The drugs and our inherent freedoms

Lately i've seen some members (i'll not give names) that call the drogadicts druggies (a kind of profiling), and that they need rehabilitation, because they've to be valuable members for the society, and false statements like this ones. The thing is that in all our constitutions wheter it be argentinian (art. 17), french (i don't know the part), german or USA (1 amendment), those simple mentions grants all the guarantee that all that we do in privacy are not for the society or the state to judge, period. So even if I can give more arguments in favour of drugs legitimacy. How can the moralists or conservatives justify this position still? This is something that still amuses me. But let's hear your opinions, it doesn't matter how archaic they are.

Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.

Feel free to smoke a can of Ajax, Soul. As long as I don't have to fund your lifestyle and it's consequences, be my guest.

I must say that I have a hard time to understand mystic around drugs. I have a Master of Science in Chemical Engineering and learned very early how to do heavy drugs in the kitchen. Even though I have never used them nor produced them.
Its also hard to blame the drugs themselves for the problems they actually cause. I believe that there is something else wrong when they are abused. An alcoholic, drug addict or even an obese person have all made the choice and if they need help they should get it. The whole blown up picture on "war on drugs" is more like a farse to me. With this said, I do understand the seriousness of the situation and the cost for society drugs cause as well as the many peoples lives that are destroyed.
One thing is sure, I am happy that I am not a politician that have to make any decision in this question...... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

But let's hear your opinions, it doesn't matter how archaic they are.

---

Stop being such an Argentinian, SF! The reviews are coming back from your guys' world travels, and they are mostly not good (though we like your women). If you keep it up we'll just have to lump you all in with the French! ~D

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society.

---

How archaic!

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal.

---

I'll admit it GC i started this thread for your outdated coments ~;) . Ok, but that's moral the state cannot mess with moral, and period. The things that you do to your own life is your problem. Your first amendment protects those rights. And i think you're confusing all, the state (i said this a hundred of times but...) judges only the actions that damages others people rights, so this means that if the drugadict goes, under the influence of that drug, and kills someone then he has to be punished by that, so those excuses that they're detrimental are just stupid. I've seen you specially criticize a lot communism, you might want to know that this kind of believes are remanents of despotism and national socialism, wich pretended to enter others people lives. The legal system applied to crimes done in an "alterated" state is complicated to explain it here, but don't worry it's enough to disuade a man from taking drugs to commit the crime or taking drugs when he/she knows that will commit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?
Their drug use has become a public matter.

---

Wrong the public matter are the actions under the influence and not the drugs, the actions derivated from drug using should be treated separately. The crime commited or the imprudence then should be punished properly, but the individual has to have all his rights to do you what he wants.

Quote:

---

Feel free to smoke a can of Ajax, Soul. As long as I don't have to fund your lifestyle and it's consequences, be my guest.

---

And why not togheter?...Just kidding, personally drugs don't atract me...

The drug laws are unconstitutional and a bigger detriment to society than a safegaurd. As long as you do it in your own home its no ones damn bussiness. I also cant believe conservatives back the most intrusive government intervention in the history of the US since prohibition. It seems we either learned little or the government learned it could make a lot of money and gain a lot of power by declaring a WAR on drugs. This makes the patriot act look tame but many of you defend this crap. The government created the drug problem by introducing the huge profits by making them ilegal in the first place.

Quote:

---

It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community.

---

Then how do you reconcile the sale and manufacture of alcohol and ciggarettes. Again all your doing is encouraging crime. It dosent matter who makes or sells them. If people want them they will get them and someone will make and sell them. The only answer is education. Again untill we made them ilegal there was little or no drug problem here. There is no difference between this prohibition and the old one. Just the name of the drugs involved. Bye the way people usewd to get high by taking small amounts of arsenic yet you can still buy it over the counter and it will easily kill you. Just put a skull and crossbones on the packaging. That will discourage a few from trying it. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The drug laws are unconstitutional and a bigger detriment to society than a safegaurd. As long as you do it in your own home its no ones damn bussiness. I also cant believe conservatives back the most intrusive government intervention in the history of the US since prohibition. It seems we either learned little or the government learned it could make a lot of money and gain a lot of power by declaring a WAR on drugs. This makes the patriot act look tame but many of you defend this crap. The government created the drug problem by introducing the huge profits by making them ilegal in the first place.

---

This is my position, but again privacy doesn't mean just your home, privacy means that it doesn't affects others.

Quote:

---

Drugs are harmful. Doing them should not be encouraged. Heck, doing them should not even be illegal. Manufacturing them, and selling them, however, should. Why the discrepcancy? Because to try and bust everyone who sniffs a bit of crack, of injects a bit of heroine would be impossible, and most intrusive upon the constitution.

---

No, any intrusion in personal matters,are by nature even the most minimal measure, unconstitutional and against freedom.

Quote:

---

It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community.

---

No, but by legalicing them your country and you will have a lot less problems, that includes narcotrafic, though doing it now will create a lot of problems to the international community, and that's the main cause why the state keeps this kind of unconstitutional laws (keep in mind that narcotraffic represents a huge part of the product -something about the 30% of the PBI, or Internal Brute Product). The idea of poisoning community are very archaic too, the state cannot involve with customs of a group of people, nor with their separated private acts.

Quote:

---

They would still be a great debilitator of society.

---

And so is alcohol and countles other things. Heck I think liberalism is a great debilitator of society. Should we lock all the liberals up? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal.

---

And alcohol and tobacco and chewing gum, yes. ~:cheers:

Perhaps because drugs are addictive? And that they CAN and WILL cause harms to others? Or perhaps because, if legalized, a single arsehole can, with some complications, forced unsuspected victims to become addicted to the drugs?

I myself hate tobacco, with a passion. But I guess as an interest group they're too powerful. ~:handball:

My personal opinion in this matter is that after over decade of Smoking and occasional heavy drinking.I dont have what it takes to start a drug addiction.In that case i would prefer to lay down and die.(And dont ask me do i have a hangover right now). :sick2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.

---

that's very true, and it is analogous with alcohol. when someone is drunk and driving, it is a public matter. does it make alcohol illegal? no, the same should be true for hash.

If drugs were legal we'd have far less problems with organised crime...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

that's very true, and it is analogous with alcohol. when someone is drunk and driving, it is a public matter. does it make alcohol illegal? no, the same should be true for hash.

---

Actually driving while drunk is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Actually driving while drunk is illegal.

---

I know that, that's my point. It's illegal only WHILE driving. it's not illegal to consume alcohol at a party. however, it is illegal to consume hash at a party, im asking; why the difference?

I'm with you Soulforged. It's no one's business what another person does to himself, as long as it only impacts himself.

Quote:

---

Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.

---

Then they get in trouble, once it becomes a public matter. But people go to jail when it is just private. Blaim the person, not the drug.

Quote:

---

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal.

---

It is not a detriment. The people who do crime on drugs would still commit crimes anyway.

Quote:

---

Actually driving while drunk is illegal.

---

Yes. But alchol is not. Driving while high should be illegal, not getting high. Huge difference.
Damn, Sjakihata beat me to it. ~;)

Quote:

---

Perhaps because drugs are addictive? And that they CAN and WILL cause harms to others? Or perhaps because, if legalized, a single arsehole can, with some complications, forced unsuspected victims to become addicted to the drugs?

---

Oh please. Most drugs are less addictive than tobacco, and no one can be forced to become addicted. There is no such thing as being forced to do drugs, it bull. And if someone commits a crime while on drugs, they should pay for that crime, not for doing the drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Oh please. Most drugs are less addictive than tobacco, and no one can be forced to become addicted. There is no such thing as being forced to do drugs, it bull. And if someone commits a crime while on drugs, they should pay for that crime, not for doing the drugs.

---

Well, to be picky, someone could deceive you into trying something that is far more physically addictive than suggested, or you could be held against your will and made into a junkie. However, in defence of the theme if not the letter of your statement, in both these instances there are other types of crime being perpetrated as well.

The only way to win the war on drugs is to destroy the market for them. History in all ages and cultures show that if there is a market for some commodity, someone will find a way to provide it, as Gawain pointed out.

So, unless we are going to pursue and punish every user as well as the dealers and manufacturors, the war is inherently unwinnable. Legalizing all of this stuff would, in the long run, probably decrease the number of users -- but I pity the younger generations during the first decade or two after legalization. Some of these substances can do profound and lasting harm.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Legalizing them won't solve any of the inherant problems created by drugs. It would only cause the problems we've caused by trying to get rid of them. Legalizing them won't make them safe. It won't make people realize that they can get addicted. It won't mean people use them responsibly. They would still be a great debilitator of society.

---

You see GC, you're missing the point over and over again. Legal system doesn't rule over that, the sentence is very simple to comprehend: "what you do with yourself is your problem", morality is not the subject of the state, this theory you're talking about is called paternalist, the state assumes the role of your father, and that's beyond the atributtes they've. No there's no justification to keep drugs from being legal, legalicing them at least narco traffic (the most profitable bussnisess of all history) will be out, and narco traffic is a problem of the state, not the same with personal responsability on drugs, the only thing the state can do (and even in this case it will be like the subject of the pledge) is pass propaganda to disuade people, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Indeed. Allow me to rephrase my position:

Drugs are harmful. Doing them should not be encouraged. Heck, doing them should not even be illegal. Manufacturing them, and selling them, however, should. Why the discrepcancy? Because to try and bust everyone who sniffs a bit of crack, of injects a bit of heroine would be impossible, and most intrusive upon the constitution.

It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community.

In keeping with my ethics, however, I think it should be up to the individual states.

---

I'm with you on that, with one (somewhat obvious) addition. It's fine not to bust people for just doing drugs- but, being under their influence should be no excuse for doing stupid things. Treat any criminal acts performed while high as intentional acts.

As to the alchohol comparison, I find it invalid. You can, and many people do, drink alcohol without becoming inebriated. The intended use of alcohol is not to get hammered. However, the intended use of drugs is to get high. Sure, people can abuse alcohol- you can abuse food, but the only purpose of these narcotics is abuse.

Well, most people I know just drink to get drunk. Of course they're all minors anyway.

Xiahou, I agree that crimes while under the influence should be punished like normal criminals. But as long as someone is doing drugs and does not commit any crimes (not couting the act of doing the drugs), there is no problem in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Lately i've seen some members (i'll not give names) that call the drogadicts druggies (a kind of profiling), and that they need rehabilitation, because they've to be valuable members for the society, and false statements like this ones.

---

Would you also leave people with serious psychiatric disorders to fend for themselves as long as they do not ask for outside help? I guess not. Well, I have news for you, coming straight from the Sodom and Gemorra of the western hemisphere, Amsterdam.

Over here, addiction to certain substances (such as heroine) is treated as a serious psychiatric disorder requiring outside help, mandatory in many cases, varying from methadon therapy to cold turkey. These addictions are often part of a syndrom, a complex of related personality problems and social issues combined with alcohol abuse, medicin abuse, financial problems and outright crime.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a distinction between innocent drugs and the seriously addictive stuff. Marijuana is not a problem. Most drugs do not kill. But some drug addictst kill either themselves or others, or both at the same time, and experience informs us that we better take good care of them before they reach that stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Would you also leave people with serious psychiatric disorders to fend for themselves as long as they do not ask for outside help? I guess not. Well, I have news for you, coming straight from the Sodom and Gemorra of the western hemisphere, Amsterdam.

---

That's a different case, try to focus.

Quote:

---

Over here, addiction to certain substances (such as heroine) is treated as a serious psychiatric disorder requiring outside help, mandatory in many cases, varying from methadon therapy to cold turkey. These addictions are often part of a syndrom, a complex of related personality problems and social issues combined with alcohol abuse, medicin abuse, financial problems and outright crime.

---

Well and your point? It doesn't matter if I want to put **** in me then i should be able to ******* do it, for God's sake is that people don't understand that, this subjects are not for the state to treat. The person that enters the influence and commits crimes (i've a surprise for you), yes, they're punished for that, but the state cannot act like the father and even less enter in your freedom. :wall:

Quote:

---

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a distinction between innocent drugs and the seriously addictive stuff. Marijuana is not a problem. Most drugs do not kill. But some drug addictst kill either themselves or others, or both at the same time, and experience informs us that we better take good care of them before they reach that stage.

---

And so? Again if the guy or all of us do that and kill other then we're punished for imprudent murder, or didn't you know that?

Quote:

---

I'm with you on that, with one (somewhat obvious) addition. It's fine not to bust people for just doing drugs- but, being under their influence should be no excuse for doing stupid things. Treat any criminal acts performed while high as intentional acts.

---

Hello this is an old theory called actio libera in causa (all this things that people have been saying on this thread and others makes me remember the trial by jury thread, i don't know why... :no:), this serves for your purpose and is justified, though wrongly, in many legislations. The guy who for example get's into an alterated state and then commits a crime is punished with imprudency. The one that get's in that state to commit a crime (intend) it's punished with unfinished tentative plus imprudency. As you see the legal system is always working on this. But the drugs should not be porhibited, is freedom for God's sake, it amuses me that the guys from the land of the free and of the braves keep saying things like this.

Quote:

---

As to the alchohol comparison, I find it invalid. You can, and many people do, drink alcohol without becoming inebriated. The intended use of alcohol is not to get hammered. However, the intended use of drugs is to get high. Sure, people can abuse alcohol- you can abuse food, but the only purpose of these narcotics is abuse.

---

Oh, sure and how about the ones that uses marihuana (that don't even kills) for medical purposes or just as social drugs (like alcohol, yes like alcohol, ~:eek: )?

Adrian, I never thought of that, but that is certaintly a good idea. I have always struggled with myself whether or not herion should be legal (not that it ever will be anyway), and I have never come to a conclusion. But locking up junkies is certaintly not a good way to go.

Now I finally have an answer for myself about heroin addicts. I assume that heroin is illegal over there, or not? And do they serve jail time, or just put in therapy?

I think that something like your country's system should be the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Adrian, I never thought of that, but that is certaintly a good idea. I have always struggled with myself whether or not herion should be legal (not that it ever will be anyway), and I have never come to a conclusion. But locking up junkies is certaintly not a good way to go.

---

Oh, oh,... you're loosing your way Steppe.

Quote:

---

Now I finally have an answer for myself about heroin addicts. I assume that heroin is illegal over there, or not? And do they serve jail time, or just put in therapy?

---

It doesn't matter it's still a problem of personal freedoms. It's not that hard to understand, don't? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

(..) the state cannot act like the father and even less enter in your freedom. :wall:

---

I believe you have no idea what heroin addiction is, what it makes people do, and what it does to those around them. At your age many things appear simple and easy, as you state; that is because you lack the knowledge and experience to understand their complexity. There is no way, for instance, that freedom and heroin addiction are compatible. The one thing all heroin addicts have in common is that they are not in control of their thoughts and emotions, their actions and the direction of their life. The few heroin addicts I know who manage to live with their habit only do so because of a carefully controlled lifestyle, a sort of balancing act with lots of daily rituals, medicine and social and professional support - much like serious psychiatric patients.Usually they are the lucky ones who had good friends before addiction struck, friends who then moved heaven and earth to get them the best treatment.

Quote:

---

Again if the guy or all of us do that and kill other then we're punished for imprudent murder, or didn't you know that?

---

Murder is most imprudent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Oh, oh,... you're loosing your way Steppe.

---

I have always despised heroin. It has ruined to many great people, and unlike pot, LSD, shrooms, alcohol and even cigarrettes and cocaine it is horribley addictive as well as being dangerous.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter it's still a problem of personal freedoms. It's not that hard to understand, don't? ~:confused:

---

I certaintly understand it being about personal freedoms. But there is a point between harming yourself and society, and I'm not sure if a heroin addict can not harm society. I would never want them in jail, but rehab, perhaps madatory is certaintly not a bad idea, IMO. After all, if they really wanted to, they could just start it back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I believe you have no idea what heroin addiction is, what it makes people do, and what it does to those around them. At your age many things appear simple and easy, as you state; that is because you lack the knowledge and experience to understand their complexity. There is no way, for instance, that freedom and heroin addiction are compatible. The one thing all heroin addicts have in common is that they are not in control of their thoughts and emotions, their actions and the direction of their life. The few heroin addicts I know who manage to live with their habit only do so because of a carefully controlled lifestyle, a sort of balancing act with lots of daily rituals, medicine and social and professional support - much like serious psychiatric patients.Usually they are the lucky ones who had good friends before addiction struck, friends who then moved heaven and earth to get them the best treatment

---

I don't care what heroin addiction is Adrian but you're missing the point. If you tend to punish conssume then you're acussing the comsumer of delincuent just for expressing his rights to do whatever they want with thier bodies. If they suffer after that is their problem, the state cannot intervein, period. The freedom is guaranteed on the constitution, that I assume your country has, then quit using experience and use actual law or any rights, i don't care but experience doesn't serve as general rule. The state cannot act like father

Quote:

---

Murder is most imprudent.

---

Well I don't understand that statement, but I assume you wanted to say that murder cannot be imprudent. The people under any influence (here called by the doctrine "alterated facultades") is called inimputable (he has no capacity of clpability, in other words he cannot conprehend his acts or control his movements) so all crimes commited under any influece are imprudent, and have a reduced penal scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteppeMerc

I certaintly understand it being about personal freedoms. But there is a point between harming yourself and society, and I'm not sure if a heroin addict can not harm society. I would never want them in jail, but rehab, perhaps madatory is certaintly not a bad idea, IMO. After all, if they really wanted to, they could just start it back up.

---

You're wrong that's not the problem if it affects other people's rights then they get punished, period. The conducts are two different, one is not punishable the other yes. The responsability on health of the person and even of the entire society is not an atribution of the state, it may seem like it but it's not.