Also in the many decades since drug laws were enacted the Supreme Court has never said "Toke all you want"

Words never said also include "Pot is legal", "Drug Regulations are illegal" and "herbs cannot be regulated"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_H8GVFQv9s

The previous one was a reference to feeding the plants.

This one is better...

Rofl, a no substance post... Gay police, attacks upon the humor, and some nonsense about lives saved.

Security is about protecting property, unprotected property gets damaged where protected does not often. If a whole community has poor security and policing then the whole community generally declines, mattering on the local ethics.

One cannot say how much security saved, it is an unanswerable question. What we can do is show what lack of security cost. Mexico for instance, Columbia for instance, Afghanistan for instance, China under the Opium War mandates for instance... they lost plenty.

Go away Kemp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12 … 70789.html

Essentially they changed their death classification, as well as classifications for spread of AIDs and other drug related problems at the same time. Actual statistics show an increase in deaths, contagions, and crime related to drugs. Oh and more users.

Yeah I got love it when people try to hide facts to make their agenda work... and it comes out.

Didn't the corroner state that the guy had multiple drugs in his system, and not just heroin?  And that a posibility of said drugs, plus poor health conditions, contributed to his death?

If he had gone to Walgreens and asked the Pharmacist he would have been told Heroin will only mess you up and eventually kill you. Further he would have been warned that the drug is commonly laced with substances to make it even more addictive or dangerous to your health.

Of course he, like kemp, would ignore the sound advice.

Thank you for conceding all of my arguments (and making it clear you either didn't read them or didn't understand them). My task here is complete. Any third-party viewer can read what I wrote and see that you were either entirely unwilling or unable to respond to any of it in any way.

To recap, I argued that the "drug war" causes far more harm than it does good, if it in fact does any good at all (with various citations for this skepticism). I argued that, because of all of this harm, it's worth talking about our current policies.

I listed and explained some of the many levels on which the "drug war" harms all of our society, and foreign societies not governed by our laws at all. (again peppered with citations--I'd provide more, but nobody disputed a word of what I said)

Einstein and The Yell then responded with spam, made vague references to topics which support my position (without explanation), then spammed some more. I haven't even had a single argument to respond to. Nobody's made any, let alone good ones.

I find it embarrassing to read this level of drivel. I've made my arguments and supported them.

An incomplete statement to explain this dismissal of your spam: (Though admittedly your inability to respond to anything I posted is even more damning, either of your intentions or your abilities.)

Einstein,

I'm not sure how you think British foreign aggression centuries ago is somehow an argument for the "drug war." It's certainly not a response to anything I posted, and  you certainly haven't explained how a British attack on China centuries ago supports your position. You didn't have a point, or you'd have made it. That's not argumentation at all, let alone strong. You're just spamming in place of providing arguments and responding to what I posted because you have nothing else to say.

I already brought up diseases spread by drug use, or should I say diseases spread by the "drug war." I explained how syringes are cheap and that, if buying [currently illegal] drugs was handled like buying legal stuff is now (such as vitamin B, for instance), they'd be sold in new, clean syringes (which vitamin B is).

No business would sell drugs in their current forms if not for laws against drugs and black markets. Syringes cost less than 50 cents (http://tinyurl.com/l3v8643). Selling drugs in them would be a no-brainer (healthier clients live to buy more!) and this would obliterate the spread of diseases by drug users. The topic of diseases completely supports my position, and I have previously explained how this is so (with a little recap here for your convenience).

But you brought it back up, not to respond to what I posted, but to vaguely reference the topic. Because "diseases" are "bad." So if you use "diseases" and "drugs" in the same sentence, you clearly supported your position, right?

You obviously either didn't read what I posted, or you lack the necessary reading comprehension to respond. I already brought up the topic in support of my position. I clearly explained my reasoning. Your response? No response. Just a vague reference to the topic which supports my position.

Nobody is convinced by you stating "a no substance post" in response to my posts here. I clearly laid out my arguments. You failed to respond to any of them. Nobody is childish enough to read your proclamation that my posts lack substance and forget this.

The Yell,

The drug business is not inherently a hugely lucrative and violent business. The fact that we have such a large legal pharmaceutical business in the USA which causes no violence is evidence of this. The "drug war" makes it unnaturally profitable and unnaturally a part of a black (unregulated, ie policed) market.

I described all of this in detail, explaining it. I didn't link a lot of evidence for this because there's SO much of it, it's SO easy to find, and it's undisputed. People who discount it have faith that so many people must be saved by laws against drugs that it's worth ANY cost! But they don't make arguments that it's not true.

You missed the point. Did you even read the posts? Again no response. Just another vague reference to another topic which supports my position.

Then you go on to misquote the 41% reference which is not "drug users" but merely "people who have tried pot at least once." It's plain to see that you did not, in fact, read anything I wrote.

You can't discuss or debate a topic with someone if you refuse to read what they wrote or respond to it in any way. You lost this debate by refusing to take part in it.

So keep spamming. I'll give you the last word.

Why is the word "undisputed" in your post?  Do you know what "undisputed" means?  Do you think it different from people who "discount" your opinions?

I'm a loser because I didn't read the proof you didn't bother to post.  Huh?

"Then you go on to misquote the 41% reference which is not "drug users" but merely "people who have tried pot at least once." It's plain to see that you did not, in fact, read anything I wrote."

Where did you write that before? Didn't you just try to club me with 41% without explaining it?  What's the actual number of regular illegal drug users?  If you can't know, then what business do you have arguing I have to accept that it won't increase after legalization?  What if it has every time, but the difference between unknown and known can't be measured?

Every read "Wiseguy", the book they made "Goodfellas" off of?  You know what they got Jimmy the Gent for?  He killed a guy for selling him bad coke.  He paid $250,000 for wholesale cocaine to retail and it was garbage powder.   I don't think he whacked him because he was denied the opportunity to sue him in federal court.  Jimmy the Gent also hijacked trucks of legal goods and fenced the swag.  I suppose there's a way to legalize that to knock the bottom out of his market, but it escapes me.

I don't think 20-40% of the public uses $700/oz. legal pharmaceuticals.  If they did, there'd be violence involved there too.

Your own article cites those health concerns in part as a problem not of the drug being legal in Colorado, but it being illegal federally (as the federal government refuses to test it).  Problem would go away if the feds legalized it.

Next. 

I'll just wait you out. Pretty sure I'll win this one. Probably soon.

... cute.