Let's talk cops

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

You think it's ethical to give your population legal access to drugs?

[Afficionado]

You think it's ethical to give your population drugs?

If it prevents crime and lowers addiction. Yes.

If it keeps crime levels the same and doesn't effect addiction. No.

[Miguels]

Prohibition was a bullshit religious cause and all it did was make the mob (that already existed for years and years) filthy rich.

Guess what when it ended the mob shifted back to other illegal activities.

It's still a very addictive substance regardless of being legal.

It ended because it was a complete and total fail.

Alcohol was still consumed, but it had to be produced by shady people now and was far less pure or safe. It also funded a lot of gang activity and violence DRASTICALLY increased.

I am of legal age, alcohol is legal, and I still do not drink. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean I have any interest in it whatsoever.

the thing is, right now they only kill each other and kidnap each other. take away the business and boom they will kidnap anyone and kill anyone..

you know all them street dealers? what do you think they will do once they have uncle sam selling? my money goes on mugging people and stealing cars to earn the green.. i think i rather have street dealers who dont fuck with me or steal from me and eventually get busted than to have thousands of new muggers and car thieves and possible kidnappers.. fact is bad people will still exist

That certainly is a theory...however, other countries that have legalized these drugs have the exact results I've suggested, and basically the opposite of what you're saying...

maybe because everyone is fucked in the head and overdosed... so you really think all those drug cartels and street dealers will turn in their guns and say fuck it, we lost and now we will be part of society? it will never happen..

No, but I certainly think it will decrease crime, not eliminate it. Just as I've said all along.

I don't think an absence of drugs from cartels will increase their violence.

They would turn from drug dealers to some other form of crime, if you don't think so you're crazy.

Not only do they sell drugs they also take over whole cities and force every business owner to pay protection fees and you don't pay up or you try and stand up for yourself you'll cease to exist.

No one seems to get it because we live in a bubble here in U.S.A where it's nice and safe.

Why the insults? Why do I have to be crazy if I think differently than you do?

I think if drugs were legalized and sold by the government, there would be less crime. I don't think they would replace it with another crime.

Also, the Cato Institute conducted its own studies in portugal. It found overall drug use remained about the same, but extremely problematic drug use (hurting ones self or others) dropped by about 50% as people were no longer afraid to have their government know about their drug usage. They were no longer stigmatized.

Switzerland has had even better results.

i think you got it all wrong.. all they did was not criminalize the users and they offer help by sending them to rehab and not jail.. that i do see working since they help users to get away from it. no where does it say Purtugal sells drugs and get tax dollars from it.

I think I insinuated that portugal legalized drugs when in fact they merely decriminalized drugs and created more treatment options.

What I suggested was that the U.S. should legalize and sell them, not that portugal did that.

youre wrong once again. get your facts straight before posting.. they decriminalized the user not the dealers. its still illegal to sell drugs

all that does is keep users from jail but they are forced to go to rehab

drugs are still very illegal

Mythbusters: Drugs are legal in Portugal

After massively reforming its drug policy at the turn of the century, Portugal stands as a global leader of evidence-based policy grounded on the principle of harm reduction. The situation seems to be working, with more people in treatment and fewer new cases of HIV. But the key to this policy was not legalisation of drugs. Mythbusters investigates Portugal’s nuanced approach to drug policy.

The short answer is no, drugs are not legal in Portugal. The probable reasons for the myth that they are comes down to a misunderstanding of legal principles, especially the difference between legalising and decriminalising and the very innovative way Portugal has changed its drug policy.

First, we have to understand what the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation is. These are complex concepts, so bear with us while we meander through the maze of these two legal ideas.

Legalisation can take many forms, but in a scenario where drugs are legalised, it would mean the use, possession, manufacture and supply of narcotic substances would not hold any criminal penalty. For example, the state of Colorado is about to legalise cannabis. In this situation, it means cannabis will be able to be used, grown, sold and possessed in an open way. Cannabis will go from being an illicit drug to a licit one like alcohol and tobacco.

On the other hand, decriminalisation of drugs usually removes criminal penalties but not necessarily civil penalties for low-level offending (such as possession and small-scale social supply). For example, the Northern Territory in Australia has retained cannabis’s illicit status, but if caught with it, people are only given a fine. Decriminalising an offence does not mean it is legal. Speeding is a good example of an offence that is usually dealt with by a civil penalty.

Portugal has not changed the legal status of any drugs. They all remain illegal, however, the offence for possession has been changed from a criminal to a civil one.

Here is how the system works.

Portugal decriminalised use and possession of all drugs in a way that moves the focus from criminal punishment to treatment.

Drugs are not freely available, and they cannot legally be sold. If you are caught with a possession quantity of a drug, there are still civil consequences.

Portugal’s policy does not differentiate between the type of drug – whether it is a ‘hard’ drug like heroin or a ‘soft’ drug like cannabis, there is no difference.

If a person is found with a small quantity of a narcotic (defined as 10 days’ worth for personal use), the drug is confiscated and the person is summoned to a panel called the Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência (Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction).

The Commission is comprised of a social worker, a psychiatrist and an attorney. They assess the person. If the Commission finds the person has an addiction problem, treatment is offered or community service is ordered. It cannot impose compulsory treatment, only offer it.

The Commission can also impose other civil sanctions on people caught with drugs. These can be anything from a €25–€150 fine to the suspension of a professional licence (like that of a teacher, doctor or taxi driver) or a ban on visiting certain places and people.

The manufacture, importation and sale of drugs is still very illegal. Even growing your own cannabis is still a criminal matter, as is the possession of cannabis seeds.

Don’t worry if you were confused – even academics and people in the alcohol and other drug sector routinely get this mixed up. Because of the competing ideologies and feelings about drug use, people’s interpretation of the evidence is often skewed. In fact, a 2012 paper by Hughes and Stevens examines how pro and anti academics have misinterpreted data and evidence around Portugal’s drug policy. The paper points out that there have been clear misconceptions about the reform in the media and in pro-decriminalisation and anti-decriminalisation camps.

Clear as mud?

In essence, Portuguese drug policy has shifted the penalty for drug use from a punitive criminal focus to a health, treatment and reintegration focus.

The Police and judicial systems are no longer being used to punish people using drugs for a crime. They are being used to help people with a health problem get healthy and stay that way.

It’s not a forced process; even the name of the panel people go to if they are caught with drugs reflects that they’re for the “dissuasion of drug addiction”.

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

Well I can guarantee its not going to do one of those............

[Afficionado]

@Miguels I think you're arguing semantics. I was arguing their policy (I said legalized when I should have said decriminalized for the user) decreased abuse and helped the addict.

My intention was to demonstrate that having more lenient drug laws in fact provided positive outcomes.

Like I already stated, portugal is doing good but isn't perfect as they still have to deal with the problems of drug dealers, something we could eliminate in the United States through legalized and selling the drugs.

Well I can guarantee its not going to do one of those............

There were only two options...so yeah, it kind of has to not do one of those............

Alright ya'll! Great discussion. Have to hit the hay, full day of classes tomorrow =/

[Miguels]

@Miguels I think you're arguing semantics. I was arguing their policy (I said legalized when I should have said decriminalized for the user) decreased abuse and helped the addict.

My intention was to demonstrate that having more lenient drug laws in fact provided positive outcomes.

Like I already stated, portugal is doing good but isn't perfect as they still have to deal with the problems of drug dealers, something we could eliminate in the United States through legalized and selling the drugs.

dude.. you just contradicted yourself

legalizing drugs does not mean lenient with drug laws. lenient means punishment. legalizing does not

[bbeljefe]

The problem is that there are lots of people who's moral compass is non existent and if the had free reign you can bet your ass it'd get out of hand real quick.

I'll take my chances with the boys in blue before I take my chances with the boys with blue and red rags on their heads, not all Leo's are bad.

If you don't think it would be bad or get worse look at what the drug cartels do, if you don't think that would happen here you're blind.

You might really like the idea of anarchy but I don't think you fully understand what would come with that.

Yeah and right now those people can become cops and legally carry deadly weapons. Rarely does a day go by where there isn't a news story where a cop shoots someone who's unarmed. They also taze the elderly and children and there are so many cops brought up on rape charges that it would make your head swim.

Bottom line is this... if it's true that most people are bad then it's also true that the bad people will gravitate to positions of power, which is what we see now. If a sociopath or psychopath can't become a cop or a politician, he's a lot less inclined to carry out his evil because he would know that everyone has the right to defend themselves from him. But when they don't, these people take jobs as cops and do all manner of evil to the innocent and guilty alike.

And in an anarchistic society there would be no prohibition on drugs and thus, no reason at all for drug cartels to exist. The mob came to be because the state prohibited alcohol and prostitution. Before those prohibitions, there was no mafia and there were no drug cartels.

Lastly, if you think I'm agitating for anarchy because I'm an idiot, you're sorely mistaken sir. I've studied philosophy an psychology for years and have come to the conclusions I've come to through a rigorous examination of human action. In short, you can't present an argument for statism that I can't soundly refute in a matter of minutes. ;-)

What about all the vandalism and rioting in places like Ferguson? Do you not think that if we didn't have laws, that the same wouldn't happen on a much larger scale? Those people were showing out and doing that because they know that there wasn't enough law enforcement to do anything major and they knew they wouldn't do anything. In a purely anarchist society I think it wouldn't be no time before everything went to hell. All the people that wanted what they couldn't have would take it upon themselves to just steal it. Yes there would still be the people that had high enough moral standards to not steal, kill, and do whatever else, but they would be outnumbered by those that didn't.

The Ferguson riots were in retaliation against the police who shot Michael Brown. And the LA riots in 1994 were, again, retaliation against the police. I don't condone violence of any kind or the destruction of property but it's pretty obvious that if there were no police going around shooting and beating people, those riots wouldn't have happened. That's not to say there would never be a riot anywhere but to be sure, there could be none against the state if the state didn't exist.

And no, they didn't riot because they knew there weren't enough police to stop them. They rioted in front of the police and they did it out of rage for what had been done. I'm not interested in arguing the credibility of their anger but that's what it was. Cities full of people don't sit around and plan riots based on the labor pool at the cop shop. ;-)

And I understand that you think this and that but do you have any logical, rational argument for those thoughts or is that just what comes to mind at first blush? As I stated above, I've been a student of politics and sociology for a long, long time and I did not arrive at my conclusions after reading one or two threads about anarchism on a message board somewhere. You might also be interested to know that I don't agitate for an immediate off switch for government. The transition to a stateless society will be like the transition between slavery and the abolition thereof. That took about 150 years... and save the slavery we're subjected to by the state, it pretty much went as planned by the original abolitionists.

[bbeljefe]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

Answer my question I asked you. I'll ask again in case you missed it.

If someone were to break into your shop and steal everything in it are you going to call the police?

[Jhunt94]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

The problem with your theory of "no state" is that it doesn't take in account individualism and emotions. The only way you would ever be able to abolish a government and expect everyone to live peacefully and act accordingly, is if everyone one was the same and didn't have emotions. Even if you were to get rid of the government, humans are colonizing creatures by nature and soon you would have smaller/more local governments popping up instead of one big one. A large group of people cannot survive without some form of government. If you cut off the head, then the body will die and decay.