Two Party System

[Parrothead]

jmancuso:

things like murder, identity theft and so on harm other people where as prostitution, gambling and drugs do not. speeding is also dangerous to others hense why it is not allowed...that has nothing to do with moral enforcement.

Oh, honey! How I wish you hadn't said that. Now I have to rant, but I will try to be nice and I promise I won't attack you directly. The following are just my opinions and should not be taken as a lecture or condescending but as just observations that will open civil dialogue.

There, now that I'm finished with my disclaimer , I will proceed:

There are plenty of people who harm others in the issues of which you speak--gambling, abortion, drugs, and prostitution.

If prostitution were made legal, how would that stop the trafficking of underage prostitutes being imported here in Houston from other countries? How would it stop the pimp that drugs up his 16-year old runaway and forces her to provide unprotected sex because that's "what's hot" right now?

If drugs were made legal, would that somehow increase the public's "personal responsibility" and awareness? Would that stop people like the guy who got high and drove my cousin Sean, a police officer in Lee County, FL, off the road, killing him? Probably not.

What would be the benefit to drugs being legal? Well, let's see, police officers could spend less time on drug enforcement. I can see that--maybe. It depends. Are we going to legalize ALL drugs or just pot?

And the question still remains: how do I explain to my 12 year old that drugs are bad if my government doesn't even believe it enough to back me up? How would legalizing drugs stop the jerk around the corner who still is trying to sell pot to the middle-schoolers during lunchtime?

Sure, it's ALL personal responsibility--it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. It's wrong, period, to get behind the wheel of a car under ANY influence--you and I agree on that, I am sure-- but do you really think that someone that has been out all night doing half of an 8-ball really gives a crap about that? So, we shift the drug enforcement to traffic and accident enforcement. I'm not sure I see the benefit there.

I've lived a pretty colorful life and I gotta tell ya, I don't know very many people that do any kind of drug RESPONSIBLY. I don't know many dealers who would all of a sudden change their tactics and begin selling to JUST RESPONSIBLE ADULTS. Regardless of how I personally feel about pot, I just can't say I think it's right to allow it to be legalized. I feel we would have too few doors closed and too many windows open.

As for gambling, I'm not so sure it's wrong, because I sure love going to Vegas and Biloxi. Nothing like a weekend at Beau Rivage to know that hookers can still snort a few lines in the bathroom before blowing (pardon the pun) a grand on blackjack. But, then if drugs and prostitution were legal we wouldn't be worried at all about that, right?

As for abortion.....well, being almost 6 months pregnant, I think I better keep my opinions to myself on this topic.

Your opinions welcome of course!

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[jmancuso]

27 pretty much saved me a whole lotta typin' cause i agree 100% on all accounts.

[Lowbrow]

I'm with ya 27. I can tell you that when I was in High School it was much easier to get drugs than it was alcohol. Not that Alcohol was unobtainable just that it required more hoops to jump through. If drugs were regulated (and taxed) like tobacco or alcohol then the drugs would be safer (remember all the deaths in NE Houston a few years ago?) and a revenue generator for the regulation, education (commercials etc) and enforcement.

I was going to responde the exact same defense for prostitution. There should be a "war" (to jump on the bandwagon) on the underaged sex slavery market (isnt this Ricky Martin's pet project?) . Focus on the atrocities not the moraly questionable.

For the record I would not partake in the drugs, prostitution, or even gambling. Its just not my bag. I just don't like being told to live my life by someone elses ethical code. Similarly to the fact that if I rode a motorcycle I would wear a helmet, yet I can't stand being told that I have to (where applicable).

Just my opinion.

[Parrothead]

My turn to rant..

Oh lord...this is going to be fun, I can see it now. I think the one thing we do agree on is this:

And for what its worth: I don't have all the answers, and some of the answers I do have, I don't even have explinations for.

Oohkay, on with the show....

Right now ALL prostitution is illegal. There is no regulation. There is no control. There is no monitoring.

Yes, I am aware of this.

By legalizing it, you then gain the ability to do regulate, control, monitor, and best of all TAX the living hell out of it.

You really think so? Good luck with that.

You're worried about 16 year old Mexican & Thai slave-hookers? Well, with all the regular prostitution regulated by the health department, vice squads can then focus in on such henious offenders.

And good luck with this one too.

Right now, they are so swampped with streetwalkers, brothels, tranny's and the like that they'll never get to any 16 year old slave-hooker ring.

Really? My sources at HPD say otherwise. They aren't swamped with ANYTHING because they simply don't have enough manpower. If you actually believe that vice squads can handle the REAL crimes going on in prostitution then you don't know one single thing about the current problem in our city.

As for runaways - well, they shouldn't have runaway.

Let me guess--you have no children?

Maybe if parents would grow some balls like our parents had and tell their kids whats out there in the real world, maybe they'd stay at home.

My father was a WWII Marine and ex-FBI, and my mother was a stay-at-home Mom--do you really think he didn't have enough balls when I took off at 15 for a brief stint, thinking I knew it all? I'm sorry, but neither of these last two statements of yours has any merit whatsoever. They don't DEAL with the problem.

I will in no way trivialize your cousin's death, as I am sorry for your loss. Just this Saturday we lost a great firefighter and father to 3 kids - all to a crackhead trying to light his pipe.

.....and legalizing crack cocaine would have changed this situation, how, exactly? There will ALWAYS be homeless addicts like Mr. Cordua lighting up empty houses with crackpipes. How is legalization going to stop him?

I will talk about the legality of drugs however. I personally think that all drugs should be legal, as long as they are regulated, monitored, & controlled by the government.

That's a very utopian POV--not that utopian is bad in theory, but it is highly unrealistic when applied.

It seems to work just fine for tobacco & alcohol.

This country has an entire department dedicated to the enforcement issues of tobacco and alcohol, and it's called.......guess......the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Do you honestly think they are only dealing with gun issues?

I don't see what the difference is for drugs. The arguement can not be made that alocohol isn't as serious as cocaine or heroin. You know that in the proper amounts all these are equally as dangerous.

Equally? Boy, you must not know a lot about heroin.

With drugs legalized you can now TAX the hell out of them. That's one benefit.

Yes, you are right. You can tax. This is the left's biggest argument for drug "decriminalization". However, you can't enforce that tax if people are buying their goods elsewhere. What happens when new drugs come in and don't get approved for 10 years, like with the FDA and prescriptions currently? No taxes when you're dealing with black market goods--that's the thinking on the street.

The second would be thousands of new jobs & more capital for farmers. 

I guess everyone has forgotten where that "Super-sized French Fry" comes from - because without farmers, we would all starve. They by far hold the most important jobs in America. They work from teenage until death. They spend 16+ hours everyday working the land. And still, they have to depend on the government either buying their excess crops, subsidizing their exsisting crops profit, or actually paying them to not grow a crop (mostly due to importation).

Oh yes, I am really sure that our friendly, core-valued midwestern farmers will be so super psyched to begin planting their new crop of pot for the US Government. That should be interesting. I'm sure California will have no problem picking up the slack though.

The third benefit is crime-reduction. The more drugs you legalize, the fewer dealers. Suddenly, it's dirty and unsafe to go into the ghetto to get a sack of marijuana when you can just get it at the Shell station after filling up. The few drug dealers that remain will have to sell their illegal drugs so cheap, that they'll never be "pimps & balla's" again - like they all seem to be now.

I'm going to pretend what you said didn't sound nearly that ridiculous, and just say that I'd be willing to give it a try if we can start in your neighborhood first.

Fourth, With drugs legalized, the police can focus on those few that will still try to sell it illegally. This will be a far smaller amount than the 100% of drug dealers that currently exist.

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. I can't even get any further than that. I'm sorry. I just totally and completely disagree.

Sure, there will always be crackheads - but come on - they're here now, so really, what's the difference?

See the first part of my response two answers up.

I know many  people that use drugs responsibly.

Well, your friends must be marvelously talented. I was knee-deep in the ecstasy and acid craze during the '90s and I can't say the same thing.

But you have to look at what your saying. The same things were said during prohibition. As for drug dealers selling to repsonsible adults - you're not thinking it out. With regulation - it would be sold in stores next to tobacco. Not on the street corner anymore. With only a few desperate drug dealers left after legalization - the police will be able to more easily target them and zero in.

I think I'm "thinking it out" rather well, because I can't say I have a solution to any of it. I certainly don't think legalizing it sends any kind of message to our kids, and I don't think the current tactic we are using is any good because it is half-a*sed, at best. So I definitely think it is a topic that needs to be discussed, no doubt.

For the record - I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice

Well, then, I take it back. Not that I assumed you were pro-anything in my original statement, but we now have two things we agree with--though I would venture to say I am no longer pro-choice in ALL instances and I am certainly not pro-choice for partial birth or abortion past 8 weeks. That's because that is all my brain can deal with at this point.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Nothin' like stayin' "on-topic", huh?

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Parrothead]

Aw, 27, who's arguing? Not me! I would hope you didn't take this as an argument--just a friendly debate.

Heights--I have yet to see a majority of threads here that actually stay ON topic. I apologize if somehow our wavering bothers you.

And now, back to the topic at hand......which is......uh.....

[Lowbrow]

lets see I think we were talking about subsidized crops.. i mean farmers... or the founding fathers didnt want farmers votes to screw the system... i mean the electoral college... and bipolar politics... yes yes... the 2 Party System.

[debmartin]

"I personally think that all drugs should be legal, as long as they are regulated, monitored, & controlled by the government. It seems to work just fine for tobacco & alcohol. I don't see what the difference is for drugs." (quote, 27)

hypothetically this would seem to be a good argument for personal choice, however the laws are constantly being redefined to appease the public's outcry. aside from appointments, most of the government is elected by the people so ironically while it would appear you do not wish the government to interfere with your own personal views, it is actually "the people" who do so. case in point, the smoking ban being considered by the mayor - i'm not sure about his personal views on smoking but it does seem he is bending to public pressure about the hazards of second hand smoke. alcohol increasingly comes under scrutiny, like the harsher penalties for drunk driving and happy hour regulations imposed a few years back.

so when you say "as long as they are regulated, monitored and controlled by the government" i would agree because like it or not, the government is empowered by the people to do just that with almost every facet of our lives. when you say it works just fine for smoking and drinking i'd have to disagree because the laws are constantly being challenged and changed, depending upon public opinion. the good news is that public opinion is often changed by scientists and healthcare professionals who provide vital information about what constitutes harmful lifestyle choices.

if you don't see what the difference is for drugs, call up any of the pharmaceutical companies and ask them why certain medications will always be prescription only, such as antibiotics. sure it's a pain to see a dr. when you're sick and feel you should just be able to go down to cvs and buy some, but if that decision was left up to the public we could face a national health crisis.

the prostitution "stings" i read about in the paper all the time are prompted by irate citizens who swamp the police with complaints - it seems those interested in maintaining property values feel the presence of hookers and johns pose a threat. again, law enforcement reacting to the opinion of the public - same goes for the game rooms recently raided with slot machines. i think too much emotion is attached to these issues and it would be helpful to redirect the argument towards how our quality of life here in houston is affected. taking this into consideration, i can see how "sin" taxes on drugs, alcohol and prostitution might boost the city's bank account, although regulation would be costly and i can't see legalizing them helpful to promoting tourism.

oh, and about that other thing (two party system) i think it's outdated and a hoax. democrats and republicans have their conventions where the platform is preached, then each individual candidate spews their own agenda, often in direct opposition of the party. the whole donkey/elephant red/blue thing is a joke as well, although i've been told it's tradition. there could be a third party of moderates who perhaps would explore issues rationally and independently but without the $$$ of big political machines this will never happen.

debmartin

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[kjb434]

Back to the two party system.

The biggest problem in the US i feel is that we don't vote based on philosophies or beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs).

We vote for actual candidates. We vote personality of the candidate and some of there views.

We are the only democratic country on the face of the world taht votes for congress members and actually vote for real people.

Many democracies you vote for the party and ideology, not the person to represent you. This way you don't have candidates fighting. Once the election is over, the party that wins picks who will represent them.

The amount of people each party gets in the legislature is based upon their percentage they won in the election.

In France the communist party actually has several representatives because they won like 5% of the vote.

Some democracies you choose a president some you the lead party picks it.

It is just a different concept.

[westguy]

It's all f'ed up anyway. The conservative party is now the liberal party and vice versa. No one (not just the politicians) has a philosophy anymore.