Draugnar, if you can see your own racist assumptions who can help you?

Actually Draugnar if you would bother to read my post I absolutely pointed out the conviction rates.
Such things are wasted on individuals who don't begin with the presumption that Blacks and Whites are equally disposed to use and not use drugs because their own racist stereotypes obscure the truth.
So pull your head out and go back and read about the conviction rates of blacks vs whites being sentenced to both state and federal prison.
I wonder what you won't bother to read next?

Krellin,
I'm not doing bad for a moron. Own a home, married a quarter century, teenagers don't use drugs and pass their classes, no credit card debt, fully funded IRA's, money in the bank, holding down a job, plenty of time to enjoy playing gunboat diplomacy.
I tell you, I'm just a good old Forrest Gump.
Now if I can just keep deadbeats who I've never met in my life from trying to jam their hands in my pocket because they say that I owe them money for their medical care they can't pay for themselves, or their mortgage because they bought more house than they can afford, or their retirement they didn't save for themselves, or to what was it Putin "to prevent people from dying on the corners in front of emergency rooms" or the latest lunacy from socialists, bigots, and statists I will be in paradise.
America loves morons like me I guess.

Puttin, you make the indefensible claim that all have to be racist for racism to have an effect. I'll let that stupidity fall by its own mass.
You then try to say that the logic that applies to conviction rates applies to murders.
I guess your education isn't advanced enough to have reached the "you can't compare apples to oranges" stages.
I'll be patient and give you time.
You still can't account in any way shape or form for the differences in conviction rates between blacks and whites all charged with drug crimes, but I understand why, there is no accounting for it outside of institutional racism.
Now you throw around labels and categories that your simplistic intellect thinks explains the world.
The war on drugs has failed to prevent drug use, has led to an explosion in crime, and has corrupted the American legal system with a totally repulsive racism that is evident to everyone around the world except of course the ignorant and/or racist here in the good old US of A.

Well, the mythomania explains a lot.

Well you're right AIDS only applies to certain kinds of drugs, but that was just one point in a list of social costs of allowing easy access to drugs. What about the hundreds of thousands of cases of emergency room treatment due to drug usage? In 2009, there were 4.6 million drug related emergency department visits, 2.1 million of which were attributed to drug abuse, about one million of which were attributed to illicit drugs.

"cocaine was involved in 422,896 ED visits
marijuana was involved in 376,467 ED visits
heroin was involved in 213,118 ED visits
stimulants, including amphetamines and methamphetamine, were involved in 93,562 ED visits "

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/hospitalvisits.html

Not you're right, not everybody who does X is going to wind up in the emergency room or whatever. But the question must be asked, what is the point of keeping something legal that ruins hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives and for which society as a whole picks up the tab for in a variety of ways, even if we deprive people of emergency medical care?

Why does society have an obligation to allow you the right to engage in any form of irresponsible recreation you so desire, just because not *everyone* who engages in said behavior is irresponsible or winds up with serious problems?

@Tettleton - No, you did not. Show me a conviction rate in your post and I'll show you where all you did was say x times the convicts and never mentioned a rate of conviction versus accused.

Yes, blacks and whites are at equal risk of drug use and addiciton assuming the same social/financial circumstances. A poor white male is just as likely to try and alleve his misery or even pull himself out of his situation by using and/or selling drugs as a black man in the same situation.

The problem is a problem of community and finance. Most poor white are trailer trash country. Most poor black are inner city. The gangs and the drug problems have gravitated to the inner city, so therefore the young black men who would otherwise have a shot at pulling themselves out are trapped in a cycle. This is a statement of reality and not racist. I don't think they are any less a person than the uber rich white guys who live in Beverly Hills. They are in a situation beyond their control and trapped.

But you analysis of X times as many go to state or federal prison doesn't take into account how many were arrested to begin with. That is not a conviction rate comparison because a conviction rate *must* be a comparison of number of convictions to number of arrests. You did not do this. Period.

Let me make it simple for you...

1000 people are arrested.
100 white
900 black

500 people go to jail
50 white
450 black

9 times as many blacks as whites were sent to jail, but that is because 9 times as many black as whites were arrested. Both have a 50% conviction rate. *That* is a conviction *rate*. Simple mathematics that *you* don't seem to grasp (God the youth of today are idiots).

"The war on drugs has failed to prevent drug use, has led to an explosion in crime, and has corrupted the American legal system with a totally repulsive racism that is evident to everyone around the world except of course the ignorant and/or racist here in the good old US of A. "

None of that is true. Drug use has declined dramatically, crime has gone down, and conviction rate disparity is due to a range of factors and is not specific to drugs. One could say that mandatory sentencing with regard to crack had a disproportionate impact on African Americans, but that's due to factors I mentioned earlier about public vs private spaces and gang suppliers in high crime neighborhoods.

i don't think he's a youth... but as you said before: "I don't think they are any less a person than the uber rich white guys who live in Beverly Hills. They are in a situation beyond their control and trapped." I quite respect you for this comment, quite calm in its explanation, and simply insightful, I agree whole heartedly and it is this type of observation that I think Mr. Chew seems to disregard to ignorantly

*so

Involvement =/ causation. I'd be interested to see how the marijuana caused 400k ED visits. Furthermore, I don't think ED visits is a good measure of an activity's risk to society. By that measure, we wouldn't be able to go snowboarding, play hockey, ride bikes, etc. Then, to take it one step further, would we have to control what people eat or how much time they spend in front of their computer (playing Diplomacy) instead of exercising?

I don't want to give off the impression that my own opinion is 100% made up about the legalization of drugs. Your argument does have traction because, in my own opinion, there does need to be a line drawn between where recreation and safety. For instance, although handguns can be used for recreation, I see no place for them in society. However, I do believe that some of the fears about drug use come from the same lines as 'reefer madness' propaganda and misinformation. Because drugs are illegal, they generally attract people of ill-repute to begin with.

IMO, you have to look purely at the effect of the drug on people and determine from that if these crimes and hospitalizations are directly caused by the drug. I think this is where the arguments begins to lose traction.

Surely it takes years of training in addition to talent to reach those levels of idiocy, so most likely not a youth.

I think this is somewhat addressed to me and I don't want to miss responding to something to which I'm supposed to respond, so here goes:

"You can get around the whole question of social costs of drug use somewhat by denying people emergency medical care unless they can pay for it. To me, such a policy would be inhumane and unconscionable.You'd have people dying outside the emergency room doors and medical facilities would demand payment before they treat somebody with a gunshot wound, for example. I think you're going to have a very difficult time with such a policy."

The idea wasn't deny them care -- they get the care and then deal with the bills later. I'm with you, outright denying ER care would be absurd. But I do think that if people are going to get themselves hospitalized because of idiotic personal decisions with drugs that they should pay the cost of their subsequent medical care. The concept behind legalization is essentially "It's my right to do what I want as long as I'm not harming others," and with that comes paying the price for personal habits like drug use (lest others be expected to foot your bills -- which would certainly be harming others and subsequently not part of this credo.)

"Furthermore, you're not going to completely get around the question of cost. Making drugs cheaper and legal and then denying people medical care and eliminating investment in social services will simply create more homelessness, more domestic abuse, more anti-social behavior, more poverty, more crime."

Tangent -- what exactly are we talking about with antisocial behavior? If we're talking about the literal personality disorder, I promise you a libertarian government is going to fight that because a libertarian government's main priority is to defend the rights of its people from others. If it's something less literal I'm not sure what exactly we're talking about and would appreciate clarification.

Now, to the main point. First, as noted before, medical care isn't being denied. As for elimination of investment into social services, you can either keep the investment into social services with the current War on Drugs budget and eliminate enforcement/incarceration costs, which would be a huge savings in and of itself without losing the social services, or you could take the money that was going to enforcement/incarceration costs and invest it into these social services, keeping the same cost issue but turning it into a more effective investment into the community. We don't necessarily have to whack everything about the budget for the WoD to save money/improve conditions/both (and I'd argue whacking everything very well may not improve conditions).

"As for AIDs, the tremendous decline in the transmission of AIDs by drug use points again to the smashing success of drug laws. Legalize drugs and then see what happens to those numbers. Look at past numbers of AIDs transmission by intravenous drug use. Also, you neglect to look at cases of AIDs transmission by sexual contact in which the partner got AIDS from drug use."

I didn't neglect it, I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure if that's what you were referencing in and of itself. There's no question that drug use can lead to dire negative consequences like AIDS. If you're not careful with use of needles then yeah, you're practically setting yourself up for calamity. That said, once the person has AIDS, the situation from the standpoint of "does this hurt someone else" is no different than it is now. Someone who contracts AIDS from their own drug use and neglect is still going to have to be as careful around others as someone who contracts it any other way. The only change is that the people who themselves contracted AIDS from their own drug use are obviously in a pretty bad spot they otherwise wouldn't be in -- but just like people who would get hospitalized for legal drug use, it was entirely within their control not to contract AIDS. They took the risk and they pay the price. As for "AIDs transmission by sexual contact in which the partner got AIDS from drug use," wouldn't that be the fault of the sexual contact instead of the drug use? And if it is, I'm fairly certain it's illegal to have sex with someone when you have an STD without notifying them. I recall an NFL athlete (can't remember name) getting in trouble for this not too long ago. And I wouldn't make that legal, so it's the same consequences as it is now.

Lemme pick this one up too right quick:

"Why does society have an obligation to allow you the right to engage in any form of irresponsible recreation you so desire, just because not *everyone* who engages in said behavior is irresponsible or winds up with serious problems?"

If you're paying for the costs yourself (which is the system I'm trying to set up in this discussion), and not harming others (which is also what is trying to be set up), is there a problem?

---

And:

"(God the youth of today are idiots)."

:(

I keep reading this red herring of "emergency medical" costs for drug addicts.
It's posted like it's the number one issue in emergency rooms.
No statistics. No substantiation. Just a huge false choice, red herring.

Yonni hit the nail on the head with his last post.

Putin chimes in with his usual "the world exists the way it does in my mind not the way it really is" post.

In Putin's world the war on drugs is a cost-efficient success that coupled with stellar prevention measures and treatment has totally eliminated the drug problem in the western world.

Of course in reality so many people use drugs in United States if affects the way you can by cold medicine. The prisons are over-crowded to the point courts order inmates released, and who do the courts and the prison officials decide to let out- non-violent drug offenders who are overcrowding the prisons in the first place.

Putin, stay in your fantasy world. It is the only place you get taken seriously.

Draugnar, Why do you make up statistics for arrests and convictions that are completely at odds with the real world conviction rates for white and black drug offenders?

Is it because you are incapable of changing your opinion when the facts change.
is it because you are incapable of looking at the readily available stats posted in this thread or online- conviction rates are public record in the United States in case you didn't know.

Whatever the reason it doesn't change the fact that blacks are sentenced to federal prison at 57 times the rate of whites accused of the same crime.

100 Whites convicted of dealing pot. One goes to Federal Prison.
100 Blacks convicted of dealing pot. Fifty-Seven go to Federal Prison.

There are very few "non-violent drug offenders" in prison.

http://www.micounties.org/Portals/0/docs/Sentencing%20Guidelines/Appendix%20A.pdf

"I keep reading this red herring of "emergency medical" costs for drug addicts."

You never provide a citation for any of the nonsense you post. You're really going to play this card? I thought you were one of the TANSTAAFL people, and now you're going to pretend that emergency room care doesn't have costs?

I just gave you information on the number of visits. Drug-related poisoning alone costs us 1.4 billion a year in ER visits. http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2011/03/30/e-r-drug-visits-total-1-4-billion-yearly.htm

@Tettleton's Crew: "....'m not doing bad for a moron. Own a home, married a quarter century, teenagers don't use drugs and pass their classes, no credit card debt, fully funded IRA's, money in the bank, holding down a job, plenty of time to enjoy playing gunboat diplomacy...." AND....So what? Again, you are a FUCKING MORON, because you, despite your pretend success in life, are *wholly* incapable of answerig my post. You keep *pretending* to answer me....you try to insult me, you make pointless statements (like this one) and yet you FAIL COMPLETELY to answer my post adressed to you....which was in reponse to YOU trying to insult me...because I **rightly** called out your post (Can anyone defend socialism) as a STUPID post, because the obvious answer is "Yes". You, sir, are STILL and asshole and a mental midget. It is truly pathetic that you can not actually read a post, can not actually comprehend basic concepts, and can not actually answer people's questions, even when you PRETEND to answer them. YOU, sir, are a fucking moron.

In your last attempt to answer my questions to you, you went of on some ridiculous self-righteous diatribe. While I may agree with your general feelings, you do a COMPLETE disservice to your favorable audience by being too stupid to answer basic questions. So...dude....grow the fuck up. You CLAIM to be old, have kids, etc...as I do....and yet you argue (or do NOT argue your points) with the intellect or deep thoughts of a a two year old. I may agree with you in principle...but you are a fucking moron.

Putin, How do you type when you are asleep and dreaming. What an amazing talent.

When Krellin posts you know the kiddie board is closed for the day.

Stop getting your info on the drug war from the High Times.

This post is for Putin (once he wakes up of course)

By the year 2000, there were 458,131 drug offenders incarcerated in America's prisons and jails – approximately the size of the entire US prison and jail population of 1980. This means that nearly one in four (23.7%) prisoners in America is incarcerated for a non-violent drug offense.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2006/10/overcrowded-california-prisons-and.php

Putin, I can imagine the High Times crowd is about all you can handle in a debate.
I prefer .edu peer reviewed studies personally.

Putin, change your diaper before you read this article.

In this article we examine this argument and, more generally, discuss the relationship between Three Strikes and the recent decline in California’s crime rate. We conclude that there is no evidence that Three Strikes played an important role in the drop in the
crime rate.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v32-issue1/beres.pdf

It ain't the High Times mumbo jumbo you have trouble with Putin. This is peer reviewed .edu articles that blow your week diatribe out of the water.

What? You posted a page of *unsourced* propaganda from a drug legalization activist. This isn't a study.

This paper you provided claims that preventing juveniles from getting guns and a reduction in the crack cocaine epidemic contributed greatly to the reduction in juvenile homicide. This should make a libertarian cringe. Access to guns and cheap dangerous drugs increases murder? Say it ain't so.

The three strikes rule is not specific to anti-drug policies, so I'm not getting the relevance here.