On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I agree completely. Did you see this thread I authored a while back?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nope. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. I'm only temporarily logging in right now b/c I'm mid-project on something else (that's my way of saying I'm slacking off from work). But I'll read it over when I get the chance.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
And despite all that sentiment nothing changed until economics dictated it. Same reason why drugs will be legal in the US.

Where are you getting your information from? Prior to repeal elections began to favor pro-repeal candidates, that is how repeal legally had to occur, with members of Congress who were no longer in favor of Prohibition.

It's doesn't matter if less people benefit.

It does in this argument because that is the argument I am making; as in Prohibition the majority suffered due to the cost of enforcement, which is paralleled by the war on drugs.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
And despite all that sentiment nothing changed until economics dictated it. Same reason why drugs will be legal in the US.

Where are you getting your information from? Prior to repeal elections began to favor pro-repeal candidates, that is how repeal legally had to occur, with members of Congress who were no longer in favor of Prohibition.

It's doesn't matter if less people benefit.

It does in this argument because that is the argument I am making; as in Prohibition the majority suffered due to the cost of enforcement, which is paralleled by the war on drugs.

That's fine, economics was a driving factor behind no longer supporting it. Well beyond sentiment.

No the argument you are making is the drug war cost more than the benefits. The costs are paid by Taxpayers not the people benefitting. So all the people benefitting are simply benefitting from it being illegal. You have denied this since we started debating.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
No the argument you are making is the drug war cost more than the benefits.

The cost of prosecuting the war on drugs is a net money loser, I have said that countless times already. My argument is clear and no data has been provided to the contrary. As a matter of fact, even the data you have posted shows the ungodly amount of money spent each year by United States taxpayers. It is a money losing endeavor that failed. Just like Prohibition.

The costs are paid by Taxpayers not the people benefitting. So all the people benefitting are simply benefitting from it being illegal. You have denied this since we started debating.

Uh, no. I have been saying the entire time that those who benefit are outweighed by those who do not. By a huge margin.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
No the argument you are making is the drug war cost more than the benefits.

The cost of prosecuting the war on drugs is a net money loser, I have said that countless times already. My argument is clear and no data has been provided to the contrary. As a matter of fact, even the data you have posted shows the ungodly amount of money spent each year by United States taxpayers. It is a money losing endeavor that failed. Just like Prohibition.

The costs are paid by Taxpayers not the people benefitting. So all the people benefitting are simply benefitting from it being illegal. You have denied this since we started debating.

Uh, no. I have been saying the entire time that those who benefit are outweighed by those who do not. By a huge margin.

But your point doesn't matter because the smaller group benefitting have the money, resources, and access to continue benefitting. Doesn't matter the negative effect as a whole. Those who do benefit don't care about the overall as long as they benefit. And they benefit because drugs are illegal. So as I stated drugs staying illegal is big business, you simply help pay the cost, you're not invited to the benefit party. Doesn't matter if it benefits you nor does our net cost matter to those who benefit.

originally posted by: tinymind
Many replies on this posting have some how been about the differences in alcohol, and its legality, and pot.

I have a question to whichI would like a seriously like an answer.

By real statistics can someone show how the number of traffic fatalities involving alcohol compares to the same number of traffic fatalities involving pot?

I think this should have some, even a mininscule amount, bearing on which one should be legalized.

They made sure with the reporting of accidents that those numbers will stay hidden in mumbo jumbo.

One small reason is the amount of drunks that also test positive for mj even though it could have been days since use but still get listed as being under the influence of mj at the time of an accident.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

NO!

Plea bargains rates are over 95 percent.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

But your point doesn't matter...

It may not matter to you but it matters to me since that was the point I made and no one refuted it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

NO!

Plea bargains rates are over 95 percent.

Non sequitur.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

But your point doesn't matter...

It may not matter to you but it matters to me since that was the point I made and no one refuted it.

Then why are you debating my point?

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Then why are you debating my point?

I am not. I am pointing out the irrelevancies of what you say to my point.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Then why are you debating my point?

I am not. I am pointing out the irrelevancies of what you say to my point.

Only in your mind. All good. Denial is powerful

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Only in your mind. All good. Denial is powerful

Then by all means show all of us how the war on drugs is NOT a net money loser.