. Nor do I plan to. How about you?
- ajkirwin 18y ago
  Caffeine? Tobacco? Alcohol?
  - arundelo 18y ago
    Aspirin?
  - newt0311 18y ago
    Um... All those are legal. Also, the first and third have known beneficial medical effects which would still be allowed if my proposal is enacted.
    - unalone 18y ago
      So in other words, you're persecuting people not based on whether they've done good or not, but based on whether they're obeying drug laws that were often as not passed for political gain? Isn't that a despicable reason to demand somebody's death?
    - ajkirwin 18y ago
      Also, what the fuck is the medical benefit of vodka?
      - pg 18y ago
        Alcohol (in small quantities, like 1 drink a day) seems to be associated with lower risk of heart disease, for men.
        ivankirigin 18y ago
        A recent study showed the benefits of red wine were linked to breaking down some of the worse components in red meat. It just happens consumption of both are so correlated that it looked like red wine in moderation was really healthy. The healthiest choice would be to drink tea and avoid red meat. But what kind of a pansy wants to do that?!
        pg 18y ago
        I actually read a study saying that mere alcohol had benefits, regardless of the form. Where is rms when you need him?
        rms 18y ago
        That does seem to be a common meme. Here's an unsourced article claiming various benefits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/ The American Heart Association, however, recommends against starting to drink to be healthier. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 While light alcohol consumption does have small benefits, you could make a much, much bigger difference in your overall health by exercising and following a healthy diet. One drink a day probably does have marginal benefits, but from a public health perspective I can see why organizations don't actually recommend it -- people in the aggregate would think it is more meaningful as a recommendation than it actually is and use it as an excuse to drink to excess. One thing to keep your eye on is Sirtris Pharmaceuticals's (now a subsidiary of GSK) amped-up resveratrol (the good stuff in red wine) derivative. The idea is to get the benefit of drinking 1000 glasses of red wine a day without actually killing yourself. It will be approved for treating diabetes but will be of interest to absolutely everyone that can afford it. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080108 http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080...
    - jonknee 18y ago
      Known medical effects has no bearing on the legality of drugs. Cocaine and heroin have known medical uses and are even currently used for medicine. Same with Cannabis. Another check in the medical use department for MDMA (ecstasy). Even meth has legitimate medical uses. Curiously, many illegal drugs are just (if not more) effective than their patented prescription drug counterparts. You want to kill people who buy heroin, but governments spend billions buying synthetic heroin for their citizens. It's madness. If the government mobilizes to kill millions of its citizens, how are you confident that the line will be drawn at the point you think is acceptable? (Why we should let you set the line is another debate, but luckily you aren't in a position of power.) Perhaps there's someone else like you, but who takes it a step farther and believes something you do and don't think is immoral should be a capital offense. Your wanting to kill pot smokers is no more crazy than me wanting to kill coffee drinkers.
- moe 18y ago
  Yep actually I have. Not professionally but among friends. Seems like a strong opinion to have about something that you have zero expirience with, no?
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    That's not a good tack. I have strong opinions about murder, though I've never been involved in a murder.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      Drugs aren't in the same category as murder (or any violence). Most obviously, they are personal. Drugs don't bust into your house at night and kill you. We don't [typically] see suicide as a crime because of that even though the result is the same.
      - whughes 18y ago
        Drugs are not completely personal. Depending on drug and supply chain, we are also talking about drug gang activity, drug-fueled economies in the developing world, social problems related to drug abuse, and so on. If you grow a harmless drug on your own or get it from a harmless source, you're probably okay, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that drugs are completely down to the individual.
        jonknee 18y ago
        Prohibition causes most of the troubles though (especially cartel violence). And I think the social aspects of any increased addiction rates would be more than offset by not imprisoning hundreds of thousands annually on drug charges. It's vastly cheaper to subsidize rehab for the relatively small number of actual addicts than it is to pay to arrest and process a million people a year. Not to mention the effect on GDP of the lost production from all the incarcerated people.
- pstuart 18y ago
  I'm curious, who else do you want to shoot?
  - newt0311 18y ago
    Lets see... We start with murderers. Then move on to rapists. All violent gang members and those involved in organized crime (this should be handled by a quasi-military organization). Anybody convicted of serious assault. Ie. permanent injury etc... Need I go on or is this enough?

alecst 18y ago

I assume the reasoning behind this method is to insure that they don't reproduce and create more drug dealers.

newt0311 18y ago
Nope. The reasoning is that continued use of this policy will convince possible dealers that the action is not worth the effort. Econ 101. If you want to reduce some activity, increase the costs of engaging in it. That is exactly what this does.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

swombat 18y ago

I don't think that would be wise given the current economic circumstances. Losing over 50% of the population would surely harm economic growth.

unalone 18y ago
50%? Are you sure? If you're counting anybody who's tried, I'd guess the percentile is much higher than that. (Lower if we go by the assumption that marijuana shouldn't be illegal on account of near-harmlessness, but even then I'd imagine it's pretty high.)
- newt0311 18y ago
  If you really want, limit it to people in immediate knowing possession of the drugs. However the initial massacre is necessary to establish a precedent. If the US government had not squandered its credibility in law enforcement matters, this would not be necessary. We could instead offer unconditional amnesty to current users and dealers. Give them some small time period (like a week or a month -- less than half a year) to clean up their act and then put these laws into effect. As it is, it is a recognized fact that the government will not take extreme action without the n to the nth-level of bureaucratic paperwork and thus to establish an effective deterrent, the punishment needs to be exercised.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I'm going to assume that you're a younger guy? Back when I was in high school I might have thought the same way - this was before I actually made friends with some drug users and tried some myself in college. Drug users are not bad people. Most drug dealers are not bad people. On my floor in college, the kid who sells drugs is a pretty cool kid: good student, active in sports. There's some social problems he runs across because he's "the kid that sells drugs," but he's a pretty cool guy. He's a typical college student who just happens to sell drugs to the kids who want to buy drugs. That is not deserving of death. When you talk about killing somebody, you're talking about ending a life, unconditionally terminating a person's future. Some things are worth that (I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live), perhaps, but drug selling and drug use? No. Not at all. As I said: I tried marijuana a handful of times, and I thought it was pretty relaxing. Nobody was harmed. (To go to the extreme, if you use a vaporizer, you're not even risking lung damage, which means that your body seriously is not injured in any way, even minute.) It was voluntary on the part of myself and some friends. We were okay with paying for those drugs; the kid who sold them was fine with trading them for money. Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? Does the dealer deserve to die because he gave a product to somebody who wanted it? Who is the criminal here? Enforcing drug rules is basically punishing people not for actually doing anything bad, but for doing something that the government is telling you is a no-no. If I told you that it was bad to, say, whistle, and you whistled, and I told you I'd kill you if you didn't stop, maybe you'd stop, but that doesn't solve the real problem, which is "unalone is a dick who's setting arbitrary, pointless rules". The problem isn't your whistling, it's me. It's fun thinking of things so black-and-white when you're young, but once you reach the ripe old age of 18, you'll start maturing a little bit.

mcslee 18y ago

This would probably work for about 1 month. After everyone finished reeling in horror from the senseless murders of many of their families and loved ones, some subset of the people would quickly realize that all the competition had just been eliminated from the drug market, rendering it extremely profitable and lucrative. Time to stop whatever they were doing to start producing and selling drugs instead. (Were you really being serious?)

newt0311 18y ago
At which point, we kill them as well. And yes, I really am being serious. For countries which have implemented this proposal or slightly watered down versions: see Singapore and China and note that even though they are in the middle of a drug heavy region, they have still managed to keep their countries relatively drug free.
- jhancock 18y ago
  China is not drug free. Various opiates are making a strong comeback. Ecstase use has been growing unchecked for quite a while as well.
- mcslee 18y ago
  I guess I just don't see the end goal of what you're proposing. What is the merit of having a drug-free society if it comes at the cost of damaging or destroying productive, happy human lives? Do you think the world you are describing would be a better world to live in than the one we have today? Or one in which more drugs were legal? As various other commenters have pointed out, between prescriptions, over-the-counter pills, vitamins, and additives in the foods we buy, we're all drug users. This whole argument seems to rest upon an absolutist view that all currently illegal drugs are absolutely destructive and have no merit. Countries like Singapore and China have radically different ideological approaches to policy than most Western nations. They are comfortable enforcing absolutist positions that limit individual freedoms. Such a position is against America's founding principles. They may statistically report less drug use, but is their society actually any better off for it?

DenisM 18y ago

While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare? Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?

newt0311 18y ago
"While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare?" Because people who skip bus fare are usually not involved in large organized crime units. Also, skipping bus fair is not addictive (in the medical sense of the word). "Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?" See criticism above.
- unalone 18y ago
  So... you're suggesting that most people who use drugs are organized in large crime units rather than just hanging out with friends rolling blunts? Because I'm pretty sure the average drug user isn't involved in crime beyond buying an illegal substance.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    No but most suppliers are and if the users aren't removed from the situation, we will continue to get suppliers: supply-vs-demand all over again.
    - unalone 18y ago
      My college supplier buys it from a guy, who buys it from another goy, who homegrows his stuff. It's a peaceful if illegal business. Answer me this, before the conversation goes further: what is bad about using drugs, beyond their being illegal, and beyond problems started due to illegality?
      - newt0311 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death. These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places without such penalties. How much more severe can you be? Seems like immediate death doesn't deter drug use. Does that idea still make sense to you? Or perhaps in all of those places it just hasn't been done correctly yet? Prohibition (which took a constitutional amendment, btw) had zero effect on alcohol use -- it actually probably encouraged it and the organized crime that came with it. We're still cleaning that mess up. Anything you put into your body changes the way your body and brain operate -- including tap water. So everything is a drug. It's just a matter of degree. I remember hearing about kids in the 60s who smoked pot laughing about their parents who were way more hooked on valium. In fact, misuse of legal drugs is much more pervasive than illegal drug use. We live in a society where you pop a pill for everything. Nope -- shooting folks doesn't make much sense: unless you just don't like people and want to get rid of a few. I'm a libertarian and opposed to constraints on what government tells me I can do with my own body, but I wouldn't want crack being sold out of vending machines either. It's a tough subject, and part of the problem is that people need to acknowledge that it's tough. Only through socialization and education can we have an intelligent discussion about where the limits are -- just like we did with alcohol. Quick fixes aren't going to work.

newt0311 18y ago
"There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death. These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places without such penalties." Examples please. I have examples to the contrary: Singapore and China. What are yours?
- moe 18y ago
  Sigh. Didn't they teach you in school that name-dropping makes no argument? About China, includes even a history lesson for you: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1402269 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14... And about Singapore: What are your sources? Last time I checked there was no data from Singapore because their government is not particularly interested in allowing independent studies to be made. There is data about their execution rate (death penalty), though. Amnesty international considers it to be amongst the highest worldwide. cf. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/singap17616.htm http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/singa... cf. http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/singapore http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/singap...

newt0311 18y ago

[Edit 1]: Naturally, this policy would be continued in the future. If anybody is ever found to be knowingly in possession of illegal drugs, they are shot.

jcromartie 18y ago

That would mean executing our last three presidents.

pg 18y ago
And JFK.

chris11 18y ago

Really? Are you saying that the student who screws up and decides to experiment with drugs deserves to die? And what about all of the addicts whose drug use correlates with other serious problems? There is a strong correlation between serious mental illness like schizophrenia and drug use. And what about all the veterans? Over a quarter of soldiers in combat teams are at risk for developing PTSD. And around have of people with PTSD abuse drugs. I can't ethically support the death penalty for someone who risked their life in the army and whose only crime is abusing drugs. Sure, every drug addict made a choice to use drugs. But I can't say that I would have not abused drugs if I was born with some serious mental illness or had gone through some traumatic event. PTSD/Drug use stats in veterans:http://www.veteransforamerica.org/2007/11/29/hidden-wounds-lead-to-drugs/ http://www.veteransforamerica.org/2007/11/29/hidden-wounds-l...

newt0311 18y ago
"Really? Are you saying that the student who screws up and decides to experiment with drugs deserves to die?" Deserve? who knows. You could form 5 different opinions based on 5 different lines of reasoning from the exact same data. My argument is that rigorous use of the death penalty for drug users and dealers will result in greater aggregate wealth and certainly get rid or at least significantly reduce the current enforcement problem. The solution to high crime rates, if one is convinced of the correctness of the law in question, is to crack-down on illicit activities. In this case, I am convinced of the need for anti-drug legislation and given this, I think that the government should enforce this law. Furthermore, I don't have a problem with controlled use for medical purposes. Ie. painkillers, etc...

tlb 18y ago

This would have the effect of encouraging legalization of some drugs. In some sense, the worst situation is where things are illegal but widely tolerated and practiced. This gives authorities a lot of scope for locking up people they don't like. Currently, middle-class taxpayers who smoke pot don't worry much about getting busted, because it's fairly rare to end up in jail. But if they saw serious consequences, they'd lobby for legalization of all but a few hard drugs.

time_management 18y ago

The worst thing about drugs is drug-related violence. Cocaine and heroin are quite bad for the body, but most of the harm they do comes from their illegal status and the crime surrounding them. Even addiction's not as terrible as it's made out to be. There are a number of drug addicts who've had productive lives. Drug addiction can be horrible, but most users don't become addicts, and not all addicts become useless, parasitic human beings. There's a wide spectrum. Your "solution" is absurd: you're proposing that, in response to a small amount of violence, the government should respond with an absurd and unnecessary large amount of violence? I'm going to call "troll".

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I wish I could upvote this with all my karma. alcohol causes more deaths than all illegal drugs combined.
- newt0311 18y ago
  Ever stopped to consider that maybe that is because of anti-drug laws?

jrockway 18y ago

Such strong feelings about something that doesn't matter that much! Your body makes chemicals -- these regulate your mood, control your feelings, and so on. Plants also make similar chemicals. You can consume these plants to make up for chemicals that your body doesn't make. That's what drug use is. I don't see why there's any reason to murder someone else over this. Drugs don't really cause any of society's ills, you can commit crimes and be generally worthless without any help from "illicit" substances. Also, why do we have such arbitrary lines drawn for what is OK and what should get you killed? Why is it OK to take Tylenol, alcohol, and caffeine, but not marijuana? (Incidentally, marijuana has never caused me ill effects, but non-prescription pain killers have. All drugs have risks, even "legal" ones!) Anyway, if you have actual answers to these questions, I would really like to hear them.

dgordon 18y ago

I'm pretty sure mass murder an order of magnitude above the Holocaust is not the answer here.