View Full Version : Legalize all drugs.
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 09:19
Yes, that's right all of them. This has been an arguement that I have slowly come around to. The war on drugs is unwinnable. Much like the war on terror. Human beings will always, indeed have always, sought solace, inspiration and just plain fun from recreational use of substances. To look at how the prohibition of drugs has failed, one only has to go back to the USA in the 30s and the prohibition on alcohol and how that gave succour to the mob.
Properly regulated, as alcohol is, this would, at a stroke, deprive organised crime of it's oxygen, money. It would free up police time from chasing what is in essence a social problem and allow them to concentrate on preventing and detecting crime.
I know some of you might say that why not abolish all crime on the statute books, thus allowing us to do away with the police altogether.
That would be missing the point.
An article from the BBC.
In the report Mr Brunstrom writes: "if policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral....
"Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm
I think this quote is telling.
He said: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
I would say that this actually promotes my arguement.
Well blow me down, I think it is safe to say we completely agree on this subject IA.
CountArach
10-11-2007, 09:31
I'll throw in a third agreeing opinion. Well said! The way I see it is that the money made from Taxes could go into Drug Education.
HoreTore
10-11-2007, 09:31
No. Why not? Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 09:43
No. Why not? Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.
Who told you this? nicotine is far more addictive than heroin and the withdrawal from alcohol has to be under medical supervision as it is so dangerous it can kill. Compared with alcohol, heroin withdrawal is a walk in the park.
This is what I mean. People just arn't educated enough on the issue of drugs. Reefer Madness anyone? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4)
Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright. I don't think we should be able to buy a quick death at the supermarket.
- It is more dangerous than alcohol and I'd debateably mention nicotine, which kills the most people of all drugs. But it is a lot less dangerous than Cocaine or Ice if you know the concentration of your supply. Because what makes people overdose is that one batch is more concentrated than usual and then they insert the same amount as usual, which is too much and they die. :book2:
- Also it wouldn't be available at the supermarket, that's just silly.
- And as it would be regulated and all, the taboo factor of it would be removed, making it a lot less attractive to the people who think it'd be cool to do so.
- Imagine how much money would be saved not processing those 280,000 people through the legal system.
Ja'chyra
10-11-2007, 10:46
Personally I don't agree with most of the things that the government seem to think they need to forbid us from, a good example of this raising the age you can buy cigarettes to 18, I mean who thought this up, you can get married get a house have children but you can't buy fags????? They're also going to raise the age of buying alcohol to 21, utter hypocrasy, we're quite willing to send people out to die in Iraq and Afghanistan but we won't allow them to go for a drink at the weekends????
Let people take responsibility for their own actions, you pay your money you make your choices, it's you that has to live with the consequences.
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
Ja'chyra
10-11-2007, 11:03
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
You mean we aren't already?
Geoffrey S
10-11-2007, 11:13
Personally I think decent education is the key to prevention. Making drugs illegal doesn't prevent people who want them from getting them, much like guns, and government regulation/distribution could drive down prices which would take away income from many criminal organizations. I don't believe it's the governments place to stop people from using harddrugs other than informing the public, and don't believe it's possible in most cases, but I also don't see it as government responsibility to pick up the pieces other than in cases where the public welfare is threatened. Primary goal of such legislation should be to deprive criminals from their major cash source.
My mind says yes, this makes sense. But morally, I just can't shake the feeling that a line needs to be drawn somewhere... I suppose it would come down to a distinction between legal and socially tolerated, the latter I hope won't happen.
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
I'd say that it'd rather take away the monopoly of said regimes.
You mean we aren't already?
Well yeah, but to add another one. You can't win the war on drugs that is true, but that is no reason to permit them I think. There is blood money all over it there, and it destroys lives here. Too complicated.
macsen rufus
10-11-2007, 11:25
Because heroin is a LOT more dangerous than alcohol/nicotine. Much more addictive, and it can kill you outright.
Simply not true - before I got a life I trained as a pharmacist, so this is not a soap-box opinion from me (for a change :laugh4: ).
THE classic case of a heroin addict we were given is the GP who became addicted in his 20s, and his habit was not discovered by anyone until he was in his 80s, having spent most of that time functioning perfectly well as a doctor and family man. How is this possible on this horrible, oh so dangerous drug? Well, he had some advantages - a doctor's income, and a reliable supply of pharmaceutical grade heroin, and enough medical knowledge to be able to inject repeatedly in a safe and hygienic manner.
Two things make heroin dangerous as a recreational drug - the people who sell it, and the crap they pad it out with. Many cases of accidental OD with heroin arise where an unexpectedly purer batch hits the streets. Users accustomed with a 5% purity will succumb to a shot of 50% purity. If the supply is 100% pure in the first place, and legal, both of these problems are eradicated. It's analogous to the mobs running 'moonshine' during Prohibition.
Cost-wise, legally produced, pharmaceutical heroin is RIDICULOUSLY cheap - when I was studying pharmacy (admittedly a few years ago now, allow for inflation) the price we were given was approximately 2 pence per standard therapeutic shot (the packaging and distribution cost more!) Yet illegal supplies that were dirty, impure and truly dangerous cost hundreds if not thousands of times as much.
Now I don't deny that heroin can be lethal - so can alcohol in overdose, there are enough cases of binge-drinkers dying of alcohol poisoning to prove it, and in long-term exposure alcohol causes cirrhosis, liver cancer, all sorts of other things. Heroin is certainly addictive, but nicotine is as bad if not worse. PHYSICALLY heroin is pretty harmless.
If you really want to scare yourself about drugs, do some research on paracetamol overdose - that is about the worst way to go EVAR, and you CAN buy that in supermarkets.
Obviously if drugs were legalised (I would exclude cocaine purely on the grounds it turns users into loudmouthed :daisy: ~D) then a suitable regulatory framework would be required, as we have with tobacco and alcohol (but not on caffeine funnily enough which can also be quite dangerous mentally and physically). But with the tax revenues and the hugely reduced number of people resorting to other crimes to finance what should be a very cheap habit, I think society would be a lot better off on balance (not to mention that we'd be able to offer a sustainable economic option for Afghans to wean them away from the Taliban :2thumbsup: )
This issue is a double edged sword. While legalising them makes sense on paper. A few years down the line once the class c drugs such as marijuana have worked there way into society, as alcohol and tobacco are at present, then the effects could be irreversable. Setting up more multi billion pound industries like the tobacco industry is also not a idea. Legalising something sends out the wrong message to young people, it basically says "it's ok to do that", it makes drugs socially acceptable. Since marijuana was downgraded from class b to class c and since PC Plod started turning a blind eye to it, it is now rife in the town where I live, especially among teenagers and school kids.
Pannonian
10-11-2007, 11:37
Well yeah, but to add another one. You can't win the war on drugs that is true, but that is no reason to permit them I think. There is blood money all over it there, and it destroys lives here. Too complicated.
The rationale is that drugs are going to damage lives anyway whether or not they're prohibited. If they're controlled and distributed by the state, at least we'd know the drugs were safe and unadulterated, it takes them off the black market and thus gives the state something to tax, and since they're openly available they'll be cheaper, reducing the need for crimes to fund habits and thus reducing the level of crime. Also, it gives us a whiphand over countries which grow the raw materials, allowing us to dispense our favours (by buying their crops) according to whichever foreign policy best suits us. It's much cheaper than war, and since it's up to them to present a good case for us buying their stuff as opposed to us forcing our views on them, it creates less friction.
As I've said before, legalise heroin (and whatever other drugs seem expedient) but have a state monopoly on supply, and buy the raw materials from Afghanistan or other places according to cost and foreign policy. It's completely amoral, but would you rather have a moral policy that doesn't work or an amoral policy that materially benefits everyone?
Thankfully heroin is a non-issue here, coke is hip, but heroin is considered to be pathetic. But regulating it would probably more costly then what we are doing now.
Watchman
10-11-2007, 13:23
Meh, just take the approach that's working pretty well with smoking: make the stuff legal, but grossly inconvenient and onerous to actually use so the number of people actually bothering with it stays down. Limits the health expenses, and removes the reason for quite a bit of quite nasty crime to exist in the first place as there are no longer megabucks to be made in illegal drug trade. And since even the heavy users can get their "fix" cheaply and legally they don't have to roll up people, burgle apartements and/or sell organs (theirs or someone else's...) to pay for the habit.
I would think the Prohibition approach has been throroughly tried and found quite wanting, anyway.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-11-2007, 15:24
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
Aren't we already? :laugh4:
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
why is that?
if drugs were legal couldn´t they be produced locally?
no need to import them from those "nasty regimes"...
Since marijuana was downgraded from class b to class c and since PC Plod started turning a blind eye to it, it is now rife in the town where I live, especially among teenagers and school kids.
But does it cause any problems? Are the kids engaging in more crimes? Or are they just stoned all the time (a definite minus regarding their future, but better than them robbing the elderly and otherwise being teenage punks)?
I bet the kabob shops love it. :yes:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-11-2007, 15:50
I have never used illegal drugs, have smoked only 5/6 cigars in my 43 years, and pretty well stopped all but the occasional cocktail or nightcap after leaving grad school. Therefore, personally, drugs play little role in my life.
I came to the regrettable conclusion that drugs should be legalized a few years back.
Mind you, I say regrettable because I have deep fears about the first generation of younglings after the prohibitions are lifted. Too many will experiment and too many will pay a harsh price.
Nevertheless, the War on Terror is far more likely to be "won" than is the "war" on drugs. The War on Terror is a war against an idea -- difficult fight, but possible to win by supplanting the targeted idea with a better and more broadly relevant idea. The War on Drugs, however, is a war against humyn nature itself.
Eventually, however, in a world where such things are legal and the policing focuses strictly on protecting others from harm caused by you -- and not attempting to protect you from yourself -- a new and more practical equilibrium. I fear for us all during that transition however.
As to some side points from above:
"Supporting" nasty regimes. Some already support such regimes anyway. In a world where such things were legal, at least a less loathsome regime could establish competition and allow you to boycott a particular thug more readily.
"Nicotine" and drug potency. Macsen can confirm this from a more authoratative perspective, but you need to remember just how little nicotine is in a typical cigarette. 1 eyedropper of pure nicotine would rapidly kill a 100kg human -- in pure form the stuff is nearly as deadly as Potassium Cyanide. And nicotine, by itself, is one of the LESS carcinogenic components of tobacco/cigarettes.
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 16:07
Very true. A droplet of pure nicotine on your skin would cause death rapidly.
Thanks to macsen rufus for your insight.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-11-2007, 17:10
Not really much to say here, apart from that I whole-heartedly agree with IA and Macsen Rufus's posts. I must confess that I find it odd that although almost everyone I talk to about this issue is of the same opinion-that widespread legalisation is the way to go-no government is willing to consider even discussing it.
My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.
An additional concern is the destructive force legalization would have on families. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we'd see more drug addicted babies and negligent/abusive parents who are addicted to drugs.
How to legalize is also a problem. I don't think flat out legalization is a good option, but heavy regulation and taxation would still leave the door open for illegal black markets. I also don't relish the idea of getting contact buzzes everytime I leave my house and walk down the street.
Part of the reason for a continuing ban, I think, is convenience. I'd liken it to speeding in a car- the act itself isn't necessarily a problem, it's the reckless driving that's often associated with it. But, it's much harder to enforce reckless driving laws than it is a flat out speeding ban. Similarly, if someone wants to sit at home with themselves and smoke weed with consenting friends where it won't affect children or others- I could care less. But the amount of government regulation required to ensure such might well be unworkable.
My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.
Our societies already do that with lots of things that are legal....smokes, alcohol, greasy food, no exercise...all unhealthy lifestyles that:
A) are legal
B) lead to higher costs in medical treatment for everyone...
so why not legalize all drugs?
My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.
Non-issue. We're already paying for the prosecution, jailing and incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Cost) of millions of drug users, which is more expensive than their medical treatment by a country mile. (Remember, it costs roughly $20k per year to hold a human being in general population prison.) Also, according to the best economist's guesses, marijuana is a $35 billion crop in the U.S. that is not taxed.
You can't make a sane economic argument for maintaining the war on drugs. Well, you can, but it's not going to make any sense.
why is that?
if drugs were legal couldn´t they be produced locally?
no need to import them from those "nasty regimes"...
Can legalise them all but can't make them all, you will have to do business at some point. On building it yourselve, use perfectly fine ground for these few addicts? It will have to be grown, processed, refined, taxed, regulating it is going to be hugely expensive, and for what, a relativily small problem.
macsen rufus
10-11-2007, 17:30
My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.
I can see your logic - but to be consistent really shouldn't we extend the same principle to the already legal, health-affecting patterns of consumption? Obviously alcohol and tobacco are the foremost, but you could take issue with junk food, salt, sugar etc etc on that basis.
And there is a more pertinent failure in your case - heroin users, of which I'm sure there must be a couple of million or so in the USA at a wild guess, are heck of a lot healthier if they are not also injecting unknown quantities of chalk, talcum powder, bleach, washing powder, sugar, flour etc as they are at present. Not to mention all the casualties of the organised crime rings that surround the trade and indulge in turf wars.
I would have thought a better counter-argument is that the organised criminals will not go away, they'll just choose another racket. In the UK and Europe it seems the latest thing is people trafficking - I'm sure some of these folks used to be in the drugs trade, maybe some still are. If there's any police manpower to be freed up from chasing innocuous weekend tokers, it could be well used as extra resources against this truly evil trade that is effectively slave trading in all but name.
You can't make a sane economic argument for maintaining the war on drugs. Well, you can, but it's not going to make any sense.
What's happened to the lawsuit money that states "needed" to offset the costs of treating smokers? What is the tax collected for cigarettes and alchohol being spent on? How long do you think it takes to burn through $20,000 to treat someone who has contracted cancer or has major body systems fail due to drug use?
I can see your logic - but to be consistent really shouldn't we extend the same principle to the already legal, health-affecting patterns of consumption? Obviously alcohol and tobacco are the foremost, but you could take issue with junk food, salt, sugar etc etc on that basis.Yep. That's why the best solution would be to stop forcing tax payers to subsidize someone's bad decisions. Want to eat a crate of twinkies a day? Knock yourself out, just don't come crying to the government when you become diabetic and have clogged arteries. Want to shoot heroine? Go for it, just don't expect the government to fix you up on our dime when/if it starts to kill you.
Goofball
10-11-2007, 17:44
My biggest reason for opposing legalization is that inevitably, non-using tax payers will end up being forced to pay for the medical treatment of people who choose to slowly kill themselves. Fix that, and we can talk.
An additional concern is the destructive force legalization would have on families. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we'd see more drug addicted babies and negligent/abusive parents who are addicted to drugs.
How to legalize is also a problem. I don't think flat out legalization is a good option, but heavy regulation and taxation would still leave the door open for illegal black markets. I also don't relish the idea of getting contact buzzes everytime I leave my house and walk down the street.
Part of the reason for a continuing ban, I think, is convenience. I'd liken it to speeding in a car- the act itself isn't necessarily a problem, it's the reckless driving that's often associated with it. But, it's much harder to enforce reckless driving laws than it is a flat out speeding ban. Similarly, if someone wants to sit at home with themselves and smoke weed with consenting friends where it won't affect children or others- I could care less. But the amount of government regulation required to ensure such might well be unworkable.
Impossible to put an accurate number on, I know, but I would guess that the amount of money we (being the U.S. and Canada) lose every year on law enforcement, court cases, insurance claims for break-ins, rehab, etc, etc, etc, is more than equal to the costs of regulating and taxing drugs that are currently illegal. And we currently get no tax revenue from those drugs.
It seems that it would be a win-win to legalize.
As far as health care costs go, user fees are pretty much the way to go. In Canada, a pack of cigs retails for +/- $10.00. The actual cost of producing a pack of smokes is +/- $1.00. The remainder is tax. I would imagine that this covers the costs of extra health care smokers will need.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2007, 17:56
No, not all.
Maurijauna and similar ones, sure. But meth and others that destroy people - no.
Like Seamus, I'd fear for the transition, though. A whole nation and suddenly it's real easy to get drugs, and acceptable to the government.
CR
How long do you think it takes to burn through $20,000 to treat someone who has contracted cancer or has major body systems fail due to drug use?
So let me get this straight, you oppose decriminalizing drugs because you oppose socialized medicine? Oh, and your misuse of the $20k number is noted. We pay $20k per year, per prisoner, at minimum. Prisoners with medical needs or who require special treatment (isolation, etc.) cost a lot more. Assuming an average drug sentence is somewhere in the seven-to-ten year range, that's $140k to $200k of your tax dollars straight down the drain.
You're very worked up about the medical costs of decriminalization. Do you have any data or studies to support this high dudgeon? Has anybody actually measured the medical costs of legal drug use versus, say, overconsumption of twinkies?
Impossible to put an accurate number on, I know, but I would guess that the amount of money we (being the U.S. and Canada) lose every year on law enforcement, court cases, insurance claims for break-ins, rehab, etc, etc, etc, is more than equal to the costs of regulating and taxing drugs that are currently illegal.
Incorrect. According to every study I've ever read, the cost of regulating and taxing drugs is far, far less than what we're currently spending. And that's before you factor in lost tax revenue.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-11-2007, 18:06
No, not all.
Maurijauna and similar ones, sure. But meth and others that destroy people - no.
Like Seamus, I'd fear for the transition, though. A whole nation and suddenly it's real easy to get drugs, and acceptable to the government.
CR
But legalising meth would make it a lot easier for those who are destroying their lives to get help, and enable them to be provided with safe supplies of the drug that they don't have to commit crimes to obtain.
In any case, I doubt anyone who would consider taking meth is put off by the illegality.
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 18:09
Not really much to say here, apart from that I whole-heartedly agree with IA and Macsen Rufus's posts. I must confess that I find it odd that although almost everyone I talk to about this issue is of the same opinion-that widespread legalisation is the way to go-no government is willing to consider even discussing it.
IIRC it's summat to do with international treaties.
Watchman
10-11-2007, 18:23
My hunch is it really originates in the same Victorian sensibilities that gave us Prohibition back in the day.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2007, 18:32
But legalising meth would make it a lot easier for those who are destroying their lives to get help, and enable them to be provided with safe supplies of the drug that they don't have to commit crimes to obtain.
In any case, I doubt anyone who would consider taking meth is put off by the illegality.
There's already resources to help those people. And isn't meth one of those drugs that will harm you even in 'pure' form?
My hunch is it really originates in the same Victorian sensibilities that gave us Prohibition back in the day.
Victorian sensibilities gave you prohibition? Here it was women with axes.
CR
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 18:43
Queen Victoria, Empress of India, smoked cannabis for period pains.
The anal retentives of teh 30s were probably influenced by the 'Victorian' values of the previous generation.
Ironically as the temperance movement railed against gin and suchlike, all opiates, cannaboids and other assorted (illegal) drugs were freely available.
So let me get this straight, you oppose decriminalizing drugs because you oppose socialized medicine? Oh, and your misuse of the $20k number is noted. We pay $20k per year, per prisoner, at minimum. Prisoners with medical needs or who require special treatment (isolation, etc.) cost a lot more. Assuming an average drug sentence is somewhere in the seven-to-ten year range, that's $140k to $200k of your tax dollars straight down the drain.Riiight, and someone who's burned out their body using legal narcotics couldn't go through $200k in treatment before they finally die.
You're very worked up about the medical costs of decriminalization. Do you have any data or studies to support this high dudgeon? Has anybody actually measured the medical costs of legal drug use versus, say, overconsumption of twinkies?No, no such study exists. Estimates of what the increased healthcare costs of legalization are just guesses- we have no idea what it would cost, it's never been done.
Incorrect. According to every study I've ever read, the cost of regulating and taxing drugs is far, far less than what we're currently spending. And that's before you factor in lost tax revenue.And these studies were all in favor, yes? Again, it's pretty much all guesswork as to what the increased costs would be and to what tax gains would be. How much would drugs cost, who would sell them, how high would the taxes be? How many new addicts would it create? We don't know any of this. You can't talk about it being some kind of economic boon- we have no idea how much it will make/cost.
We do know that back before drugs were regulated in the US, there was a much higher percentage of addicts than there were today. Was this because they were readily available? Or was it because people weren't educated as to the dangers? Was it a combination of the two or some other reason entirely? Again, it's difficult to say.
Certainly, if one looks back at the history of narcotics in our country, their illegality was almost always started in a wrong-headed way- but we have it now, and suddenly wiping away all all illegality would likely result in chaos.
Apache -do you think what are you telling?
Alcohol is addicting - but you will never be addicted after one bottle of vodka.
Hard drugs can addict you even after one gram.
Furthermore remember that narcomans commit many crimes - more addicted people = more crimes commited by them.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2007, 19:50
Riiight, and someone who's burned out their body using legal narcotics couldn't go through $200k in treatment before they finally die.
That doesn't matter--as long as the total money saved from not incarcerating them is the same as the total money spent on medical treatment. Not all drug users will spend that much on medical fees. Most people can look out for themselves better than that.
Certainly, if one looks back at the history of narcotics in our country, their illegality was almost always started in a wrong-headed way- but we have it now, and suddenly wiping away all all illegality would likely result in chaos.
What kind of chaos do you think it would cause? "Driving under the influence" already covers a lot of things and the smoking ban could easily be amended to cover more than just tobacco.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-11-2007, 20:15
Riiight, and someone who's burned out their body using legal narcotics couldn't go through $200k in treatment before they finally die.
Legalising drugs would reduce a lot of the health risks associated with them, though. So even if the number of addicts does rise significantly-and this is by no means certain-the amount of money spent on drug-related health problems could very well decline. When you also factor in the money saved on law enforcement and gained through taxation, it begins to look like an eminently sensible economic decision.
They are illegal for some reason; removing the illegal status is like saying: this is ok, it is extremely unhealthy, we do not recommend it, but if you wanna try it we wont stop you.
Personally I dont see why cigaretts are legal anyway, they're the cause of the deaths of hundreds of thousands every year. Not to mention how annoying it is to breath in this unhealty smoke because a smoker stands nearby; doing nothing illegaly.
HoreTore
10-11-2007, 20:32
No, not all.
Maurijauna and similar ones, sure. But meth and others that destroy people - no.
Like Seamus, I'd fear for the transition, though. A whole nation and suddenly it's real easy to get drugs, and acceptable to the government.
Huh, I agree with the rabbit.... Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose :laugh4:
Riiight, and someone who's burned out their body using legal narcotics couldn't go through $200k in treatment before they finally die.
Oh for crying out loud. If a liberal were making an argument with this many holes in it, I can guarantee you'd come down on him like a ton of bricks. Economic factors you're ignoring:
Not every addict, drunk or cigarette smoker has a protracted illness when they get ready to die. (And every non-addict does not a swift, inexpensive death.)
For the sake of argument, assuming we're spending somewhere around $200k per incarcerated prisoner, you're talking a bout a huge fund of wasted money that could be used to treat those who die expensive, protracted deaths. (Note: That would be in an America with single-payer healthcare, a situation that does not exist and likely will never exist. In the "real world" in which we reality-based people like to operate, there would be little overhead added by junkies. They would bankrupt their families or die debtors, the way it happens now.)
Currently the best way to get AIDS is to be incarcerated. Who pays for AIDS treatments and medical care of prisoners? Oh, right, we do. Still looking for those economic savings you see in the current system ...
A person who is imprisoned does not earn, add to the economy, or pay taxes. They are a drain on the system, pure and simple. A third-shift clerk at the Qwik-E-Mart is a font of economic benefit by comparison. So every non-violent drug user you incarcerate is a net loss. And a fairly substantial loss, by the way.
As BKS pointed out, the biggest health threat from drug use is the lack of quality-control inherent in illegal products. Your vision of junk-filled human healthcare leeches sounds a lot like someone arguing in the '20s that legalization of alcohol would create a nation of people blinded by bathtub gin.
Still going to argue that there's an economic case for maintaining the drug war?
[S]uddenly wiping away all all illegality would likely result in chaos.
Who's talking about "suddenly"? Besides you? Most schemes for decriminalization have to do with decriminalization, not suddenly having heroin and cocaine available in the check-out line at Wal-Mart. The idea is to move the drug problem out of the criminal law realm, which has proven manifestly unable to deal with it, and into the medical realm. As in, it becomes a health issue, not a crime issue, and it gets treated accordingly. Judges would be required to send people into rehab and medical care, as opposed to the state pen. If you think this would be more expensive and more disruptive than our current system, then you're probably high.
Who's talking about "suddenly"? Besides you? Most schemes for decriminalization have to do with decriminalization, not suddenly having heroin and cocaine available in the check-out line at Wal-Mart. The idea is to move the drug problem out of the criminal law realm, which has proven manifestly unable to deal with it, and into the medical realm. As in, it becomes a health issue, not a crime issue, and it gets treated accordingly. Judges would be required to send people into rehab and medical care, as opposed to the state pen. If you think this would be more expensive and more disruptive than our current system, then you're probably high.
Wait a second, you're saying that under the Lemur plan, people would still get arrested for drug use, just sentenced to rehab instead of prison? And this would dry up the narcotics black market how exactly?
I'm not arguing that the current war on drugs is effective or cheap- I'm saying that legalization is not the panacea it's being made out to be. Think about all the money we'll save on prisons and enforcement, you say? Think about all the money will spend on treatment for addicts and welfare for their children I say. And personally I don't want to be stuck, as a taxpayer, holding the bill for all of our new addicts when the costs of all their poor decisions come due. Pointing out the current economic costs and damaging effects of legalized substances (ie alcohol and tobacco) makes a poor argument for legalization of more narcotics.
Wait a second, you're saying that under the Lemur plan, people would still get arrested for drug use, just sentenced to rehab instead of prison? And this would dry up the narcotics black market how exactly?
It ain't the Lemur plan, Xiahou. There have been credible decriminalization plans floated in the past, and most of them started with a concept called "decriminalization," wherein you start sending junkies to rehab and clinics instead of prison. Sheesh, first you attack the strawman of "sudden" legalization, and then you turn around and attack any hint of gradualism. Nothing but the status quo for you?
Think about all the money will spend on treatment for addicts and welfare for their children I say. And personally I don't want to be stuck, as a taxpayer, holding the bill for all of our new addicts when the costs of all their poor decisions come due.
The gaping hole in this argument is the fact that we already pay for their poor decisions, as I have demonstrated in nauseating detail. We're paying one way or another. You would prefer the more expensive option of imprisonment? You would prefer to have more people producing nothing, adding nothing to the economy, and being wards of the government? You want non-violent offenders taken out of the workforce and spending years suckling on the governmental teat?
Whatever happened to the everything-bad-is-the-government's-fault Xiahou I knew and loved?
Boyar Son
10-11-2007, 22:46
now easier to become drug addicts:dizzy2:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2007, 22:53
Wait a second, you're saying that under the Lemur plan, people would still get arrested for drug use, just sentenced to rehab instead of prison? And this would dry up the narcotics black market how exactly?
I'm not arguing that the current war on drugs is effective or cheap- I'm saying that legalization is not the panacea it's being made out to be. Think about all the money we'll save on prisons and enforcement, you say? Think about all the money will spend on treatment for addicts and welfare for their children I say. And personally I don't want to be stuck, as a taxpayer, holding the bill for all of our new addicts when the costs of all their poor decisions come due. Pointing out the current economic costs and damaging effects of legalized substances (ie alcohol and tobacco) makes a poor argument for legalization of more narcotics.
Are you for making alcohol and tobacco illegal?
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 23:34
And personally I don't want to be stuck, as a taxpayer, holding the bill for all of our new addicts when the costs of all their poor decisions come due.
Exactly why I made this argument in the first instance. Think about it.
Furthermore remember that narcomans commit many crimes - more addicted people = more crimes commited by them.
A very poor argument; crimes committed by addicts under the current system are often minor burglaries and theft to pay for over priced and poor quality drugs, but the simple possession of drugs is usually the crime they're committing. However, if drugs are legal, taxed and regulated, to be cheaper (yet not really cheap) and better quality then these addicts would have less reason to try and get money to fuel their addiction because it is likely they would be able to afford the government controlled stuff with their current wages. And the substance they purchase puts money back into the government, because it'd be taxed.
Kralizec
10-13-2007, 11:56
Legailse all drugs.
Okay.
rory_20_uk
10-13-2007, 13:30
Where a market and prohibition both exist, the only people to benefit are criminals.
Whether we are talking about the rise of the Triads in Hong Kong or America's ill advised ban on alcohol massive sums of money move into the black market and with massive efforts a small percentage can be dealt with.
I am for legalisation. Another option would be to spike the drugs with poison and then have a campaign that to take is illegal drugs is to play Russian Roulette with death.
~:smoking:
Myrddraal
10-13-2007, 14:20
Just a few things people have said that shocked me:
On "Supporting" nasty regimes: Some already support such regimes anyway
Our societies already do that with lots of things that are legal ... so why not legalize all drugs?
You mean we aren't already? (supporters of some pretty nasty regimes)
Safe supplies of the drug (Meth)"
The theoretical debate here could go on for ever. Let me contribute to this discussion by drawing to your attention (hopefully in an impartial way :wink:) to a living example which to my surprise has been completely ignored by all present posters: The Netherlands and Amsterdam.
It's not quite a perfect example, as Hard Drugs are still illegal.
As an aside: so is cannabis, despite the fact that there is no enforcement, and coffee shops pay taxes on illegal substances. The High Courts have essentially changed the law on the basis that the enforcement isn't good enough. (Something that's very dangerous imho)
But I do think you can't theorise on a topic like this without taking a look at the situation there.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-13-2007, 17:50
Safe supplies of the drug
Well, safe is relative. It'll be safer than if they're buying it from a back-street chemist.
woad&fangs
10-13-2007, 17:55
I am for legalisation. Another option would be to spike the drugs with poison and then have a campaign that to take is illegal drugs is to play Russian Roulette with death.
~:smoking:
So you are advocating the poisoning of already poisonous substances:laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2007, 18:22
I agree that no one should be taking meth. But the main reason it's used is because it's really cheap...if other options were cheaper it's use would go way down. And it still doesn't make sense to imprison people for hurting themselves.
edit: I think we could probably get away with meth remaining illegal.
rory_20_uk
10-14-2007, 13:30
So you are advocating the poisoning of already poisonous substances:laugh4:
You can overdose on water, or sugar or salt. Everything can be a poison, it is merely a matter of concentration.
I thought that it would be obvious I was for placing a more toxic substance in. If this was not pretty obvious I apologise.
~:smoking:
woad&fangs
10-14-2007, 16:09
You can overdose on water, or sugar or salt. Everything can be a poison, it is merely a matter of concentration.
I thought that it would be obvious I was for placing a more toxic substance in. If this was not pretty obvious I apologise.
~:smoking:
I did know what you were getting at but it was just one of those quirky thoughts that I just had to share.
The theoretical debate here could go on for ever. Let me contribute to this discussion by drawing to your attention (hopefully in an impartial way :wink:) to a living example which to my surprise has been completely ignored by all present posters: The Netherlands and Amsterdam.
It's not quite a perfect example, as Hard Drugs are still illegal.
As an aside: so is cannabis, despite the fact that there is no enforcement, and coffee shops pay taxes on illegal substances. The High Courts have essentially changed the law on the basis that the enforcement isn't good enough. (Something that's very dangerous imho)
But I do think you can't theorise on a topic like this without taking a look at the situation there.
Well currently there is lots of talk on banning things like mushrooms and other halucinating stuff, thing is that shopkeepers aren't very informed, and tourists assume it's safe because it's legal, we have got quite a few nasty incidents. On weed, it works I don't know why exactly, we have the lowest use of europe I believe, something you could cautiously experiment with on to see how it goes.
Myrddraal
10-14-2007, 18:35
we have the lowest use of europe I believe
Really? That's very interesting, Amsterdam must be the exception though? The place is crawling with the stuff. I have heard that there has been a decrease in the use of the hardest drugs (like cocaine), is that fair to say?
Also, I've heard that Holland is having massive problems with illegal prostitution and human trafficking. Do you think that's linked to the drugs industry?
Really? That's very interesting, Amsterdam must be the exception though? The place is crawling with the stuff. I have heard that there has been a decrease in the use of the hardest drugs (like cocaine), is that fair to say?
Also, I've heard that Holland is having massive problems with illegal prostitution and human trafficking. Do you think that's linked to the drugs industry?
It isn't just Amsterdam policy, I live in Amersfoort and my neightbour is a coffeeshop, every town has them. Gut says less drugs is used, cocaine (which is pretty harmless really) is pretty much accepted, stronger stuff is a big nono. Prostitution is a gray area here, red lights are legal, but there are also 'tippelzones' that are only tolerated, and many eastern european and the other import operate there. Wouldn't call it a massive problem though, it's a disgrace imho but not a massive problem.
cocaine (which is pretty harmless really)
You gotta be joking Frag, the short-term effects include increased blood-pressure and increased heart-rate which can result in cardiac arrest, paranoia, itching, tachycardia, hallucinations and impotence.
The long-term effects include brain cell imbalance, depression, increased risk of heart attack, lupus, Goodpasture's disease, vasculitis, glomerulonephritis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, haemorrhagic and ischemic strokes.
Not only that, but, it is also toxic and can cause seizures and related effects that can lead to respiratory failure, stroke, cerebral haemorrhage or heart-failure. Also it can induce hyperthermia which may cause muscle cell destruction and myoglobinuria resulting in renal failure
Smoking cocaine can cause hemoptysis, bronchospasm, pruritus, fever, diffuse alveolar infiltrates without effusions, pulmonary and systemic eosinophiliachest, pain, lung trauma, shortness of breath, sore throat, asthma, hoarse voice, dyspnea, and a flu-like syndrome.
It is however, much easier to withdraw from and overcome addiction, than drugs like Meth.
Can't be compared with meth (well I am not sure what meth is but I heard it's bad stuff), and it is simply to expensive to get addicted. If you had too much to drink, snort a line and you are fine again. A little boost nothing more, it isn't like it has any real effect compared with otherparty drugs like xtc. Only goes wrong when people start boiling the stuff, but I stay far from that.
ICantSpellDawg
10-16-2007, 20:30
If we legalize all drugs, then should we regulate them in the same way as we regulate pharmaceuticals? If so then what would doctors prescribe heroin for?
If that is a non-issue and you believe that drugs should be sold over the counter like cigarettes and alchohol, why shouldn't medical pharmaceuticals be sold over the counter? The pharmaceutical industry would never stand for psychiatric medications being tightly regulated and crack cocaine beign sold over the counter. what is the real suggestion, as I've never understood it?
We've seen what competition in the sugar and sugar alternative industry can be like, imagine what the marketing of drugs would do. How many people really understand physiology to the extent that they can make an informed decision about what is safe and unsafe? People can't even do that with something as simple as sugar and carbohydrates, how can they be expected to counter industry claims with their understanding of human neurology?
Bad Idea. I think our society has a big enough problem with drug use as it is. legal or illegal.
Watchman
10-16-2007, 21:48
My opinion is that screw all the considerations of public health and sundry; the important thing is to take the market out of the hands of the mafiosos. That way dosage price plummets and addicts no longer need to engage in crime to feed their habit, batches irresponsibly "cut" with something nasty on one hand and unusually pure causing ODs on the other no longer result in needless casualties, the trade and industry and consumption can be taxed like any other to offset the public expenses incurred, and a whole lot of very nasty and vicious crime (which incurs a lot of public expenses, above and beyond monetary too) loses its raison d'être of the huge sums of money involved in illegal drug trafficking.
Sounds like mainly pros to me.
ICantSpellDawg
10-16-2007, 22:03
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general. Financial gain is not something to put into the mix on both moral or logical grounds.
Watchman
10-16-2007, 22:41
And these would actually differ from alcohol exactly how in such effects ?
And I'm waiting for someone to address the bit about gutting the primary reasons for serious drug-related crime, which is IMO easily the best reason to, as it were, legalize it.
Prohibition, anyone ?
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general. Financial gain is not something to put into the mix on both moral or logical grounds.
How would this be any different than with alcohol? Some people show up drunk to work, they either get sent home or get fired. Someone comes in stoned on weed, the same should happen. A responsible user will choose a more appropriate time to use, with the knowledge of the length of intoxication and dosage. I like beer, but I know if I want to keep my job I had better not drink a six-pack before going into work. So I pick nights and weekends to partake.
How would this be any different than with alcohol?This way, people will be able to show up drunk and high. :wink:
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general.
Not likely, considering that the most popular illegal drug, marijuana, does not impair productivity on anything like the level of alcohol.
Two of my best employees in NYC were potheads. I thought it was a stupid, expensive habit, but they were astonishingly talented computer monkeys, so I looked the other way. Well, to be honest, since everybody knew I was a drug-free lemur, I might have supplied them with clean urine once or twice, since I couldn't go losing two of my best workers to a drug-screening test.
Trust me, potheads can be fine, productive workers. Drunks, on the other hand, are a problem.
This way, people will be able to show up drunk and high. :wink:
And should rightfully get canned. :yes:
I don't know how the more addictive opiates would affect someone. Can a heroin addict do a 8-hour workday sober, or would withdrawal or preoccupation prevent him/her from doing a decent job?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-16-2007, 23:20
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general.
You think it should be illegal to have less productivity, work less, and have a lower income?
Yes to soft drugs, IE: marijuana, mescaline, LSD, etc.
No to hard drugs: Heroin, Meth, etc.
Watchman
10-17-2007, 01:07
You think it should be illegal to have less productivity, work less, and have a lower income?Clearly a Republican. :balloon2:
ICantSpellDawg
10-17-2007, 04:47
You think it should be illegal to have less productivity, work less, and have a lower income?
No
I think that any claim that a tax on drugs would benefit the public treasury would be short-sighted.
Was that not clear in the post Sasaki?
I think that drugs should remain illegal due to the publics existing ignorance of much more simple physiological realities (among many other reasons). I believe that a profit driven, over the counter, mainstream serious drug industry would target more people than ever before and cause incredible damage; The least of which would result in diminished tax coffers overall.
My first post highlights 2 of my initial concerns.
This is one reason that I consider myself a slippery slope conservative
I believe that a profit driven, over the counter, mainstream serious drug industry would target more people than ever before and cause incredible damage; The least of which would result in diminished tax coffers overall.
I might be wrong but your saying: if legalised in the same manner as say cigarettes with advertising and private companies it would "cause incredible damage". Is that what your getting at?
I think everyone who is saying "yes, legalise drugs", is making the point that the entire process would be government run and controlled with no advertising, etcetera.
ICantSpellDawg
10-17-2007, 15:53
people are saying that the government should sell drugs and give them out for low prices?
This is what people are saying? The government is now responsible for making our terrible habits affordable AND providing them to us?
What?
Watchman
10-17-2007, 22:08
Dunno about you, but I'd kinda prefer the gov't selling decent-quality drugs at bargain prices to the current situation, which is nasty gangsters selling bad drugs at absurd rip-off prices and doing very nasty things to people on the side...
Beefy187
10-18-2007, 08:53
Legalising drugs will be quick way to reduce population I suppose.
As long as they get junkie in a controlled manner then it should be fine. Its the thrill of being a rebel which makes those junkies a addict.
Watchman
10-18-2007, 09:44
Granted, banalizing the stuff into a legal, largely safe, as-such accepted phenomenom ought to remove most of the "forbidden fruit" attraction.
And then you can drive usage rates down with the same methods that are working right fine with tobacco.
Myrddraal
10-18-2007, 13:20
People saying: Yes to soft drugs, no to hard drugs, need to agree on what constitutes a hard drug.
I've seen people say that cocaine isn't all that bad, and that LSD isn't a hard drug. Both of these are fairly nasty to the best of my knowledge.
Watchman
10-18-2007, 13:35
If you ask me that'd be a largely pointless solution anyway; roughly comparable to making beer legal and keeping hard liquors banned.
Three guesses if the gun-toting kneecapping gangsters are going to go anywhere with that arrangement...?
People saying: Yes to soft drugs, no to hard drugs, need to agree on what constitutes a hard drug.
I've seen people say that cocaine isn't all that bad, and that LSD isn't a hard drug. Both of these are fairly nasty to the best of my knowledge.
Here it is between weed and the rest. But we have another thingie as well, for example in some city's they are giving junks heroin for free, I don't like it but the wellbeing of the user is of lesser importance then the trouble he causes. And cocaine indeed isn't that bad, been using it weekends since I was 18, and most of my friends as well. Pretty harmless, but it can make some people agressive when combined with alcohol.
InsaneApache
10-18-2007, 20:29
Charlie will feck you up mate. Trust me.
Every time I read this thread, Cypress Hill songs go through my head...
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
Legalizing all drugs would be almost impossible to pull off, both practically and politically. Let's not get into the same trap abortion fell into decades ago, an all-or-nothing fallacy. Realistic, pragmatic compromise is what democracy is all about, after all.
Let the potheads have their weed and call it a day.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-18-2007, 22:24
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
The survey I saw said that 30% of of Americans had tried Marijuana and 70% hadn't. It also said 30% of Americans supported legalization and 70% didn't. Funny stuff. Don't think the numbers are high enough for legalization though.
Sure, fine, force me to go look up the polls. Here's the gallup from '05 (http://www.csdp.org/research/gallup_marijuana_2005.pdf) (warning: PDF). As of two years ago, 35% are in favor of decriminalization, 60% opposed. Independents are more likely than Republicans or Democrats to favor decriminalization, no surprise there.
Positions vary widely from state to state. There seems to be substantially more support for allowing states to set their own policies than a nationwide fiat.
Decriminalisation of 'soft' drugs is totally pointless. It does nothing to guarantee quality and purity, does nothing to dissolve criminal networks and does nothing to combat crime and self harm from those addicted to 'hard' drugs.
The real question with legalisation is whether it is better for the government to be directly responsible for drug users and their levels of crime and mortality, or for criminal gangs to be responsible.
Charlie will feck you up mate. Trust me.
Well call it boiled coke over here, it is much more potent and yeah that is trash but hardly anyone uses it. It would amaze you how many 'normal' people use a line in the weekends, it hardly has any effect except a temporalily boost for the long hours. 'Charlie' and heroin is simply not done here, and I had to learn here what meth is. No problem here. In fact I think xtc is much much worse, use xtc and the next day you feel like youknow, completily empty and drained, no such problems with a little sniff.
Decriminalisation of 'soft' drugs is totally pointless. It does nothing to guarantee quality and purity, does nothing to dissolve criminal networks and does nothing to combat crime and self harm from those addicted to 'hard' drugs.
What a strange thing to say. Are you aware of how much money there is in marijuana? Are you aware of how much criminal activity is funded this way? By your logic, Al Capone should not have benefited from Prohibition in the 1920s, since alcohol's status as legal or illegal would be immaterial to the Chicago mob.
And what's with the red herring about how partial legalization won't affect those addicted to hard drugs? Oh, so taking several hundred billion dollars out of the black market doesn't matter? We have to legalize everything or criminalize everything, otherwise ... what, exactly?
By your logic, why shouldn't we re-criminalize alcohol and tobacco? Since apparently the size and quality of the criminal economic sphere does not matter.
ICantSpellDawg
10-19-2007, 17:25
The funniest thing is that people in favor of changing the laws In the US would be more interested in changing the opinions and practices of 60% of the population than they would be about changing the opinions and practices of 7.3% of the population.
Kralizec
10-19-2007, 17:48
I've never personally used anything "heavier" then cannabis because I don't trust myself enough for it, I know I've got a tendency for addiction. But if I wanted to I could get either effortlessly. I know at least a dozen people who've done cocaine, XTC or both but except two they're all occasional users, and even the other two I wouldn't call "addicted" in the strict sense.
Drugs can certainly plunge you in the gutter, but more often then not addicts have at least one foot in the gutter before their first snort.
I've never personally used anything "heavier" then cannabis because I don't trust myself enough for it, I know I've got a tendency for addiction.
lol let me guess, you got 'adhd'? I will risk my left nut on at least these idiots telling you so.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2007, 18:13
The funniest thing is that people in favor of changing the laws In the US would be more interested in changing the opinions and practices of 60% of the population than they would be about changing the opinions and practices of 7.3% of the population.
I'm pretty sure the law wouldn't force the 60% to begin taking drugs...
Kralizec
10-19-2007, 18:23
lol let me guess, you got 'adhd'? I will risk my left nut on at least these idiots telling you so.
No, it's not that. Nor do I have any other mental condition as far as I'm aware. I've been smoking pretty heavily for the last two years though, and everytime I try to quit I end up starting again with an increased consumption rate. Most people say that cocaine's less addictive then nicotine, but trying it myself no thanks.
I hope you still have your right one ~;)
[QUOTE=Kralizec]No, it's not that. Nor do I have any other mental condition as far as I'm aware. I've been smoking pretty heavily for the last two years though, and everytime I try to quit I end up starting again with an increased consumption rate. Most people say that cocaine's less addictive then nicotine, but trying it myself no thanks.
I may be nuts but I am not stupid, at least not completily and I have to have an ear which does tend to register just about everything, you can't fool me. You got 'adhd', no? Well that is bull.
ICantSpellDawg
10-19-2007, 18:38
I'm pretty sure the law wouldn't force the 60% to begin taking drugs...
i never used the word force.
Kralizec
10-19-2007, 18:42
I may be nuts but I am not stupid, at least not completily and I have to have an ear which does tend to register just about everything, you can't fool me. You got 'adhd', no? Well that is bull.
:inquisitive:
:inquisitive:
Well have it that is fine as well, my bank-account salutes you $$$
Banquo's Ghost
10-19-2007, 19:03
I may be nuts but I am not stupid, at least not completily and I have to have an ear which does tend to register just about everything, you can't fool me. You got 'adhd', no? Well that is bull.
I think that if Kralizec offers his opinion and experience, it is not polite to accuse him of trying to fool anyone.
Especially when you are apparently trying to justify and promote cocaine use - which is borderline, even within the context of this thread.
ICantSpellDawg
10-19-2007, 19:09
Here it is between weed and the rest. But we have another thingie as well, for example in some city's they are giving junks heroin for free, I don't like it but the wellbeing of the user is of lesser importance then the trouble he causes. And cocaine indeed isn't that bad, been using it weekends since I was 18, and most of my friends as well. Pretty harmless, but it can make some people agressive when combined with alcohol.
cocaine use is foolish, regardless of what cocaine users think.
cocaine use is foolish, regardless of what cocaine users think.
I am someone who enjoys it in the weekends something a sxual being such as yourselve should at least apreciate, but there is nothing I can do so file me right there, I won't try to resist anyway. It's like alcohol, if you aren't a complete idiot there is no problem, in the case of cociane even less so then alcohol. It is a heroin or meth problem, that would be right over there where you live so deal with it. Not going to say sorry when you guys mess up.
Kralizec
10-19-2007, 22:37
@Fragony:
Some people are inherently more addiction prone then others (something to do with certain neurotransmitters in your brain, I don't remember it exactly) and I know myself well enough to stay away from stuff like cocaine. I couldn't care less about what you do with either your money or your nose.
MerlinusCDXX
02-09-2008, 00:38
Legalising all drugs would make us active supporters of some pretty nasty regimes.
so sad...the "Drugs support terrorists" argument-a US propaganda campaign designed to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Ever see the commercials where you see a kid smoking weed and then he says "i supported terrorists", well that is total :daisy:. most informed people (in the US) know that over 90% of the cannabis consumed in the US is grown in either the US or Mexico. the hard drugs support terrorism argument is also full of holes. for instance, obtaining coca leaf from the small farmer or indigenous Andean tribesfolk cuts out the cartels, same with the Opium poppy (which can be grown almost anywhere) the finished product could be refined/produced locally from raw materials, and COULD BE CONTROLLED so that it is not necessarily (instantaneously) deadly, some actual standards of safety could be enforced. This program of regulating the means of refinement could also create jobs by having local facilities and employing local people. + additional tax revenue.
EDIT: I don't know all that much about hard drugs, so some of this post could be total BS, but really, filling up the jails so full that violent criminals and thieves have to be released early so that you can fill more cells with pot smokers, ******* BRILLIANT.
TevashSzat
02-09-2008, 01:05
Haven't read the rest of the thread so forgive me if I say anything that has been previously discused
IMO, some drugs may be legalized for worthwhile purposes like medical marijuana, but all drugs should not. The thing is, illegal drugs are Illegal for a reason: they're very addictive and deadly if taken improperly.
One can say that people can control their addiction and not become overly dependent on the drug, but that is wrong. It's like alcoholics who swear that they're never going to drink again, but then only last for a day or two before drinking heavily again. People overestimate the power of the human mind. These aren't some run of the mill drugs, but serious chemicals that will mess up your brain so even if you never had the intention of becoming seriously addicted, you still will
InsaneApache
02-09-2008, 01:10
Haven't read the rest of the thread so forgive me if I say anything that has been previously discused
IMO, some drugs may be legalized for worthwhile purposes like medical marijuana, but all drugs should not. The thing is, illegal drugs are Illegal for a reason: they're very addictive and deadly if taken improperly.
One can say that people can control their addiction and not become overly dependent on the drug, but that is wrong. It's like alcoholics who swear that they're never going to drink again, but then only last for a day or two before drinking heavily again. People overestimate the power of the human mind. These aren't some run of the mill drugs, but serious chemicals that will mess up your brain so even if you never had the intention of becoming seriously addicted, you still will
What crap.
Haven't read the rest of the thread so forgive me if I say anything that has been previously discused
IMO, some drugs may be legalized for worthwhile purposes like medical marijuana, but all drugs should not. The thing is, illegal drugs are Illegal for a reason: they're very addictive and deadly if taken improperly.
One can say that people can control their addiction and not become overly dependent on the drug, but that is wrong. It's like alcoholics who swear that they're never going to drink again, but then only last for a day or two before drinking heavily again. People overestimate the power of the human mind. These aren't some run of the mill drugs, but serious chemicals that will mess up your brain so even if you never had the intention of becoming seriously addicted, you still will
Please, someone show this guy some links to explaining how marijuana was outlawed in the U.S. It doesnt have ANYTHING to do with the well-being of american citizens.
Haven't read the rest of the thread so forgive me if I say anything that has been previously discused
IMO, some drugs may be legalized for worthwhile purposes like medical marijuana, but all drugs should not. The thing is, illegal drugs are Illegal for a reason: they're very addictive and deadly if taken improperly.
One can say that people can control their addiction and not become overly dependent on the drug, but that is wrong. It's like alcoholics who swear that they're never going to drink again, but then only last for a day or two before drinking heavily again. People overestimate the power of the human mind. These aren't some run of the mill drugs, but serious chemicals that will mess up your brain so even if you never had the intention of becoming seriously addicted, you still will
IIRC there were quite a few drugs outlawed without having been really tested at all or not enough tests run too conclusively prove anything.
so sad...the "Drugs support terrorists" argument-a US propaganda campaign designed to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Ever see the commercials where you see a kid smoking weed and then he says "i supported terrorists", well that is total :daisy:. most informed people (in the US) know that over 90% of the cannabis consumed in the US is grown in either the US or Mexico. the hard drugs support terrorism argument is also full of holes. for instance, obtaining coca leaf from the small farmer or indigenous Andean tribesfolk cuts out the cartels, same with the Opium poppy (which can be grown almost anywhere) the finished product could be refined/produced locally from raw materials, and COULD BE CONTROLLED so that it is not necessarily (instantaneously) deadly, some actual standards of safety could be enforced. This program of regulating the means of refinement could also create jobs by having local facilities and employing local people. + additional tax revenue.
EDIT: I don't know all that much about hard drugs, so some of this post could be total BS, but really, filling up the jails so full that violent criminals and thieves have to be released early so that you can fill more cells with pot smokers, ****** BRILLIANT.
Well over 75% of the problems caused by drugs are caused by the prohibition of those drugs and their being controlled by the black market. People in favour of prohibition see all the problems as being innate to the drugs (and of course only the illegal ones are actually 'drugs'). They say - our problems are bad enough now - if we legalised it, things would get worse from here.
But what government will take responsibility? What will they do when we get 200 deaths a year from government supplied heroin (rather than the current 800 deaths)?
The sad truth of politics is that politicians would rather 5000 deaths and 100,000 crimes that they could say weren't their fault, than 10 deaths that could be attributed to them by tabloid headlines.
MerlinusCDXX
02-09-2008, 11:07
Well over 75% of the problems caused by drugs are caused by the prohibition of those drugs and their being controlled by the black market. People in favour of prohibition see all the problems as being innate to the drugs (and of course only the illegal ones are actually 'drugs'). They say - our problems are bad enough now - if we legalised it, things would get worse from here.
But what government will take responsibility? What will they do when we get 200 deaths a year from government supplied heroin (rather than the current 800 deaths)?
The sad truth of politics is that politicians would rather 5000 deaths and 100,000 crimes that they could say weren't their fault, than 10 deaths that could be attributed to them by tabloid headlines.
c'mon...if the way the US gov't has acted in foreign policy in recent yrs is any indication ie the coverups (silencing the dissenting media), "it's not our fault" tm , well lookee here, *(insert heinous crime/criminal of the day) is down, we've made real strides in this area. don't you think it would be even easier just to release only the "drug policy" related information that was meant to be disseminated. all it would take is a statement like, our new drug policy is working, the police now have the resources to investigate more *_____________ , why just last week we've apprehended more *________ than we have all last year. add in a feel-good news piece about some new revolutionary method of treatment for addiction, a nice shiny new "rehab center" works well for this. oh, and the prison population in this country is now at an all-time low.
if I could figure out how to spin this to the masses, don't you think gov't officials could come up with something even more convincing?
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 12:55
Yes, that's right all of them. This has been an arguement that I have slowly come around to. The war on drugs is unwinnable. Much like the war on terror. Human beings will always, indeed have always, sought solace, inspiration and just plain fun from recreational use of substances. To look at how the prohibition of drugs has failed, one only has to go back to the USA in the 30s and the prohibition on alcohol and how that gave succour to the mob.
Properly regulated, as alcohol is, this would, at a stroke, deprive organised crime of it's oxygen, money. It would free up police time from chasing what is in essence a social problem and allow them to concentrate on preventing and detecting crime.
I disagree, drug addicts are responsible for a very large percentage of crimes, and desperate people trying to get money to pay for the next piece of drugs commit some of the most brutal, inhumane and disgusting crimes there are in society. The only crimes that are worse, are those committed by child molestors. Morevoer, the war on drugs is extremely easy to win, if you concentrate on hitting their weakest part: the actual drug users. The following policies could be used:
- If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor. The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
- When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
- Combine this strategy with making sure people get higher hopes for the future and don't need to drench depressions in drugs, and you will also decrease the amount of new-production of buyers.
- Also consider passing laws censoring all explicit drug use scenes in movies.
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs. Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties. There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff. At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
I'd say this would solve the drug problem quite effectively in less than 5 years, without much spending and without any immoral actions or innocent victims.
Soulforged
02-09-2008, 14:50
I disagree, drug addicts are responsible for a very large percentage of crimes, and desperate people trying to get money to pay for the next piece of drugs commit some of the most brutal, inhumane and disgusting crimes there are in society. The only crimes that are worse, are those committed by child molestors. Morevoer, the war on drugs is extremely easy to win, if you concentrate on hitting their weakest part: the actual drug users. The criminals are responsable even if they're under the influence of some substance which can enduce euphoria or another altered state, that doesn't make them less guilty, most of the time all their actions under the influence can be considered the manifestation of their personality, that's enough. So the argument you're making is no different than what can be said of alcoholics or other addicts, the only difference is that drug addiction is more expensive for the addict, a problem that can be solved by legalizing it. Hitting the weaker spot, the addicts as you say, is unfair and has showed how much injustice it brings to the crowded prisons of many countries, mine for example. The weaker spot is not guilty of anything according to my Constitution (and I know the US Constitution has at least one amendment in the same vein) and they can't be judged, their actions are private, but it seems it's a constitutional violation that we all can live with...err, unless you're the poor wretch under the addiction and get convicted to who knows how many years in jail. Try to explain me why don't you see that as unfair and then we can continue.
The following policies could be used:
- If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor. The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.That's not progressive, nor effective, neither original. Is just what many countries are doing right now. But most of all, it's not just.
- When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.The demand will never go away, you thing nobody has thought that? That's the main problem with drugs. Eventually you'll have to jail almost all your population, specially the poor and marginalized (which already suffer enough under their condition).
- Combine this strategy with making sure people get higher hopes for the future and don't need to drench depressions in drugs, and you will also decrease the amount of new-production of buyers.Not all people enter drugs for depression, many do it to experiment, others do it because a friend introduces them to it and others... well others are just forced into doing drugs. Did you consider that last possibility?
- Also consider passing laws censoring all explicit drug use scenes in movies.Are you being sarcastic?
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs. Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties. There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff. At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.Ok, you definitively are being sarcastic...There's no way you're being serious on this last post.
...or innocent victims.Like the consumers?
I disagree, drug addicts are responsible for a very large percentage of crimes, and desperate people trying to get money to pay for the next piece of drugs commit some of the most brutal, inhumane and disgusting crimes there are in society. The only crimes that are worse, are those committed by child molestors. Morevoer, the war on drugs is extremely easy to win, if you concentrate on hitting their weakest part: the actual drug users. The following policies could be used:
- If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor. The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
- When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
- Combine this strategy with making sure people get higher hopes for the future and don't need to drench depressions in drugs, and you will also decrease the amount of new-production of buyers.
- Also consider passing laws censoring all explicit drug use scenes in movies.
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs. Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties. There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff. At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
I'd say this would solve the drug problem quite effectively in less than 5 years, without much spending and without any immoral actions or innocent victims.
Stalin would've been proud. :tongue:
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 16:30
The criminals are responsable even if they're under the influence of some substance which can enduce euphoria or another altered state, that doesn't make them less guilty, most of the time all their actions under the influence can be considered the manifestation of their personality, that's enough. So the argument you're making is no different than what can be said of alcoholics or other addicts
If you take drugs, you remove most of your self-control, and so can't be judged for your actions while on drugs. That's why the very taking of drugs should be considered a horrible crime, since it is an ugly, hypocritical trick to try and remove responsibility for your actions from yourself. Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime. Also, making yourself become addict should be considered a crime.
the only difference is that drug addiction is more expensive for the addict, a problem that can be solved by legalizing it.
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution. They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal. The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts. And so the drug addicts will keep killing innocent people for $10 more contribution to their next drug dose.
Hitting the weaker spot, the addicts as you say, is unfair and has showed how much injustice it brings to the crowded prisons of many countries, mine for example.
How so unfair? They're part of the supply chain that ends up making our children take drugs and die. The more idiots who take drugs around my children, the more likely my children are to have some maniac put drugs in their glasses at the bar or a party, or herd mentality dragging my children into drugs. I say we have all right in the world to use self-defense to protect our children against this menace. It is only sound military strategy when fighting an enemy, to hit the weakest part of their line. We have failed to block their logistics, so we should focus on fighting their frontline, which is extremely weak, and driving it back. And I think we'll in fact help those drug addicts by taking the drugs away from them and locking them up in jail until they learn to forget about drugs.
The weaker spot is not guilty of anything according to my Constitution (and I know the US Constitution has at least one amendment in the same vein) and they can't be judged, their actions are private, but it seems it's a constitutional violation that we all can live with...err, unless you're the poor wretch under the addiction and get convicted to who knows how many years in jail. Try to explain me why don't you see that as unfair and then we can continue.That's not progressive, nor effective, neither original. Is just what many countries are doing right now. But most of all, it's not just.
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?
The demand will never go away, you thing nobody has thought that? That's the main problem with drugs. Eventually you'll have to jail almost all your population, specially the poor and marginalized (which already suffer enough under their condition).
Most people don't take drugs, even if you count people who "experiment". If you count out all non-regular addict drug users, then you end up with a very small minority of the population. If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.
Not all people enter drugs for depression, many do it to experiment, others do it because a friend introduces them to it and others... well others are just forced into doing drugs. Did you consider that last possibility?
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting, as well as drugs due to depression. I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this. When it comes to people forced into drugs, you can hardly mean we should keep it that way? The police should stand up for and protect any victims of such horrendous crimes!
Are you being sarcastic?
[...]
Ok, you definitively are being sarcastic...There's no way you're being serious on this last post.
[...]
Like the consumers?
No, I'm not being sarcastic. If you use drugs and try to destroy your own country and yourself, and deprive yourself of free will, self-control and responsibility for your actions, then you're not innocent. Then you're a hyocrite who tries to escape judgement for your crimes by stating you lost control due to drugs, failing to keep in mind you deliberately chose to put yourself into such a state when you are likely to commit crimes.
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 16:46
Stalin would've been proud. :tongue:
hm... :inquisitive: The last point may sound brutal, and perhaps not needed, but if it is, it would save thousands of innocent lives, and protect hundreds of thousands of innocent, uncertain children from ending up within drugs against their will, because they couldn't resist herd mentality. The current system is far more brutal than even a system including the last point. Now, the system is trying to remove people from the gene pool just because they aren't strong enough to withstand the herd mentality pressure. But all people have some period in life when they're uncertain and can't think for themselves, so nobody is really safe from being killed by drugs as it is now, no matter how much you like to call yourself above herd mentality.
Letting drug users take drugs, you give "freedom" to the minority <1% who want to use drugs, but in doing so also take away freedom from 10% of the population, not to mention how many innocent victims of drug crime that are killed each year because the drug addicts aren't dealt with.
I think it's disgusting beyond reason that some Hollywood productions try to glority drugs, or even displaying it as a good way to drench depressions. Showing drug usage as something glorious is neither artistic nor of any use in society-critical movies with a message.
If there's any proposal that would make Stalin proud, it's the current system when drug using zoombies just go to work every day, are too dumbed down by drugs to question society, and either just do as they're told, or be really brutal and disgusting criminals almost on par with child molestors, that can be used as propaganda to justify and gain legitimacy for making a more centralized police state and infring the freedom of the people, instead of solving the problem while maintaining our freedom and a minimal government.
Vladimir
02-09-2008, 17:22
Don't think this will work too well in the risk seeking culture we have in the US. A more sedate country shouldn't have too much problem with this general theory. It would still be pretty horrible though. Who knows if it would be worse than the current situation.
The whole money angle is silly. Why don't we just bring back slavery?
This is the core of the issue here:
The real question with legalization is whether it is better for the government to be directly responsible for drug users and their levels of crime and mortality, or for criminal gangs to be responsible.
LittleGrizzly
02-09-2008, 18:07
If you take drugs, you remove most of your self-control, and so can't be judged for your actions while on drugs.
Really ? Whats your personal experience here Rodion ?
Ive taken ecstacy amphetamines and cannabis and the most of out control ive ever been is on alcohol. The ecstacy and phet just make me energetic lively and well a nicer happier person, Cannabis just makes me relaxed and a mix of happy and giggly. Alcohol also makes me happy but it makes me more aggressive as well ive never lost control of alcohol but i can tell im less in control.
Which sounds like the dangerous mind altering drug there ?
That's why the very taking of drugs should be considered a horrible crime, since it is an ugly, hypocritical trick to try and remove responsibility for your actions from yourself. Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime.
This would apply to drink more if we take into account higher prices due to prohibiton as a cause of alot of drug funding crime.
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution.
well its the solution to drug funding crime
They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal.
Drugs would be a hell of alot cheaper if legal, every single dealer along the chain take his cut (and a big one its risk pay as well) the ones who buy of the main supplier get dirt cheap prices compared to street prices, with the goverment in control the customer would only be one step down the chain.
The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts.
We could probably pay for most drugs just with money saved on policing drugs and theres the tax we would charge on the drugs, but i believe that people should still have to buy the drugs for themself not get them free, unsure about heroin as thats a different matter.
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?
I assume your talking about heroin here, the self control bit applys to alochol as well but the unctrollable alcoholic monsters can get thier drink cheaply so they don't need to kill people for $10
If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.
I now we waste a hell of alot of money on drug policing but enough to eliminate poverty ? if thats true then i just ive just lost any hope i had for humanity....
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting
legalisation would add age restrictions to it though obviously kids could still get thier hands on it i remember before i turned 18 it was sometimes easier to get an illegal substance then a legal drink. I would have drugs sold through pharmacys with tough age legislation only 21 and over.
I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this.
No democratic goverment would try it for obvious reasons but lets have a look back at the plan.
If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor.
If you think about it we kind of do, swap forced labour for community service. Im assuming you mean much harsher sentencing though ? since when did the threat of the law stop people taking drugs (as it doesn't now) if you had harsher sentencing it would just make the need to get away if almost caught all that more.
The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
Wrong Wrong and wrong, lets start with weak shall we ? I am one of the most stubborn strong willed people i now
decreased mental capabilities ? just checked and im still far more intelligent than alot of non-drug users i now
When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
locking a few buyers up will not make the demand go away, going to catch all the buyers ? i think the goverments trying that it doesn't seem to be working though...
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs.
Only a few sickos would do that but assuming you find hitler reborn and send him out with his lethal substances, people are going to find out pretty soon not to go to him, i think maximum he could sell to/kill 1 or 2 people before being discovered as unfortunatly drug takers are not as stupid as you seem to think, that guy would need to be moved and have protection as he would be just as big a vigilante target as your average child molester.
Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties.
Don't drugs have deaths off them anyway, don't the kids get told these substances have killed people, doesn't all this make it seem cool and dangerous to kids. Don't these kids still take drugs anyway ?
There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff.
So there would be no morale case against filling cigerettes with a lethal substance ? (a quicker lethal substance)
Wouldn't that also apply to alcohol ? as alcohol is more deadly than some of the substances ?
the only way there could be no moral case against it is if the drug user was going to die of his next 'hit' anyway
At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
The state can earn loads of money (or stop wasting so much money and earn a little bit) its called legalisation :D
I'd say this would solve the drug problem quite effectively in less than 5 years
No it wouldn't. Im sure in some of the most repressive regimes in the world they still have a drug problem even with thier stalin style solutions to the problem
Ive taken ecstacy amphetamines and cannabis and the most of out control ive ever been is on alcohol. The ecstacy and phet just make me energetic lively and well a nicer happier person, Cannabis just makes me relaxed and a mix of happy and giggly. Alcohol also makes me happy but it makes me more aggressive as well ive never lost control of alcohol but i can tell im less in control
I don't do emphetamines or xtc because it makes me aggresive but I do occasionally use coke or GHB, and I enjoy the occasional joint, once a week or so, nothing to it if you keep your head. Like with all things moderation is key.
Soulforged
02-09-2008, 19:01
If you take drugs, you remove most of your self-control, and so can't be judged for your actions while on drugs. That's why the very taking of drugs should be considered a horrible crime, since it is an ugly, hypocritical trick to try and remove responsibility for your actions from yourself.Not everyone uses it as a trick... But let me ask you a question: You say that when you're under the influence of such substances you lose self-control correct? Then how can anyone use it as a trick to justify their acts? Since they're not acting by definition, they cannot control themselves. But you're incorrect anyway, if the person knows what the effects of the drugs are (which the odds say that in this day an age with the many campaings of the desinformation by the States and the international organizations he doesn't) then he should not take it in the first place, he cannot be forced to not take it though, just like you shouldn't be forced to use a safety belt. Legalizing it will force the vendors to inform the consumers of the effects and side-effects of their products as all legal products so you'll have one less problem to worry about: misinformation.
Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime. Also, making yourself become addict should be considered a crime.Why is that? I assume you believe that all psychotropic drugs lead to the fantastic effect of the "psychotropic trip" in which you see illussions and are induced into an schizophrenic state... This is untrue, just look around the internet and make your own investigation on the true effect of currently illegal drugs. Even if they do, they're still a personal issue, if you consume and you commit a crime you're responsable, again if you knew the effects of the product you consumed, which as I said, is a problem with the current state of things since you cannot be more desinformed: rule one of talking about anything, try to taste that thing before you talk about what it does, if you cannot then read about people who give you their expericiences or scientists who interview them or run tests on the drugs and publish honest conclusions (i.e. a conclusion which is deduced from the content of the test).
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution. First of all, don't take the words out of context, what I said is that it will be a solution for the poor bastard who has to steal to get his next fix, not to the general drug issue.
They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal. I don't know their cost, do you? But I don't need too, is just common sense, today the price of the drugs responds to an infinite demand and to the will of the producers who aren't nice people and will do as they see fit with the prices, even if it seems too much for you, if you were an addict I bet you'll buy it anyway.
The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts.Why free drugs? I bet you're still of the mind that a criminal is not responsable for being under the influence of a substance willingly consumed...
And so the drug addicts will keep killing innocent people for $10 more contribution to their next drug dose.Killing people? The addicts? The ones who can't even see their fingers? Why? How? When? You're just throwing hyperbole here...
How so unfair? They're part of the supply chain that ends up making our children take drugs and die. Do you have children? Did they enter that "chain"? If they did, how would you feel about them? Of course they're part of the chain, they're the ones exercising their personal freedoms to consume whatever the hell they want, they're not commiting any crime, but then again this is the point of contradiction beetween most Constitutions and the Penal statutes of every State.
The more idiots who take drugs around my children, the more likely my children are to have some maniac put drugs in their glasses at the bar or a party, or herd mentality dragging my children into drugs.The more it adds to my argument that the consumers are just innocent, ignorant and poorly treated. Each an every case of a consumer thrown behind bars is an small tragedy in itself.
I say we have all right in the world to use self-defense to protect our children against this menace.You're confusing concepts here, self-defense or third party defense can only be exercised on the act, it has nothing to do with societal criminal prevention as you suggest.
It is only sound military strategy when fighting an enemy, to hit the weakest part of their line.Saddly, beyond the title, this is not a real war, and if it was the consumers would be only bystanders.
We have failed to block their logistics, so we should focus on fighting their frontline, which is extremely weak, and driving it back.I'll suggest that you stop thinking of this as a war, or a strategic game, it has nothing of war and it has nothing of game.
And I think we'll in fact help those drug addicts by taking the drugs away from them and locking them up in jail until they learn to forget about drugs.Yes, I think that if someone did that to me I'll be forever grateful to them. Are you serious?
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?Uncontrollable monsters?
Most people don't take drugs, even if you count people who "experiment". If you count out all non-regular addict drug users, then you end up with a very small minority of the population. If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.Are you sure? Do you've proof? Do you want to bet on the quantity of drug users between the lower classes of your society or mine? Does it make it justifiable that the quantity of people consuming is small? This are all important questions that you deny with you passion.
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting, as well as drugs due to depression. I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this. When it comes to people forced into drugs, you can hardly mean we should keep it that way? The police should stand up for and protect any victims of such horrendous crimes!Those measures you proposed are nothing new, they've been implemented, tested and proved to fail once and again. You can think of the restriction imposed by the Constitutions on personal liberties (i.e. the State will not rule over them) as a pragmatic disposition, but it's much more than that, it's a question of principles, principles won with the blood of many innocent generations, principles that you fail to recognize it seems.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. If you use drugs and try to destroy your own country and yourself, and deprive yourself of free will, self-control and responsibility for your actions, then you're not innocent. Then you're a hyocrite who tries to escape judgement for your crimes by stating you lost control due to drugs, failing to keep in mind you deliberately chose to put yourself into such a state when you are likely to commit crimes.I think I've answered all your points above, the thing with prohibiting scenes with drugs in movies is overly interventionist, haven't you heard of the thousands of times on which a government tried to restrict freedom of speech and the serious consequences it entails.
I think you seriously have to take a look at the broader picture here.
EDIT: Spelling
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 19:03
Ive taken ecstacy amphetamines and cannabis and the most of out control ive ever been is on alcohol. The ecstacy and phet just make me energetic lively and well a nicer happier person, Cannabis just makes me relaxed and a mix of happy and giggly. Alcohol also makes me happy but it makes me more aggressive as well ive never lost control of alcohol but i can tell im less in control.
Which sounds like the dangerous mind altering drug there ?
Just because you can handle it doesn't mean all can. And it doesn't mean everyone want their children having to be exposed of pressure from friends that they're not cool unless they take drugs. People must be allowed to not take drugs if they don't want to, and have the freedom to make this decision.
well its the solution to drug funding crime
No, I just think you want it because you want to pay less for your drug usage.
Drugs would be a hell of alot cheaper if legal, every single dealer along the chain take his cut (and a big one its risk pay as well) the ones who buy of the main supplier get dirt cheap prices compared to street prices, with the goverment in control the customer would only be one step down the chain.
A lot of things are expensive despite low production and transport costs. It's about supply and demand. Drug addicts usually are prepared to pay high prices because they're addicted. Prices are likely remain quite high even if there's legalization.
I assume your talking about heroin here, the self control bit applys to alochol as well but the unctrollable alcoholic monsters can get thier drink cheaply so they don't need to kill people for $10
Primarily heroin, yes.
No democratic goverment would try it for obvious reasons but lets have a look back at the plan.
Is it more democratic to be overly PC and give "freedom to use drugs" and thereby remove "freedom to not be forced into drugs by friends and pressure"? To take away freedom for 10% to pursue extremistic PC ideology of "freedom". It's not freedom, it's repression to make the people slaves under drugs.
Wrong Wrong and wrong, lets start with weak shall we ? I am one of the most stubborn strong willed people i now
decreased mental capabilities ? just checked and im still far more intelligent than alot of non-drug users i now
I mean when you're high. The police will not have much trouble capturing you when you've lost coordination and control over your mind after becoming high. And if you do resist and become inhumanely strong by one of those drugs that make you stop feeling pain, well then they have a right to use their guns in self-defense. Like I said: just send the police out and the drug addicts won't know what hit them.
locking a few buyers up will not make the demand go away, going to catch all the buyers ? i think the goverments trying that it doesn't seem to be working though...
All we need to do is reduce the number of buyers, and protect innocent children from exposure to drug-glorifying propaganda or pressure from "friends" (not really friends, if they try to make you start taking drugs).
Only a few sickos would do that but assuming you find hitler reborn and send him out with his lethal substances, people are going to find out pretty soon not to go to him, i think maximum he could sell to/kill 1 or 2 people before being discovered as unfortunatly drug takers are not as stupid as you seem to think, that guy would need to be moved and have protection as he would be just as big a vigilante target as your average child molester.
There are plenty of policemen, once one has been discovered, there is always a new one. Sounds sick to you? Well, then what about the drug addicts that fool friends and strangers into drugs with their victims later dying of an overdose after 5 years in the gutter? Or families shot to death by drug addicts for $10? That's what I call sick. Drug addicts who can't tolerate people who aren't addicted, and at all costs want to spread their drug usage to others. People who try to infringe the freedom of choice of their fellow citizens, and threaten democracy. People who fear nothing more than the righteous, deserved judgement for their sins.
Don't drugs have deaths off them anyway, don't the kids get told these substances have killed people, doesn't all this make it seem cool and dangerous to kids. Don't these kids still take drugs anyway ?
Most people think they can take drugs once, then never get addicted to it. They know overdoses usually don't come until after years of addiction, because that is a well-known truth. But many of them on their first try become addicts despite their prior beliefs, or become addicts after "trying" 5 times, suddenly before they realize it it became a habit because they discovered they "didn't get addicted after all when taking it only once a month, so now I might as well start taking it every week because I don't seem to get addicted". And then even though they didn't mean to, they end up taking that overdose 2-5 years later, often after killing many innocent people. If there would be poison in their drugs so they could potentially die on their first try, that would be a very effective deterrent, and it would to 100% defeat the glorification and herd mentality part of drug spreading. It's mainly the latter we want to end.
So there would be no morale case against filling cigerettes with a lethal substance ? (a quicker lethal substance)
Cigarettes kill more slowly, and although spread by herd mentality and pressure from friends, it's not quite as addictive and dangerous. Besides, cigarettes are accepted by general consensus of society.
No it wouldn't. Im sure in some of the most repressive regimes in the world they still have a drug problem even with thier stalin style solutions to the problem
That's because they keep recreating a demand from drugs, by having repressive regimes and stimulate depression among the people. To have the population indoctrinated and enslaved under drugs because of naive political correctness, is a Stalinist "solution".
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 19:11
Don't think this will work too well in the risk seeking culture we have in the US. A more sedate country shouldn't have too much problem with this general theory. It would still be pretty horrible though. Who knows if it would be worse than the current situation.
Hm, but wouldn't both conservative forces, socialists and liberals endorse the idea of protecting the children from drugs and destroying the organized crimes? Or do the hippies have too much influence? Drugs kill hundreds of thousands each year, directly or indirectly. Terrorism kills less than 1000. Yet there's a Guantanamo where people are kept and tortured with little or no evidence of terrorism, while the government hesitates to with a firm hand strike down at the parasites who try to make their children get hooked up on drugs, parasitic people who won't tolerate non-addicts and try to destroy the entire next generation, turning them into slaves under drugs, and undermining the democracy?
The whole money angle is silly. Why don't we just bring back slavery?
I agree, money is the least important argument. The most important argument is that of the drug users, the majority have been fooled into it by drug glorification and persuasion from so-called friends (real friends don't want you in the gutter and addicted to drugs).
Rather logical that junkies tried it at some point. And the drugs that instantly hook you are a myth there is no such things. I have been a what we call recreational user since I was 16 never got me addicted in any way. Did get me into trouble though because I have a rather short fuse and things like speed and xtc don't help there, got into a few fights and stopped doing it. Coke and pot, mellow. GHB (and coke) is great with sex, none of these are (very) addicting.
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 19:34
Not everyone uses it as a trick... But let me ask you a question: You say that when you're under the influence of such substances you lose self-control correct? Then how can anyone use it as a trick to justify their acts? Since they're not acting by definition, they cannot control themselves. But you're incorrect anyway, if the person knows what the effects of the drugs are (which the odds say that in this day an age with the many campaings of the desinformation by the States and the international organizations he doesn't) then he should not take it in the first place, he cannot be forced to not take it though, just like you shouldn't be forced to use a safety belt.
It should be illegal to damage oneself in a manner that makes you later become a danger to others. People may be free to kill themselves, but not turn themselves into addict monsters who kill people for $10. As for seatbelts, if you sit without a seatbelt in a car behind someone else's seat, and you come into a crash, you are likely to kill the person in the seat ahead of you, whereas if you keep a seat belt, the person in front of you has much greater chances of survival.
Legalizing it will force the vendors to inform the consumers of the effects and side-effects of their products as all legal products so you'll have one less problem to worry about: misinformation.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yeah right! As if a package of cigarettes contain full info on all indirect and direct damages made to the smoker. I doubt drug packages will contain more than a carefully selected subset of the effects of drugs.
Why is that? I assume you believe that all psychotropic drugs lead to the fantastic effect of the "psychotropic trip" in which you see illussions and are induced into an schizophrenic state... This is untrue, just look around the internet and make your own investigation on the true effect of currently illegal drugs. Even if they do, they're still a personal issue, if you consume and you commit a crime you're responsable, again if you knew the effects of the product you consumed, which as I said, is a problem with the current state of things since you cannot be more desinformed: rule one of talking about anything, try to taste that thing before you talk about what it does, if you cannot then read about people who give you their expericiences or scientists who interview them or run tests on the drugs and publish honest conclusions (i.e. a conclusion which is deduced from the content of the test).
Wow, I didn't realize the world had seen such great moral decline, as to start speaking about that "wow, some drugs really aren't making you a monster, so of course we must try them, and it's oppression if we can't".
Killing people? The addicts? The ones who can't even see their fingers? Why? How? When? You're just throwing hyperbole here...
Drug related crimes are among the worst crimes in society, and account for almost all murder cases where someone gets killed by a complete stranger. The drug addict criminals get desperate and often think so stupidly and desperately that they'll kill plenty of children, policemen and innocents to try and get rid of witnesses, usually they end up caught anyway. They completely lose all rationality when they become addicts, and lose all human characteristics.
Do you have children? Did they enter that "chain"? If they did, how would you feel about them? Of course they're part of the chain, they're the ones exercising their personal freedoms to consume whatever the hell they want, they're not commiting any crime, but then again this is the point of contradiction beetween most Constitutions and the Penal statutes of every State.
If my children would get hooked up in drugs, I would kill the persons who introduced the drugs to them, and send my children to a detoxication clinic. If the detoxication failed and they would have ended up addicts, I would be very happy over any policeman putting them in jail, where they can't access drugs, and stay there for a very, very long time until they realize how worthless drugs are. If they would become brutish heroin addicts who can't recognize their father or right from wrong, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them in self-defense if need be.
The more it adds to my argument that the consumers are just innocent, ignorant and poorly treated.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? "Oh, the poor drug addicts, most of them are led into it by friends, tricked by herd mentality, so we can't under any circumstances strike hard against the drug addicts and prevent them from glorifying drugs and bringing others into addiction". That's what you just said. The thing is, once you become a drug addict, you become one of them, and you start trying to trick others into becoming drug addicts too, losing all loyalty to your former self. To mix in some weird PC morality into this seems pretty contra-productive. The drug users need to be contained and limited, and the non-users must be protected from them. For this to be possible, the users must be struck firmly and their glorification campaigns hampered. They're the attacker, we are the defenders. We didn't want this war, they brought it upon us.
Those measures you proposed are nothing new, they've been implemented, tested and proved to fail once and again. You can think of the restriction imposed by the Constitutions on personal liberties (i.e. the State will not rule over them) as a pragmatic disposition, but it's much more than that, it's a question of principles, principles won with the blood of many innocent generations, principles that you fail to recognize it seems.
Wow, you just made the typical Political Correctness fallacy statement: "we shouldn't stop the horrible thing that drugs are, because doing so would be to destroy our constitution". That's BS, I say. If there's one thing that threatens the constitution it's the transformation of the people into a morally declined drug-high horde of zoombies.
I think I've answered all your points above, the thing with prohibiting scenes with drugs in movies is overly interventionist, haven't you heard of the thousands of times on which a government tried to restrict freedom of speech and the serious consequences it entails.
It's not a matter of restricting freedom of speech, but a matter of people using their freedom responsibly. With freedom comes responsibility. But if you make movies that glorify or display usage of drugs, then you're abusing freedom and threatening democracy for everyone.
I think you seriously have to take a look at the broader picture here.
Like you, who want a future where the entire people is a drug addict zoombie horde?
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 19:35
Rather logical that junkies tried it at some point. And the drugs that instantly hook you are a myth there is no such things. I have been a what we call recreational user since I was 16 never got me addicted in any way.
:inquisitive: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Dear Rodian, I am one of these people that know what they are talking about for various reasons and among those many regrets but tons of experience nevertheless. Unlike you and that shows.
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 19:48
Yeah right, and 1+1=3
Yeah right, and 1+1=3
If you want it to be 3 anything will do.
Rodion Romanovich
02-09-2008, 20:00
lol, you're such a stereotype drug addict, "really people, believe me I can end any time I want, and it's just lies that it's dangerous, just try it. Omg you don't know it's dangerous if you haven't tried it so listen to me the drug addict instead of the physicians and experts..."
First of all two corrections to your incorrect statements:
1. heroin is a drug that has been reported to cause addiction on first try in several cases
2. most drug addiction of other drugs than heroin doesn't begin as a deliberate attempt to become a drug addict, but by experimenting. The people use it a few times, with long time intervals in between. Then they feel: wow, I made it, I don't get addicted. And so their confidence rises and they begin taking the drugs with shorter intervals, and convince friends to join them in it. When that starts happening, the addiction begins to evolve over a few years. Suddenly, after a few years, they discover that once a month has turned into once or more than once a week, and they're hooked up. But it is also common that they keep believing they can end any time they want until the very moment they take the final overdose and die.
And secondly, a word of friendly advice: try to end your drug addiction right now. You will most likely discover that you can't when you really try it. If so, have the self-discipline to seek help in a detox facility. If you still have any self-discipline left, use it before it's too late. You're a nice guy (though with some odd opinions I strongly disagree to :tongue: ), it would be shame to see you dying from drug usage.
Hmmm, that wasn't what it originally said, ah well I guess drugs isn't the only thing that makes people lose control. Nope, I am not an addict, sometimes use it in the weekends, when I go to party's, next day you are perfectly fine. Once every month or so, less probably.
I think alot of posters in this thread need to step back, and realize that not all drug users are evil people that lurk in shadows waiting to slit a old lady's throat for her purse-money.
Seriosly, normal people use drugs as well as homeless guys. Iv met many a person whos going to college, getting good grades, is sociable, and IS USING DRUGS. Unfortunately, they shy from telling anyone but their closest friends for fear of blatant stereotyping and criticism.
And as for the "First time your addicted", thats opinion. If your weak willed, you might get addicted the first time. And im curious as to where the sources are for this myth, as iv yet to see some. Im guessing its off some episode of "cops".
lol, you're such a stereotype drug addict, "really people, believe me I can end any time I want, and it's just lies that it's dangerous, just try it. Omg you don't know it's dangerous if you haven't tried it so listen to me the drug addict instead of the physicians and experts..."
First of all two corrections to your incorrect statements:
1. heroin is a drug that has been reported to cause addiction on first try in several cases
2. most drug addiction of other drugs than heroin doesn't begin as a deliberate attempt to become a drug addict, but by experimenting. The people use it a few times, with long time intervals in between. Then they feel: wow, I made it, I don't get addicted. And so their confidence rises and they begin taking the drugs with shorter intervals, and convince friends to join them in it. When that starts happening, the addiction begins to evolve over a few years. Suddenly, after a few years, they discover that once a month has turned into once or more than once a week, and they're hooked up. But it is also common that they keep believing they can end any time they want until the very moment they take the final overdose and die.
And secondly, a word of friendly advice: try to end your drug addiction right now. You will most likely discover that you can't when you really try it. If so, have the self-discipline to seek help in a detox facility. If you still have any self-discipline left, use it before it's too late. You're a nice guy (though with some odd opinions I strongly disagree to :tongue: ), it would be shame to see you dying from drug usage.
Wow
Arrogant, yes?
Hmmm, that wasn't what it originally said, ah well I guess drugs isn't the only thing that makes people lose control. Nope, I am not an addict, sometimes use it in the weekends, when I go to party's, next day you are perfectly fine. Once every month or so, less probably.
Of course you are an addict. DRUGS ARE EVIL FRAGONY, BE AFRAID.
(SARCASM) Using hard drugs once a month definitely makes you an addict. (sarcasm)
Soulforged
02-10-2008, 03:11
Rodian you're using hyperbole after hyperbole, making bold claims and not supporting them, I could easily ignore you and let you go on as you see fit since you're not interested in a debate, you're interested in a monologue. But I won't, this discussion about drugs legalization is as old as this forum but for some reason I can't look away when someone takes the extreme line on the topic.
It should be illegal to damage oneself in a manner that makes you later become a danger to others.Let's start by the principle: Following your statement, do you think that any personal freedom should be allowed at all? If yes, then why?
People may be free to kill themselves, but not turn themselves into addict monsters who kill people for $10.Again with the same frase. I wonder which case this is. I wonder if you paid any attention at how a person is still responsable for his acts under the influence of a psychotropic substance... I bet you didn't.
As for seatbelts, if you sit without a seatbelt in a car behind someone else's seat, and you come into a crash, you are likely to kill the person in the seat ahead of you, whereas if you keep a seat belt, the person in front of you has much greater chances of survival.A bit contrived, but out of topic so I'll just pass.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yeah right! As if a package of cigarettes contain full info on all indirect and direct damages made to the smoker. I doubt drug packages will contain more than a carefully selected subset of the effects of drugs.And you're right, people are also misinformed about the effects of smoking tabacco, but you still can easily know what every cigarrette contains, that's not the case with drugs. Today you can easily go buy some pot and get a mixed substance with some marihuana in it but a lot of other things you wouldn't want to smoke. Must importantly you're suffering the effects of the misinformation, the government only worries about making you feel that drugs are "evil" but they do not tell anything specific, it's just sensationalist.
Wow, I didn't realize the world had seen such great moral decline, as to start speaking about that "wow, some drugs really aren't making you a monster, so of course we must try them, and it's oppression if we can't".It's opression if we can't and they do not make anyone more a monster than he already is. You just told it yourself. Monsters only exist in fairytales Rodian, you must realize that.
Drug related crimes are among the worst crimes in society, and account for almost all murder cases where someone gets killed by a complete stranger. And the source is?
The drug addict criminals get desperate and often think so stupidly and desperately that they'll kill plenty of children, policemen and innocents to try and get rid of witnesses, usually they end up caught anyway.I see... The source?
They completely lose all rationality when they become addicts, and lose all human characteristics.Really, have you seen any addict in your life? Why don't you hear the advice of people who have done drugs and have talked to you in this very same thread. Even if all that were truth, which it isn't, it still has nothing to do with drug legalization.
If my children would get hooked up in drugs, I would kill the persons who introduced the drugs to them, and send my children to a detoxication clinic. If the detoxication failed and they would have ended up addicts, I would be very happy over any policeman putting them in jail, where they can't access drugs, and stay there for a very, very long time until they realize how worthless drugs are.Wouldn't it be better if you punish them the usual way? Do you know what jail is? Are you seriously a father?
If they would become brutish heroin addicts who can't recognize their father or right from wrong, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them in self-defense if need be.So you abruptly fall from your moral mountain and hit the ground... Again, are you seriously a father?
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? "Oh, the poor drug addicts, most of them are led into it by friends, tricked by herd mentality, so we can't under any circumstances strike hard against the drug addicts and prevent them from glorifying drugs and bringing others into addiction". That's what you just said.That doesn't sound stupid to me, but I wouldn't find it strange for someone who admits he'll give his sons to the police or kill them if necessary to also find that statement difficult to comprehend.
The thing is, once you become a drug addict, you become one of them, and you start trying to trick others into becoming drug addicts too, losing all loyalty to your former self.Did you prove any of the illegal drugs? If not, then what gives you the authority to talk about them in such detail?
To mix in some weird PC morality into this seems pretty contra-productive. You like to use the term "PC" don't you? Do you know what politically correct means? If so, do you know what compassion means?
The drug users need to be contained and limited, and the non-users must be protected from them.I see, because the drug user is the evil and the non-user is a good person, just like you right Rodian?
For this to be possible, the users must be struck firmly and their glorification campaigns hampered.I wonder what experience has made that impression on you, since when does society glorify drug users?
They're the attacker, we are the defenders. We didn't want this war, they brought it upon us.But didn't you say that the consumers are part of the chain, that the chain must be cut at their level and that many consumers turn to drugs because they follow the counsel of someone else?
Wow, you just made the typical Political Correctness fallacy statement: "we shouldn't stop the horrible thing that drugs are, because doing so would be to destroy our constitution". That's BS, I say. If there's one thing that threatens the constitution it's the transformation of the people into a morally declined drug-high horde of zoombies.Do you know what a fallacy is my friend Rodian? There's no logical problem with the argument I presented. I don't know from which country you come from but odds are you've such a Constitutional principle, the principle says "NO A" the statute says "A". A simple constradiction which shouldn't exist...
Wake me up when the movie about "zoombies" ends please...
It's not a matter of restricting freedom of speech, but a matter of people using their freedom responsibly. With freedom comes responsibility. But if you make movies that glorify or display usage of drugs, then you're abusing freedom and threatening democracy for everyone.Nobody is glorifying anything but you. You're glorifying the use of violent means to achieve unfair ends it's not even a case of using the wrong medium to achieve a wanted end. And what you propose is a case of simple and plain restriction of freedom of speech, and also untrue, for one you're making the same fallacy here, this is a fallacy: if people watch violent movies --> they commit violent crimes. People commit violent crimes --> so they must watch violent movies. That's the most typical case of logical fallacy and notice how I didn't use the case of drugs here, because, as you know, the same things have been said about the display of almost anything in any media since they were created. But enough of this, it has nothing to do with the topic.
Like you, who want a future where the entire people is a drug addict zoombie horde?Oh...The movie, it was bad wasn't it..."zoombies" are so cliché...
I find it funny how rodian speaks of violent crimes by druggies, yet I can truly say without a doubt that marijuana has turned me into a pacifist.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-10-2008, 06:08
Marijuana should be legalized simply because the potheads I know are hilarious when stoned. ~;)
That said, it's not like the law is stopping them at all, nor are they hurting people.
Reverend Joe
02-10-2008, 08:03
...Should I?
Yeah, I will... I have nothing better to do right now...
Rodion, I am not even going to try to address all of what you have said, because that would be like trying to make headway through a blizzard. A blizzard of ignorance, in this case.
I will just tell you this. It is the honest-to-god truth.
I smoke marijuana. I DO NOT commit crime to support my habit. I DO NOT threaten others in any way. I DO NOT impose upon others to use drugs; in fact, I recently got into an argument with someone because they were trying to push someone else into drinking when they did not want to.
When I get high, the worst thing I will do is play "Big Brother and the Holding Company" full blast. Honestly, there's nothing funnier than seeing someone get pissed off about music that is almost 40 years old. Other than that, I may eat some baked chicken, watch a movie or go for a walk.
There you go. That is your stereotypical, depraved, borderline-psychotic drug addict, hell-bent on getting your children addicted to smack and angel dust and robbing his elderly rape victims at knife-point. What a load of crap.
You are the one that needs help, not me.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 08:53
...Should I?
Yeah, I will... I have nothing better to do right now...
Rodion, I am not even going to try to address all of what you have said, because that would be like trying to make headway through a blizzard. A blizzard of ignorance, in this case.
I will just tell you this. It is the honest-to-god truth.
I smoke marijuana. I DO NOT commit crime to support my habit. I DO NOT threaten others in any way. *I DO NOT impose upon others to use drugs; in fact, I recently got into an argument with someone because they were trying to push someone else into drinking when they did not want to.
When I get high, the worst thing I will do is play "Big Brother and the Holding Company" full blast. Honestly, there's nothing funnier than seeing someone get pissed off about music that is almost 40 years old. Other than that, I may eat some baked chicken, watch a movie or go for a walk.
There you go. That is your stereotypical, depraved, borderline-psychotic drug addict, hell-bent on getting your children addicted to smack and angel dust and robbing his elderly rape victims at knife-point. What a load of crap.
You are the one that needs help, not me.
same here Gonzo, though I prefer my homemade lamb curry to baked chicken though * not only do I not impose on others to smoke herb, half the time I don't even wanna share, herb is EXPENSIVE given the current prohibition.
@ Rodion
People need to stop blindly believing all the moralist propaganda about this subject and do some independent research before making sweeping moralistic statements. And for the love of God, STOP with the kill-em-all bit, it makes you sound like a violent psychopath with absolutely no grip on reality whatsoever.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 09:26
Yeah yeah, suddenly it's "moralist propaganda" to not want your children hooked up in drugs and other decadence. What has the world come to? I though drug usage was still below 10%, as in most of Europe, but it turns out in the now growing up generation it's used by up to 40%... I daresay that if it has gone that far, even a religious fundamentalist Christian oppressive regime is better. But then I realize that USA is very much Christian and still doesn't take proper actions against the drugs.
It didn't really occur to me until now, how crazy sum you get when putting together the American laws of gun control, drug usage and Christian fundamentalism over there... So it's an infringement of freedom unless every citizen can be a Christian fundamentalist, drug himself and while doing so carrying a gun???
Wow, talk about political correctness gone far... And now I think I finally understand why the consevatives talk about hippies and liberal conspiracies, they're damn right. Unfortunately it seems that the republican party and Bush would be part of such a liberal conspiracy seeing as they took no proper actions against the drug menace or the hippie problem.
"Elp Elp I'm being repressed because I can't run around drug high with a gun all the while quoting bible verses on God's judgement of man!!!!"
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 09:58
...Should I?
Yeah, I will... I have nothing better to do right now...
Rodion, I am not even going to try to address all of what you have said, because that would be like trying to make headway through a blizzard. A blizzard of ignorance, in this case.
I will just tell you this. It is the honest-to-god truth.
I smoke marijuana. I DO NOT commit crime to support my habit. I DO NOT threaten others in any way. I DO NOT impose upon others to use drugs; in fact, I recently got into an argument with someone because they were trying to push someone else into drinking when they did not want to.
When I get high, the worst thing I will do is play "Big Brother and the Holding Company" full blast. Honestly, there's nothing funnier than seeing someone get pissed off about music that is almost 40 years old. Other than that, I may eat some baked chicken, watch a movie or go for a walk.
There you go. That is your stereotypical, depraved, borderline-psychotic drug addict, hell-bent on getting your children addicted to smack and angel dust and robbing his elderly rape victims at knife-point. What a load of crap.
You are the one that needs help, not me.
Hypocrisy, this post of yours is drug glorification. You're indeed part of the problem with spreading drug usage to others by diminishing the dangers of its impact, and talking about how "fun" it is to get others hooked up. Think of how many read your post right now. Maybe 10 people. Out of them, statistically 1-4 may become drug addicts. Out of these 4, 1 may become a heroin user who kills innocent men, women and even children for $10 contribution to his next drug dose. If you really want to be able to retain your morality while using drugs, you have to use them hiddenly, not tell others that you're using them, and above all not try to diminish the danger of them. Finally, you're contributing to the herd mentality pressure. This generation, drug usage is going from less than 5-10% to almost 40% usage. People haven't changed in this time, but what has changed is the propaganda - now it's strongly pro-drugs, and drug addicts survive long enough - several years even on heroin - that young people, who usually have no concept of long term consequences of their actions - take their survival as proof that drugs are harmless, and so more get hooked up in the zoombie horde of drug addicts.
Edit: by buying drugs, you're also supporting organized crime that infiltrates bribes and threatens politicians and thus democracy, crime gangs which also get protection money from innocent restaurant owners and shoot innocent witnesses. (by the way, legalization of drugs wouldn't remove these gangs, they still have other activities to do, such as protection money). If you've bought and used drugs for several years, chances are great you've part responsibility for 1. child labor creating drugs in some South American country, 2. some murder. The silliest thing of them all is when socialist hippies against world trade go take drugs: "omg it's so bad with child labor, STOP buying goods produced by children!" and then sing kumbaya and buy drugs thereby supporting child labor and mafia in South America, and murder in their own country.
---
Hopefully Iran will invade Europe and America in around 30 years to bring back morals (should be easy when a majority is drug high and can't aim their guns, much less coordinating large military operations), too bad only way we can get morals back is through becoming fundamentalist muslims and have death penalty and chopped off hands for stealing.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 10:02
Marijuana should be legalized simply because the potheads I know are hilarious when stoned. ~;)
That said, it's not like the law is stopping them at all, nor are they hurting people.
Yes, Marijuana could be legalized, since it only reduces intelligence, and doesn't cause violence (quite few known cases).
Banquo's Ghost
02-10-2008, 10:22
Think of how many read your post right now. Maybe 10 people. Out of them, statistically 1-4 may become drug addicts.
It's true. Just having to read this stuff has forced me to trip some pretty serious paracetamol. :wink3:
Hopefully Iran will invade Europe and America in around 30 years to bring back morals (should be easy when a majority is drug high and can't aim their guns, much less coordinating large military operations), too bad only way we can get morals back is through becoming fundamentalist muslims and have death penalty and chopped off hands for stealing.
Crikey. Are you channeling Navaros and all without the aid of psychotropic substances? :shocked2:
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 10:45
Crikey. Are you channeling Navaros and all without the aid of psychotropic substances? :shocked2:
I don't know what Navaros thinks about drugs, but I agree to most of his very sensible opinions except about abortion.
More impressively, he's also the only Bible reader I've met who actually understood the methaphorical meaning of chapter 3-6 of Genesis.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 10:49
Yeah yeah, suddenly it's "moralist propaganda" to not want your children hooked up in drugs and other decadence. What has the world come to? I though drug usage was still below 10%, as in most of Europe, but it turns out in the now growing up generation it's used by up to 40%... I daresay that if it has gone that far, even a religious fundamentalist Christian oppressive regime is better. But then I realize that USA is very much Christian and still doesn't take proper actions against the drugs.
It didn't really occur to me until now, how crazy sum you get when putting together the American laws of gun control, drug usage and Christian fundamentalism over there... So it's an infringement of freedom unless every citizen can be a Christian fundamentalist, drug himself and while doing so carrying a gun???
Wow, talk about political correctness gone far... And now I think I finally understand why the consevatives talk about hippies and liberal conspiracies, they're damn right. Unfortunately it seems that the republican party and Bush would be part of such a liberal conspiracy seeing as they took no proper actions against the drug menace or the hippie problem.
"Elp Elp I'm being repressed because I can't run around drug high with a gun all the while quoting bible verses on God's judgement of man!!!!"
Wow what a groupthink mentality...you seem to have no concept of people being individuals. If you really think every American is a drug using, gun-toting Christian fundamentalist you have some really serious problems in the information department. I would see a psychiatic professional if I were you, before you get yourself incarcerated for murdering someone (although it would only be some depraved dope fiend, so what's the big deal right?):dizzy2:
but seriously, thanks for bringin' me back to the roarin' '30's (Reefer Madness was a great flick-and sooooooo accurate[SARCASM] ):laugh4: :laugh4:
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 10:51
Wow what a groupthink mentality...you seem to have no concept of people being individuals. If you really think every American is a drug using, gun-toting Christian fundamentalist you have some really serious problems in the information department. I would see a psychiatic professional if I were you, before you get yourself incarcerated for murdering someone (although it would only be some depraved dope fiend, so what's the big deal right?):dizzy2:
but seriously, thanks for bringin' me back to the roarin' '30's (Reefer Madness was a great flick-and sooooooo accurate[SARCASM] ):laugh4: :laugh4:
Given that you're the drug user, and reading things which aren't in my post, I think it's quite obvious who is imagining things.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 11:09
What do you think I'm imagining then? Just because I like to smoke a bit of herb now and again IN THE PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME (not, as you say "running around with my gun in one hand and a Bible in the other") I suddenly have no ability to discern uneducated hatemongery from someone who seems brainwashed into going on a crusade to "rid the world of the evil dope fiend tm? I don't know what country you live in and what the drug policy is there, but if the majority feel similar to what you've posted, I should think living there would be hazardous to my health, why, I'd say I had a good chance of being lynched. While there may be problems here in the US, the majority of us at least have stopped lynching folks for no reason.
To me freedom means the abilty to live one's life as one chooses, provided he does not harm others. If you say I am harming others with my private activities, it's on YOU to provide proof. well, good day
Rodian this is me
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/BLAH.jpg
this is the drughole where I live
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/002.jpg
In this godforsaken place
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/006.jpg
Feel free to pity me but I am having a blast, despite.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 11:47
Rodian this is me
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/BLAH.jpg
this is the drughole where I live
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/002.jpg
In this godforsaken place
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/006.jpg
Feel free to pity me but I am having a blast, despite.
I don't pity you, because I know from previous posts of yours that you're a completely trouble-free upper class person who has nothing at all to worry about and has quite small chances statistically speaking of ending up in crime or drugs. Someone who keeps telling that all other people who commit anything bad are monsters and refuses to show understanding for anything because you haven't ever experienced any hardships worth mentioning, and the few sufferings you have experienced have been few and not consistently pressuring you and well compensated by a safe environment in all other aspects. Someone who has no idea what it means to let loose drugs among poor people without hope for the future, who live in a ghetto. Someone who is just a cynical person who cares nothing about the suffering of others and only for own short term pleasure.
I do feel pity for the poor people who get hooked up into drugs seriously and later end up murdering someone or killing themselves.
For those glorify drugs, I don't feel pity, I feel disgust.
You are rather assuming by nature aren't you.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 12:08
You are rather cynical about other people's suffering by nature aren't you.
I am rather cynical about you caring
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 12:12
You seem unable to phrase any longer or coherent posts with thinking more than 1 step, or to focus on arguments instead of persons.
You don't seem to understand that you just have been pwnd.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 12:26
You seem to lack enough connection with reality to realize a political debate is about who has the strongest arguments not about who makes the most animalistic display of coolness. Which, by the way, you failed at too this time.
Me and reality connect just fine thank you
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 12:36
And which reality are you connected fine to right now?
The one where I am having fun with you probably
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 12:43
Are you sure I'm not a hallucination?
And ok, I will let you have the last word. Please post something after this post so we can finish this. I think on this level of discussion you will beat me with experience.
Halucination no but I am not sure you are quite there
LittleGrizzly
02-10-2008, 16:23
And it doesn't mean everyone want their children having to be exposed of pressure from friends that they're not cool unless they take drugs. All the people i now who take drugs weren't talked into or asked to do it they made the decision to do it, anyone who doesn't want to take drugs and can just get talked into it would be worrying what else could you convince this person to do they obviously can't think for themself.
A lot of things are expensive despite low production and transport costs. It's about supply and demand. Drug addicts usually are prepared to pay high prices because they're addicted. Prices are likely remain quite high even if there's legalization.
Is there any drug impaticular your referring to here ? most drugs that i now the street prices of are quite expensive buying in small amounts but if you buy in a little bit of bulk you get quite a big saving, and the person on every step of the chain offers this so if your buying in bulk of the person who produces it would be dirt cheap, and that is with it being illegal. (im thinking manufactured drugs like xtc and phet) If they were made in bulk by one big distributor who wasn't worried about getting caught (and charging extra for it) prices would be dirt compared to what they are today.
Take weed as an example with a little equipment and some seeds weed can be grown very cheaply, for example lets say you pay 50 for some seeds then all you need is to keep a UV light running part of the time for a few months and give the thing some water. so for say 100 pound input you can get about 250 grams lets say. thats 1/4 of a kilo i have heard street prices on a kilo of just under 3,000 say those 250 grams would be worth 750 pound. So thats a 650 pound profit for one plant and selling it all in one go!
I now weed is a paticularly cheap drug but this is a good way of showing how the drug dealers work, they make ridiculous mark ups on price that would never happen in a legal situation.
Primarily heroin, yes.
well heroin is a bit different but heroin would be alot cheaper legalised so the uncontrollable monster wouldn't need to kill anyone for $10, i would probably support people being given thier heroin free because as i understand it, its one of the worse ones for crime funding it and it seems to stop people functionng normally.
on a side note i often wondered when i was younger why can't the goverment offer a service to junkies who want to quit, lock them up until the craving is offer and offer them treatment to help the process.
"freedom to not be forced into drugs by friends and pressure"?
It is only kids who can have the excuse of being weak willed, if your 30 and someone can talk into taking a drug you dont want that person could convince you to do plenty of nasty things. Fortunatly under grizzly's bluepint for legalisation (r) Drugs would be more difficult to get for kids than they currenty are.
To take away freedom for 10% to pursue extremistic PC ideology of "freedom".
What about these crazy people drinking alcohol impinging on my non-drinking freedoms ?!
and those spice girl fans impinging on my no listening to crap music freedom !?
freedom is being free to decide whether you want something out there or not, freedom is not freedom from something, i could make a damn longlist of things i don't like which i could say im not free because they are around for people to force on me
I mean when you're high. The police will not have much trouble capturing you when you've lost coordination and control over your mind after becoming high.[/B
well of the drugs i take i am still well aware (even probably more aware as im on edge) of police and the few times ive needed to the pure adrenalin rush has sent me running before anyone else even reacts (im also a very fast runner) i suppose when high off heroin this would apply.
[B]All we need to do is reduce the number of buyers,
but that is extremly difficult to do, that is reduce by a large percentage.
and protect innocent children from exposure to drug-glorifying propaganda
Im assuming you mean movies ? It doesn't actually seem to be in the movies all that much, a few movies have drugs as thier main subject but outside of those drug use is very inrequent in films. i have to be honest i wouldn't want to see this as stoner comedies are amazing and movies like bad boys 2.
There are plenty of policemen, once one has been discovered, there is always a new one.
There are plenty of policemen but how many that truely wouldn't have a problem killing someone just because they're a drug addict, i would have a problem killing my worst enemy so i could never kill someone just because i considered thier habit dangerous. Im assuming a large number of people feel this way and then out of the small percentge left (of sickos!!) you have to narrow it down to those who would be willing to move after doing it as this person would have a targeton thier back.
Damn my friends outside and im not even showered yet!!
ill continue this later :)
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 17:27
And it doesn't mean everyone want their children having to be exposed of pressure from friends that they're not cool unless they take drugs. All the people i now who take drugs weren't talked into or asked to do it they made the decision to do it, anyone who doesn't want to take drugs and can just get talked into it would be worrying what else could you convince this person to do they obviously can't think for themself.
So you think all who go through some phase in life where they're uncertain and easily affected are untermenschen who should be cleansed out of the gene pool by overdoses because nobody protected them from drug glorification? And perhaps you also claim to be such a perfect human being yourself that you have never doubted about yourself and have never been affected by herd mentality?
That is bollocks. Especially teenagers in their low teens are very uncertain and easily affected by what they see and are told - I was no exception - often while believing they made the decisions freely when they "chose" what someone else persuaded them into doing.
Take weed as an example
I don't know why you mix weed into this discussion, as I've already pointed out that's one of the few drugs that could be possible to legalize. Whatever point you tried to make with weed is moot.
"freedom to not be forced into drugs by friends and pressure"?
It is only kids who can have the excuse of being weak willed, if your 30 and someone can talk into taking a drug you dont want that person could convince you to do plenty of nasty things.
It's mainly at ages such as 14-20 that drug addicts begun taking their drugs. People who start at the age of 30 are quite uncommon, and you know that too.
Fortunatly under grizzly's bluepint for legalisation (r) Drugs would be more difficult to get for kids than they currenty are.
Yeah right, like it's harder for kids to get guns in USA than in say Britain...
To take away freedom for 10% to pursue extremistic PC ideology of "freedom".
What about these crazy people drinking alcohol impinging on my non-drinking freedoms ?!
and those spice girl fans impinging on my no listening to crap music freedom !?
These are relevant points. If you give people the freedom to annoy and harass, sometimes you must consider either withdrawing these freedoms or correspondingly give people the freedom to fight back. If someone harasses you with spice girls music, there could for example be laws saying nobody is allowed to have so loud music that it can be heard by the neighbors. Or since you obviously can't revenge with playing loud music to such people, the law could allow you to punch them into the face. But since people are generally against violence, it's usually preferable to restrict the freedom to play loud crap music when people try to sleep. Freedom isn't only about removing laws, sometimes it's about passing them. Typically only an insane lunatic would have any true need to listen to spice girls so loud that the neighbors can't sleep at night. So restricting that freedom isn't really oppression. But it is oppression to force people to listen to spice girls by denying them any means of negotiation pressure to force the spice girls listening person in the example to stop destroying their sleep. So if you want a freedom of person A to hurt person B, then you had better simultaneously grant person B a freedom to hurt person A back. If drug users can persuade my children into drugs when they're uncertain teenagers and they have a freedom to do so, then I don't see why there should be no freedom for me to cut the throat off those who harm my children in such a way.
freedom is being free to decide whether you want something out there or not, freedom is not freedom from something, i could make a damn longlist of things i don't like which i could say im not free because they are around for people to force on me
Yes, and I want the freedom to be able to choose NOT to have people trying to convince my children to take drugs. Abuse that freedom - a freedom which you have now - and I will surely work hard to take it away from you. If you can't behave well when you have the choice to behave bad or good, then I will work to take away that choice from you. It's up to you whether people like me have to vote for or otherwise struggle for harsher treatment of people who spread drugs, use them or glorify them. The best way for you to lose your dear beloved drugs is to be careless about these issues which I have posted. If you take care and show respect, you can keep your toys. If not, you're asking to get them taken away from you.
but that is extremly difficult to do, that is reduce by a large percentage.
No
There are plenty of policemen but how many that truely wouldn't have a problem killing someone just because they're a drug addict
They're not killing any other people that those who have chosen freely to kill themselves. In the process they save the lives of thousands of children and teenagers.
I don't know what Navaros thinks about drugs, but I agree to most of his very sensible opinions except about abortion.
I'm so done with this thread. You just said all that needs to be said about yourself from that one sentence.
Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 18:09
Rodian
This is a discussion on possible solutions to a failed drug policy, not a place to moralize, aggressively recruit for your crusade, or continually pound your views on the other readers with no variation. We have all read your views on the subject, often repeatedly and aggressively. I doubt that there is anyone perusing this thread that doesn't know about your pet witchhunt. Some of us would like to continue this discussion without being preached at everytime someone posts. Either contribute something new and insightful to this discussion, OR STOP TROLLING.
thank you in advance
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 18:13
I have the right to express my opinion just as much as you do,. I think it's you who are trolling who keep saying drugs are so great. Last time I checked the normal opinion was for people to not want their children becoming drug addicts. My discussion is very much on topic since it's always coming back to how to solve the drug problem by a policy that isn't driven by overly political correctness ways of thinking. You have to stop your pet witch hunt against people who don't want drugs for themselves and their children. You simply can't tolerate that you're addicted while I'm not. Stop trying to derail this thread, and stop trying to pretend you're a moderator. If you do, there's a risk the moderators may come and lock this thread, which would be a shame. But maybe that's what you want?
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 18:22
Rodian
This is a discussion on possible solutions to a failed drug policy, not a place to moralize, aggressively recruit for your crusade, or continually pound your views on the other readers with no variation. We have all read your views on the subject, often repeatedly and aggressively. I doubt that there is anyone perusing this thread that doesn't know about your pet witchhunt. Some of us would like to continue this discussion without being preached at everytime someone posts. Either contribute something new and insightful to this discussion, OR STOP TROLLING.
thank you in advance
I love it when people advocate a new law based on fairness and proceed to condemn others for "moralizing" when they strongly disagree. Laws are morality. If you want to change them, expect moral opposition.
Rodion Romanovich
02-10-2008, 18:40
I love it when people advocate a new law based on fairness and proceed to condemn others for "moralizing" when they strongly disagree. Laws are morality. If you want to change them, expect moral opposition.
It's about which option hurts most innocent people and infringes most necessary forms of freedom. Naturally it's a matter of a discussion of morality. Either:
1. "which option hurts/kills most people", or
2. "whose life is worth most", which I personally won't discuss since I believe all people have the same right to live
If the person who gets to choose is objective, he or she would pick the option that hurts the least people. And so the discussion is a matter of arguing why the other option hurts more innocent people.
Now, however, if you start thinking that some people are worth more than other, then you don't give a damn about which option hurts the most people, but instead start arguing that one side has a greater right to live the way they want, than do their victims. Starting to claim that drug users have a greater right to live lives with drug taking, than people that take the hit for this behavior have a right to live in peace and not be dragged into drugs or become victims of assault. Then it is obvious that that side in the discussion doesn't think all people are worth equal, and doesn't care about the lives of innocent people, and also cares so little about themselves that they do not care that they by speaking in favor of hurting innocents call the wrath upon these victims upon them, and give them justification for striking back in force and chastise them mightily, who hurt them when they only wanted peace.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 19:03
I have the right to express my opinion just as much as you do,. I think it's you who are trolling who keep saying drugs are so great. Last time I checked the normal opinion was for people to not want their children becoming drug addicts. My discussion is very much on topic since it's always coming back to how to solve the drug problem by a policy that isn't driven by overly political correctness ways of thinking. You have to stop your pet witch hunt against people who don't want drugs for themselves and their children. You simply can't tolerate that you're addicted while I'm not. Stop trying to derail this thread, and stop trying to pretend you're a moderator. If you do, there's a risk the moderators may come and lock this thread, which would be a shame. But maybe that's what you want?
So, what exactly am I addicted to? I don't recall saying anything about how I'm an addict and I want free drugs. You keep coming back to this irrational paranoia about "people will convince/force me or my kids to use drugs". If I didn't know any better I'd say you were telling me that I'm such a morally depraved character who gets kids addicted, as much as you use that argument whenever I post. I NEVER SAID EVERYBODY GET HIGH OR ELSE, I stated that I use herb, so I guess that makes me a "filthy dope pusher, eh". Amazing how you can be reasonable until someone makes the mistake of saying something that allows you to discount their opinions. You spoke like a reasonable person , albeit someone with very unalterable views, before I made the mistake of revealing that I sometimes use herb (that would be cannabis). I advocate a policy you happen to be against, so I must obviously be a junkie, correct? If your opening sentence is in fact true, why have you resorted to ad hominem attacks against me from almost the beginning of this discussion. Of course people don't want their children to become drug addicts, I don't want anyone's children to become drug addicts either. I would not invite your children to my home, as activities that are not child friendly may occur at times. I am an adult living in the US, and as such, I am entitled to all the protections of the US Constitution. I, and many people in my hometown, view the current policy as a failure, and unconstitutional besides. I did notice that you said that "marijuana could possibly be legalized, because it only causes low intelligence", and then proceeded with the you're a drug addict line. I realize that you think me of low intelligence, but I can call you on your faulty logic, for instance:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
...Should I?
Yeah, I will... I have nothing better to do right now...
Rodion, I am not even going to try to address all of what you have said, because that would be like trying to make headway through a blizzard. A blizzard of ignorance, in this case.
I will just tell you this. It is the honest-to-god truth.
I smoke marijuana. I DO NOT commit crime to support my habit. I DO NOT threaten others in any way. I DO NOT impose upon others to use drugs; in fact, I recently got into an argument with someone because they were trying to push someone else into drinking when they did not want to.
When I get high, the worst thing I will do is play "Big Brother and the Holding Company" full blast. Honestly, there's nothing funnier than seeing someone get pissed off about music that is almost 40 years old. Other than that, I may eat some baked chicken, watch a movie or go for a walk.
There you go. That is your stereotypical, depraved, borderline-psychotic drug addict, hell-bent on getting your children addicted to smack and angel dust and robbing his elderly rape victims at knife-point. What a load of crap.
You are the one that needs help, not me.
originally posted by Rodion Romanovich
Hypocrisy, this post of yours is drug glorification. You're indeed part of the problem with spreading drug usage to others by diminishing the dangers of its impact, and talking about how "fun" it is to get others hooked up. Think of how many read your post right now. Maybe 10 people. Out of them, statistically 1-4 may become drug addicts. Out of these 4, 1 may become a heroin user who kills innocent men, women and even children for $10 contribution to his next drug dose. If you really want to be able to retain your morality while using drugs, you have to use them hiddenly, not tell others that you're using them, and above all not try to diminish the danger of them. Finally, you're contributing to the herd mentality pressure. This generation, drug usage is going from less than 5-10% to almost 40% usage. People haven't changed in this time, but what has changed is the propaganda - now it's strongly pro-drugs, and drug addicts survive long enough - several years even on heroin - that young people, who usually have no concept of long term consequences of their actions - take their survival as proof that drugs are harmless, and so more get hooked up in the zoombie horde of drug addicts.
Where does he even mention others, besides the argument about pressure to drink? You seem to only read what you want into other people's posts, the exact same thing you accused me of.
As for me trying to derail this thread, just read the thread title. It's "legalize", not "persecute" all drugs.
Legalize all drugs. So what about date rape drugs? What about the drugs that increase the body temperature to dangerous rates?
Careful on what you want concerning legalization of drugs, there are drugs out there that people just should not take, but do because of the desire to get high. Drugs that do permant harm to the mind and body with just one time use.
How about Meth which rots the brain after just a few uses and is extremely addictive? Where the manufactoring of the drug creates extreme environmental hazards at the site that it is made.
When one speaks of legalizing drugs what does one mean? Is it free use or is it controlled use? Is it the state regulating the use through taxation like tobacco and achocal? Or is it legalization through something like a prescription through a paramcy?
Those who wish to rot their bodies and minds through the use of drugs can by all means to so, but careful on trying to make moral arguements on the use of drugs. Primarily because statues and laws make up the civic moral code and currently that code deems drugs as immoral.
Rodian, im just a little bit curios. Have you met any drug users and actually made friends with them? Had a conversation with them? Actually got high yourself?
Also, peer pressure is not as effective as you make it out to be. If I was actually influenced by peer pressure, I wouldnt be smoking marijuana. Iv seen people get very offensive when somebody presses drugs on them.
MerlinusCDXX
02-10-2008, 19:40
Legalize all drugs. So what about date rape drugs? What about the drugs that increase the body temperature to dangerous rates?
Careful on what you want concerning legalization of drugs, there are drugs out there that people just should not take, but do because of the desire to get high. Drugs that do permant harm to the mind and body with just one time use.
How about Meth which rots the brain after just a few uses and is extremely addictive? Where the manufactoring of the drug creates extreme environmental hazards at the site that it is made.
When one speaks of legalizing drugs what does one mean? Is it free use or is it controlled use? Is it the state regulating the use through taxation like tobacco and achocal? Or is it legalization through something like a prescription through a paramcy?
Those who wish to rot their bodies and minds through the use of drugs can by all means to so, but careful on trying to make moral arguements on the use of drugs. Primarily because statues and laws make up the civic moral code and currently that code deems drugs as immoral.
the thread title was already in existence, anyhow. all drugs-legalize, yes, but with ways of controlling/regulating which ones will actually be able to be used. Basically, legalistic trickery will have to be employed to minimize the use/ abuse of really harmful drugs. Make the "date rape drugs?" legal but unavailable. Drugs like ecstasy (I assume that's the temperature raising one to which you refer) should be subject to prescription. (I understand it is sometimes used in psycho-analysis) Those drugs that are physically addictive should be prescribed to only current addicts or those with a legitimate medical use. completely free use? dear God no, that would be anarchy. Classify them according to hazard level, for instance, cannabis-low, recreational use would be ok for adults, much like alcohol or tobacco.
In order to implement an effective drug policy, a combination of controls and regulations would have to be employed to keep total chaos at bay. My main problems with the current policy are the emphasis on punishing the consumer, the heavy-handed "one size fits all" categorization of drugs, and the government moralism on substances that are less dangerous than the current 'legal' drugs, just because of corruption, corporate favoritism, and institutionalised racism. (in 1937 when cannabis prohibition began)
EDIT: spelling
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 19:41
Rodian, im just a little bit curios. Have you met any drug users and actually made friends with them? Had a conversation with them? Actually got high yourself?
Also, peer pressure is not as effective as you make it out to be. If I was actually influenced by peer pressure, I wouldnt be smoking marijuana.
BS- I know drug addicts. By a certain age you will see what their addictions have done to them. Good people transformed into monsters with life threatening health problems. Across the board it eats away at the will to live and function around those that you care about.
the thread title was already in existence, anyhow. all drugs-legalize, yes, but with ways of controlling/regulating which ones will actually be able to be used. Basically, legalistic trickery will have to be employed to minimize the use/ abuse of really harmful drugs.
Then the arguement about legalization is a mute point. Your speaking of controlled drug use through regulation.
Make the "date rape drugs?" legal but unavailable. Drugs like ecstasy (I assume that's the temperature raising one to which you refer) should be subject to prescription. (I understand it is sometimes used in psycho-analysis)
Inconsistent arguement - date rape drugs should never be legal. That is using a substance to control another human being's behavior. Your arguement falls on its face when you speak of allowing such a drug to have any legal status.
Those drugs that are physically addictive should be prescribed to only current addicts or those with a legitimate medical use. completely free use? dear God no, that would be anarchy. Classify them according to hazard level, for instance, cannabis-low, recreational use would be ok for adults, much like alcohol or tobacco.
Again an inconsistent arguement with what you have presented.
In order to implement an effective drug policy, a combination of controls and regulations would have to be employed to keep total chaos at bay. My main problems with the current policy are the emphasis on punishing the consumer, the heavy-handed "one size fits all" categorization of drugs, and the government moralism on substances that are less dangerous than the current 'legal' drugs, just because of corruption, corporate favoritism, and institutionalised racism. (in 1937 when cannabis prohibition began)
EDIT: spelling
Again you only touch the surface. Your solution here is really no better then the current solution. Does something need to be done- that I agree with. Go after the wholesellers and the growers. Educate the people. Provide alternative cash crops for those who grow the substances. Lots of things can be done versus a not thought out plan of legalization of all drugs.
Reverend Joe
02-10-2008, 21:02
I kinda want to give everyone here a great big bear hug as we all sing, "Why can't we be friends? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8)" :dizzy2:
BS- I know drug addicts. By a certain age you will see what their addictions have done to them. Good people transformed into monsters with life threatening health problems. Across the board it eats away at the will to live and function around those that you care about.
I didnt say they didnt. Just that rodian paints of a picture of them as evil villians who steal old ladies purses and do anything or anyone for some quick cash, o and their skin burns when it touches the sunlight. Im wondering where this experiance of his comes from. My guess is goverment above the influence commericials.
LittleGrizzly
02-10-2008, 22:49
So you think all who go through some phase in life where they're uncertain and easily affected are untermenschen who should be cleansed out of the gene pool by overdoses because nobody protected them from drug glorification? And perhaps you also claim to be such a perfect human being yourself that you have never doubted about yourself and have never been affected by herd mentality?
That is bollocks. Especially teenagers in their low teens are very uncertain and easily affected by what they see and are told - I was no exception - often while believing they made the decisions freely when they "chose" what someone else persuaded them into doing.
well i had friends who were curious and wanted to try and some who didn't want to try and they didn't that was at the age of about 15 or so and they had decided themselves whether they wanted to do it, im not sure how often this drug pushing thing really happens what ive mainly seen is people get offered and then make a decision. I don't think drugs should be in the hands of 13 year olds but thats why i think legalisation of drugs is a good policy because i think with the right restrictions in place you could make it harder for children to get thier hands on drugs.
I don't know why you mix weed into this discussion, as I've already pointed out that's one of the few drugs that could be possible to legalize. Whatever point you tried to make with weed is moot.
i realised after making the point that you mentioned that fair enough, but even though the production is more expensive for man made drugs they could still go through the same illegal chain as weed does which means the original production value which wouldn't be all much gets at least doubled in value most steps of the chain and your average customer would probably be quite a few steps down the chain
Yeah right, like it's harder for kids to get guns in USA than in say Britain...
Yes but with the right restrictions in place.
Only distributed by the goverment through pharmacys
a strict 21 and over limit and a limit on amounts you can buy
harsh penaltys for anyone handing drugs onto kids
people buying alot could be made to register and if something is suspected they could be checked out
and thats off the top of my head im sure theres more that could be put in place.
These are relevant points. If you give people the freedom to annoy and harass, sometimes you must consider either withdrawing these freedoms or correspondingly give people the freedom to fight back. If someone harasses you with spice girls music, there could for example be laws saying nobody is allowed to have so loud music that it can be heard by the neighbors. Or since you obviously can't revenge with playing loud music to such people, the law could allow you to punch them into the face. But since people are generally against violence, it's usually preferable to restrict the freedom to play loud crap music when people try to sleep. Freedom isn't only about removing laws, sometimes it's about passing them. Typically only an insane lunatic would have any true need to listen to spice girls so loud that the neighbors can't sleep at night. So restricting that freedom isn't really oppression. But it is oppression to force people to listen to spice girls by denying them any means of negotiation pressure to force the spice girls listening person in the example to stop destroying their sleep. So if you want a freedom of person A to hurt person B, then you had better simultaneously grant person B a freedom to hurt person A back. If drug users can persuade my children into drugs when they're uncertain teenagers and they have a freedom to do so, then I don't see why there should be no freedom for me to cut the throat off those who harm my children in such a way.
so your main point is your problem with drug legalisation is those drugs getting into the hands of children, one of my points is with the right restrictions we could make it harder for kids to get thier hands on drugs.
Yes, and I want the freedom to be able to choose NOT to have people trying to convince my children to take drugs.
well if it was legalised there would be no dealers to try and tell people to take it for profit there will be other influences but they are there with or without legalisation, so legalising would make it less cooler (legal but illegal for thier age) and there wouldn't be people tryng to get people hooked so they can make money
No
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point then...
They're not killing any other people that those who have chosen freely to kill themselves.
well someone who takes ecstacy once every few weeks has not chosen to kill themself anymore than a 40 a day smoker, i don't think your average drug customer is on a spiral that will kill them very soon anyway.
In the process they save the lives of thousands of children and teenagers.
i just don't see the plan working, people already have thier sources and i would say most drug sales come from word of mouth and making a contact, if your just killing people your not going to get far.
date rape drugs should never be legal.
I would agree, i don't think all drugs should be legal i think weed, ecstacy, amphetamines, cocaine and acid should be legal, im unsure on heroin i can see alot of good coming from its legalisation, crystal meth and other drugs i don't now enough about
date rape drugs should never be legal.
I would agree, i don't think all drugs should be legal i think weed, ecstacy, amphetamines, cocaine and acid should be legal, im unsure on heroin i can see alot of good coming from its legalisation, crystal meth and other drugs i don't now enough about
Now we are getting somewhere - defining what type of drugs should be legalized. However one should be careful about including acid in the equation of legalized drugs. It has adverse effects that are not short term - and one can have flashbacks from the drug because it lies in the spinal cord for many years after use. I know of people who have been severely damaged from the use of LSD.
Drugs are a serious issue that goes beyond just a surface declartion of being made illegal or even legal. If one does not understand the effect of drugs on the human body or the pysic then on should be careful on the advocation of such substances. For instance crystal meth kills the brain and leaves a permament addiction to the user after just a few uses.
Now my own personal opinion is if the drug comes from nature - ie its grown such as Marijuna, opium, mushrooms, and yes even cocaine if it is sold in the leaf form then legalization through regulation and taxation could be a possible solution that I could accept - even though I am against drug use because of the waste that it normally results in to the human experience. To many lifes are wasted because of drugs.
Any drug made by man or distilled through a man-made process should be restricted to medical use only.
Rodion Romanovich
02-11-2008, 11:40
Yes but with the right restrictions in place.
Only distributed by the goverment through pharmacys
a strict 21 and over limit and a limit on amounts you can buy
harsh penaltys for anyone handing drugs onto kids
people buying alot could be made to register and if something is suspected they could be checked out
and thats off the top of my head im sure theres more that could be put in place.
[...]
so your main point is your problem with drug legalisation is those drugs getting into the hands of children, one of my points is with the right restrictions we could make it harder for kids to get thier hands on drugs.
I don't think your suggested policy would make it harder for kids to get drugs. It IS illegal and has HARSH penalties already now to spread drugs to children. Also did this occur to you: if you get lower drug prices by having it legal for old enough people, then some 21 years old person can get very cheap drugs (much cheaper than smuggled stuff) and sell it to the kids. The kids will still pay quite a lot, since they can't acquire the stuff legally. What you just did then, is to make life a lot easier for illegal drug dealers.
As for buying much, that hasn't worked either, there are plenty of physicians who can get hold of it easily in large quantities and some have been caught only after 10 years of incredibly much drug dealing, who knows how many latent and uncaught drug dealing physicians there are out there, and believe me there ARE strict controls over people acquiring suspiciously much.
Yes, and I want the freedom to be able to choose NOT to have people trying to convince my children to take drugs.
well if it was legalised there would be no dealers to try and tell people to take it for profit there will be other influences but they are there with or without legalisation, so legalising would make it less cooler (legal but illegal for thier age) and there wouldn't be people tryng to get people hooked so they can make money
The biggest influence isn't from drug dealers, it's from friends. Same as with tobacco, their commercials aren't particularly important, but movies and friends acting as influence, however are.
CountArach
02-11-2008, 23:10
I don't know what Navaros thinks about drugs, but I agree to most of his very sensible opinions except about abortion.
More impressively, he's also the only Bible reader I've met who actually understood the methaphorical meaning of chapter 3-6 of Genesis.
:laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.