Again, that would be when the vast majority of them started stealing and killing. Gosh its easy answering these questions. You should try answering questions some time. Its not that hard. Funny how I'm the one that can't stop - who's writing your posts?
If 90% of gun owners committed armed robbery and murder with their guns, I could no longer argue for the right to be armed. But as an armed citizenry is extremely important to a free society, and the percentage of citizens who commit crime with a weapon is so low, its a strong case of perception meeting reality.
Now let's assume that drugs are legalized. One of us would end up being wrong.
-If crime rates dropped and no vast infusion of government money was required to fix the problem, I would admit I was wrong and solely concentrate on the morality of overindulgence as a matter of personal responsibility. It wouldn't change my mind on it being a human right, but it would change my mind on societies need to curb a harmful behavior.
-What would your position be if crime rates soared? Is there any level of mayhem that would change your mind, or would the right to drugs be all important?
I don't doubt that you fully believe that decriminalization would lead to less crime. But I'm curious about what level of crime you would be willing to tolerate if you were wrong? I'd appreciate a straight forward answer.
As the majority of people think you are wrong, you may want to think about a fall back position, should your great social experiment go awry. I think you have some responsibility there. One of my worries is that "legalization" would end up being like "socialism" where those advocating it are more wedded to their high-minded ideals than reality, and that no amount of failure can dissuade them. It's just never been done right yet.
Vast majority? Please present your evidence. How many drug users are there in the country, and how many of them are thieves and murderers? I'll bet it isn't 90%, or even 50%. But, you are the one making the claim, so it's up to you to support it.
But, that said, black males are ~6 times more likely to be criminal offenders than white males (source), and people with guns in their possession are 100% more likely to commit gun crimes than people without guns in their possession, so if one-liner statistical analysis is all it takes for you, you will have a difficult time separating the need for drug prohibition from the need for laws that restrict blacks or guns. Worse, if racism leads to a higher conviction rate or sentencing times for blacks, or if gun control laws lead to higher numbers of "gun criminals" then the statistical facts only make the case for Jim Crow and gun control laws even more persuasive - a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is not the sort of policy I would like enshrined in law.
Funny how I'm the one that can't stop - who's writing your posts?
I beg your pardon, but you're the one, not me, who has talked about "being done with me" (post #161) or "backing away slowly, eyes averted" (# 162). I've never promised to leave, and then broken that promise, as you have.
If 90% of gun owners committed armed robbery and murder with their guns, I could no longer argue for the right to be armed.
Interesting. You would strip the Second Amendment out of the Consitution, rather than locking away the violent criminals! Law and Order first, inalienable rights second. Too bad for the other 10% of non-criminal gun owners, and too bad for the rest of the non-gun-owning public, who would never become able to be gun owners in that case. Another telling admission on your part. Nearly 100% of civilian gun owners are criminals in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Sounds like you support their laws there - because only criminals need guns, right?
But as an armed citizenry is extremely important to a free society, and the percentage of citizens who commit crime with a weapon is so low, its a strong case of perception meeting reality.
There are jurisdictions where nearly 100% of gun owners are criminal - simply because guns are banned there. As it is, (illegal) drugs are banned in 100% of jurisdictions by federal law, so it's like the whole country is Washington DC, and I'm nevertheless arguing for gun decriminalization.
Now let's assume that drugs are legalized. One of us would end up being wrong.
Now, at least we're getting somewhere:
-If crime rates dropped and no vast infusion of government money was required to fix the problem, I would admit I was wrong and solely concentrate on the morality of overindulgence as a matter of personal responsibility.
Note that right now, you have a vast infusion of government money, namely, the cost of the drug war: the DEA, police, customs and FBI to the extent the latter investigate drug crimes (as opposed to other crimes), the direct costs of trying and incarcerating drug users, their costs of hiring lawyers to defend themselves, and the indirect costs of taking otherwise productive people out of society and into prison. I think all told it's something like $50 billion a year. Do you suppose you could afford a fifth or a tenth of that, to go to treatment and medical costs for addicts who lose control?
It wouldn't change my mind on it being a human right,
Meaning, you don't think people own their own bodies, and can do to them what they wish. Instead, I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that living human bodies are the property of The State, who then has an interest in protecting their property, by limiting what people can do to themselves.
but it would change my mind on societies need to curb a harmful behavior.
Well, that's nice. (For a change.) I think you can't see the difference between the harm that drugs bring, directly, vs. the harm drug prohibition brings. I believe much of the misery associated with drugs today comes from the prohibition, rather than the drugs themselves. (Consider, once again, gun ownership in Washington DC. It's hard to imagine that a place like Colorado could possibly exist, where lots of people own guns, and very, very few of them use them to murder people or shoot up schools.)
-What would your position be if crime rates soared? Is there any level of mayhem that would change your mind, or would the right to drugs be all important?
First of all, I think crime rates would drop for many reasons. Prices would go down, so to the extent someone simply must steal to support their habit, they would have to steal less. But also, all the gang activity associated with criminal dealing would vanish, smuggling, etc., because people could grow their own or buy it from legal sources. Actually, I think some of the gang members would remain criminal, and would focus on something else, but that merely indicates that the problem isn't drugs, it's criminals. But secondly, my answer to your question is, even if crime went up, I'd focus law enforcement on those crimes. Wouldn't it be nice if the JBTs went after murderers with the same gusto that they presently use to go after pot smokers?
I don't doubt that you fully believe that decriminalization would lead to less crime. But I'm curious about what level of crime you would be willing to tolerate if you were wrong? I'd appreciate a straight forward answer.
Asked and answered: focus on the other crimes. (But you're right, I do think crime would go down.) I will also cite that violent crime rates dropped when Prohibition was repealed. Do you have any explanation for that? I do.
As the majority of people think you are wrong, you may want to think about a fall back position, should your great social experiment go awry.
That's fair, but I would put the same criterion to you, except that your great social experiment is the Drug War. I submit to you that it has gone awry, and that drug-dog searches of elementary schools, that asset forfeiture abuses committed by police, that paramilitary raids of cancer patients, that fatal wrong-address no-knock raids, that the militarization of our police forces, that piss tests for getting a job - and billions of dollars of taxpayer monies expended as described above ... are evidence of a massive social experiment gone very, very awry. You still support these things as necessary side effects that are a part of your social engineering to get people to stop using drugs. What would it take to convince you you are mistaken?
I think you have some responsibility there. One of my worries is that "legalization" would end up being like "socialism" where those advocating it are more wedded to their high-minded ideals than reality, and that no amount of failure can dissuade them. It's just never been done right yet.
On the contrary, there are several places that have dabbled in drug decriminalization: traffic tickets for pot possession in this country (at least at the local or state level), pot cafes in Holland and elsewhere, needle parks, etc. The results aren't nearly as ugly as the drug warriors warn, much as gun grabbers always promise "blood in the streets" if shall-issue passes somewhere, even though it has never come to pass. But the gun grabbers essentially never admit they are wrong, despite mountains of evidence against them. Especially the true believers.