The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property.
Printable View
The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property.
But Strike, prohibition works. Why mess with a system that's functioning so well?
Among certain people physical health is their religion and anything that harms it is sacraligious.
Dam right. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Legalising hard-drugs is polically supporting twisted regimes, we can't do that. As a recreational user I wouldn't mind having it legalised when homegrown but I would never support it legalisation as it is now. Bit hard, if the government allows you to swim with great whites there is little justification in banning drugs but it doesn't always have to be fair.
Hmm, should it be legal to drive intoxicated as well as long as you do not harm anyone?
We must ban all products from China. Immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Where's the potential harm for others in you taking a hard drug? As long as you don't start driving while intoxicated..Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Then don't buy the drugs:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Damn straight. The government shouldn't be able to tell ME I can't drink and drive. I should be able to decide what I want to do while I'm drunk. *tears up ticket*
This isn't about drinking and driving its about the legalization of but not limited to Pot, Coke, Shrooms, Heroine, Meth, Speed, LSD, Ecstasy etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
That was sarcastic, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
But everyone must be converted!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Should russian roulette be legal if you don't kill anyone? :dizzy2:Quote:
Hmm, should it be legal to drive intoxicated as well as long as you do not harm anyone?
Some people take steroids (which are extremely misunderstood but trying to argue that is useless) in order to get a better body...on second thought I dont know what youre sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Point is that if those drugs are made legal, they are also made more available meaning more people will use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
As the government's job is to protect stupid people from themselves, banning hard drugs also reduces the number of people that drive or do other potentially dangerous activities while being under the influence of the drugs.
Its called harm prevention. Generally better for society than waiting for the harm to occur and then dealing with it (note: loss of life is difficult to compensate)
If someone wants to ruin their lives with drugs let them. The government should be involved as little as possible in our personal lives. The government is not your mother it should not hold your hand through your life. Not to mention if you're to dumb to understand the risks you might be better off six feet under. A little individual responsibility never hurt anyoneQuote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Despite our lax laws we have the lowest use of cannabis in europe save the Irish. Allowing is sometimes prevention.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
SFTS: I think you are missing my point. What I am saying is that while we might not care what people do to themselves, as soon as they do something which may affect others (i.e. driving a car), it affects everyone. If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?
Fragony: But Texas is not the Netherlands :wink:
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from fallingQuote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from
falling into error."
--US Supreme Court
I think the numbers of users who increase due to legalization will be statistically negligible. People aren't going to sit there and say " Herion is 4.99 well dadgum might as well try it". The legality of these drugs plays little role in the people who actually use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
BigotQuote:
Fragony: But Texas is not the Netherlands
Off to ban alcohol as well then. And driving without a purpose accepted by the constitution. Save them lives and let them be lived tight.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Insurance prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I think he's been clear he doesn't support that being legal.Quote:
If he runs over someone while under the influence of drugs, do you just say "tough luck"?
I want to say I agree with everything Strike's said in this thread.
CR
Legalize them.
I disagree. The government should protect people from the stupidity of others, and I don't disagree with food and safety standards and suchlike meant to protect consumers. Using drugs is different in that people make a conscious decision to accept a certain risk. Grown adults should be treated as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I sure hope you exercise everyday and only eat health food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Also people who die from drug use don't collect social security
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
While they are illegal, their prices are significantly higher and they are available only on the black market via dealers. Once they become legalized, the prices drop and you can sell them openly on the street. I would imagine especially young people who can then afford it will give it a try and possibly end up seriously harmed or dead as a result, costing the taxpayers healthcare because in current society we care for the ill and don't just leave them to die as we used to.
Viking: Hard drugs have a lot more negative effects in comparison to alcohol. You'll end up with a lot more harmed newborns (who did not ask to be harmed while in the womb of an addict or someone who gave the drugs a try), kids who happen to see it on the kitchen counter and similarly, a larger number of addicts (hard drugs are more addictive than soft drugs like alcohol, hence the name) that go through the taxpaid health system.
Becuase the majority of citizens in almost any given country do not want the side effects that accompany free use of hard drugs. Just look at the late 1800's and early 1900's opium problems, in most countries even in that era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A person on acid, shrooms and other halucinogens is no longer in complete control of their person and can become a threat to others quite easily. Pcp is something of another beast, people have been known to take round after round of bullets and be nearly unaffected by it. Meth, and the assorted anffedamines also massively hamper ones ability to think of consequences, and are massively addictive. Nearly the same with cocaine and crack.
The reason why hard drugs are illegal, is simply becuase society has decided that they want them banned. The ills committed by those under their use is unwanted and banning the use of them is one way of trying to control it.
Cannabis is not a hard drug, no where near it and uncomparable. Why cannabis is illegal is a totally different reason then most hard drugs. In the USA alot of it has to do with racism in the early 1900's prohibition atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Cannabis should be legal imop, there is little wrong with it. If someone get's their jolly's getting stoned downing a bag of potatoe chips and generally being lazy for a bit then it's not the governments concern. Weed has been used by man for most of our history.
Alcohol and tobacco kills more people than all other drugs combined. Alcohol is on the same level as coke. You just think its safer because the media tells you that. LOL alcohol causes just as many birth defects if not more than these hard drugs. I have been offered coke and ex before at parties and the like and their prices were very reasonable in fact I probably could've talked the guy down. Anyone who is been around the club scene knows the illegality of these drugs is a joke. Not to mention the money this would save the criminal justice system.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Cocaine is and I have been using it (in weekends) since, well forever. If you get caught with it the police will just take it off you and let you go. It is good, drug problem is virtually non-existant here. But legalising, nah. Better to turn a blind eye like we do, too complicated and too hard to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Alcohol can produce the same effects and yet it is championed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
I think that's a pretty sound argument. The use of hard drugs is an extremely destructive behavior and there is no way in modern life for the effects to be limited to just the user.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Then we should ban alcoholQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Some of the same effects (when abused), yes. How many alcohol related problems do we have in our society with it being largely legal? Yet you're telling me that legalizing stronger, more dangerous mind-altering substances will make all of the problems associated with them go away?:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It wont make them go away but the pros outweigh the cons. Think of the revenue from the tax of these drugs and think of the burden it would release on the CJ system. Think of what it would do to gangs here! The number of users would not skyrocket they may go up but not by any statistically substantial numbers. Not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in my bidnessQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Controling it costs money so it will make for higher price for the product, you will never get rid of the black market that way because the black market will always provide it cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Bullox, the side effects of alochol are uncomparable to acid, pcp, meth, bowlo, cocaine or almost any other "hard drug". Even then, society creates laws to prohibit what a person using alochol can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
My fellow citizens find it hard to even manage to miantian a proper diet. To prevent basic disease, or even find the capability to floss their own teeth. How am I supposed to trust the average citizen with hard mind altering hallucinogens, narcotics, or anfedamines and then hope it will not end up affecting me in a very most negative of ways. Most people cannot even manage to stop drinking when they should.
No it will not make them go away. But it will severely reduce the amount of user's, the amount they can get and their ability to afford it. It is unprovable that the legalization of hard drugs somehow outways the negative impact it will have. The value of life, the value of lives forever lost is inmesureable.Quote:
It wont make them go away but the pros outweigh the cons. Think of the revenue from the tax of these drugs and think of the burden it would release on the CJ system. Think of what it would do to gangs here! The number of users would not skyrocket they may go up but not by any statistically substantial numbers. Not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in my bidness
I should be able to sell myself into slavery. How dare the government tell me what I can and cannot do with my own life and body!
The banning of powerful "hard drugs" is not the government telling you what you can do to your own body. It is the will of society telling you, you cannot have the power to damage another persons life becuase of a poor decision. You do not have the right to, constitutionally even, to destroy another persons basic rights. So you can argue your right to use them, becuase it is your body and no one may tell you what you can and cannot do to it. But they can repeat the exact same arguement to the contrary. When your decision to alter your body affects another, then it is no longer just your decision to alter your body.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
So, despite the trillions of dollars, and a hundred years spent on prevention programs and law enforcement and imprisionment and treatment, young people still demand drugs (old people, too; it's just that a young Texan has proposed legalization here).
We could stop the money-drain going into those obviously ineffective programs, and to non-US producers and distributors, create untold hundreds of thousands of new jobs (producing and distributing gauranteed-quality product) by embracing the inevitable, and always growing, demand for mind-altering substances, instead of fighting it.
Take drugs away from the DEA and charge the FDA with establishing growing, processing, manufacturing, distributing, and retailing - drugs. All of 'em. Set standards for production.
At what age do we allow the purchase? 12? 16? 18, surely (if they can vote, and they can kill or die for society, they can intoxicate themselves). 21? 30?
IMO, an intoxicated person should not be able to operate any equipment more complicated than a keyboard, because of the exponential increase of risk to others. So, for me, DWI laws stay in place.
I heard that's unhealthy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
They don't all die, some just suffer mental damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Kukri, should we also stop all AIDS campaigns because we still have new infections despite these?
Should be obvious noone listens to them anyway. :shrug:
Imagine creating a legally recognized industry, with all of the political clout that comes with it, that exists to grow and expand the market of people who will buy hard, terribly addictive substances that can cause otherwise normal people to want to rob and kill others for it. Tobacco has been losing clout recently, so we are seeing a fall in its political power, but this would be massive. Remember when tobacco companies targeted youths to get them hooked young? You honestly believe that growth oriented mega-pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to hook as many people as possible? Look what they've done with medicinal controlled substances that don't cause chemical addictions!Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
While we are at it - lets get rif of the defense department. Imagine how much money we've spent on defense when it would be much cheaper and probably not that bad to just lose a war...
Hardly purely young people. Mostly young, niave, middle classed youths who have never been touched by, nor truly seen what effects those drugs have on people and society.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
It is hardly a money drain when it decreases the users, yes it actually does. If you want evidence the simplest method is opium users before and after prohibition of it.
There is no method of controling the intake of those drugs for one person. A lot of times it does not matter either. Some pcp and suddenly hours latter the person swears his own mother is a an alien set out to kill him, and winds up chasing her down the street trying to kill her with a butcher knife (true story). Not to mention the half life of that specific hard drug is over a decade, so there is the possibility of tripping for 10 years straight.....
Legalize cannabis, leave the others alone, they were banned for a reason.
Sounds like alcohol to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Heroin is one of the most harmless "hard" drugs around. I can see why people think legalizing LSD is a bad idea, but come on...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Relatively.
Dirty needles and unpurities have nothing to do with the drug itself. The adictiveness and bad effects are minor compared to meth or cocaine.
LOL. That link shows H being cooked in a beer can. A legalized, regulated, sanitary heroin deliver system would eliminate all of those risks except dependency. And programs exist for that.
A drug-induced raving maniac is - a maniac - and law enforcement treats as such, whether his motivation is PHP, whiskey, or an imbalanced brain chemisty.
You have to read the whole thing, not just the list. There's all kinds of stuff like toxic leukoencephalopathy, conditioning, dependence, and possibly decreased kidney function.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Worse than cirrosis of the liver?
p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies :bow:
I'm very much opposed to making hard drugs legal, but then I'd also support a prohibition on alcohol if I thought it was enforcable.
Because I'm a commie and I'm out to steal your freedom! :whip:
Damn right. The only obvious exceptions should be date-rape drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What if someone puts LSD in your drink instead? Maybe I need the "date rape" drug because I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Nah, those are half the fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Does cirrhosis occur with a minor or normal consumption level of alcohol? Honest question.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
No worries, I didn't think you meant it in a personal way at all. :bow:Quote:
p.s. I meant nothing with the "maniac" crack back there. I only just now re-realized it was part of your username. Apologies :bow:
Obviously there would be restrictions on giving the drug to people against their will.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
EDIT: Damn it CR, we did it again...
It's the one thing I dont understand. Why would you want to lose control of your body? I am terrified of being forced into taking something (drugs/alcohol) that will cause me to lose 100% control of my body and how I think.
People do stupid things, and I know from my peer base if they were legal use would skyrocket. Hell, they are already stashing it in their cars and selling it on the ovals. Taking at form time etc.
It disgusts me.
EDIT: Congrats on 5k posts CA
I disagree! :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The very definition of an addict is that he is not capable of deciding out of his own free will what he puts into his body. He is a slave to his addiction. It is not only the government's mere right, but duty to protect him from further harm. Even when disregarding all effects on third parties, like driving under influence, operating equipment and social effects.
I agree! :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Incidentally, this is why I think the government has no right to interfere with a woman's wish of abortion.
Gah! Maybe I should start a socialism thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
To all those who support the 'War on Drugs' in the US (or your own countries) - how has that turned out? We've been losing it for decades in the US, and for what? We have a raft of new laws that undermine our valued freedoms, innocent people are killed or robbed by the government, and drugs are still easy to purchase.
Prohibition has got us nothing but loss of our freedoms.
CR
(Though I might not support decriminalization of Meth - dangerous to make and it harms your body a lot more than the other hard drugs, IIRC)
Bootlegging = illegal. Whether it's moonshine, heroin or CDs.
People suggest the dumbest of things...
First of all, the argument "People should be allowed as long as they don't interfere with other people's lives". As it is known for the past handful of decades, that doesn't happen. Once a person gets too addicted (As people need gradually more and more amount of the same drug to get the same effect) and runs out of money, it WILL start interfering with other people's lives to satisfy that adiction. That argument is simply well beyond null. And since it eventually happens so, then it is forbidden.
Now, soft drugs that another thing. But even there, there needs to be a mentality of responsibility to be allowed legal. Otherwise, we have kids and teenagers doing soft drugs in every corner of the streets. That's an utter lack of respect.
I'm really a prohibition nazi. I drink when I go to parties/discos/whatever, but if I had to vote on alcohol prohibition, I'd do it any day. Same goes (Especially, since it has already wrecked apart my parents lives) for tobacco. It is simply stupid to take something bad for you. I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions. Some argue it's part of gaining life experience. I argue that those people lose something during that life experience to get to the point where everyone already knew it would be bad to make that stupid decision.
Of course; that works in Europe, where everything not granted is forbidden. They have a history and culture of law being handed down from on high. No problem. Works for you guys.
In America, everything not specifically forbidden, however silly, personally injurious, or bad for your health... is authorized.
We have specifically forbidden the possession, sale, distribution, or ingestion of a few dozen drugs here. I say: why?
What compelling societal interest is there in prohibiting that? Maybe there is a societal interest that trumps an individual interest. But so far, the arguments put forward are little more than a half-hearted D.A.R.E. briefing in elementary school (no offense intended there; but the anti-hard drug argument has basically been: "It's bad for you.")
I heard an interesting perspective off a podcast. Basiclly the host is argueing that even if scientist were to come up with a drug that had the same effects as Cocain, LSD, herion or what not, but with no harmful longterm effects it would still be banned.
Damn straight it would be. You know why? 'Cause prohibition works. It just does. Imprisoning millions of citizens for possession? Works. Spending billions of dollars feeding, guarding and keeping them warm? Works. Diverting a huge market away from legality and into the arms of criminal gangs? Works.
It just works. Stop arguing about it.
You really want to know why doesn't drugs are allowed? That's because there would be war between drug sellers. And police instead of investigate who stole your (insert object of valour), they would be investigating who killed X drug dealer.
In response to several of the arguments that have reared their ugly heads in this thread:
In the US, the purpose of government is not to protect individuals from their own stupidity. It is to ensure the protection of their liberty and property.
The costs to society of tobacco and especially alcohol far outweigh all illegal drugs combined. This includes deaths due to overdose or accident, property damage, intoxication-related crime, drug-induced disease, and so on.
The attempt to prohibit alcohol (motivated by puritan ideals) was a bitter failure. The current attempt to prohibit other drugs (also motivated by puritan ideals) is and will continue to be a bitter failure. The continuation of the war on drugs does little to nothing to reduce drug use, forces its trade to the black market, upholds violent dealers and gangs and repressive regimes, ties up much of the resources of the criminal justice system, and sends thousands of nonviolent individuals with no other criminal activity to prison, ruining their lives and introducing them to violent criminals.
Drug price would not necessarily plummet if legalized, leading to much wider use, as taxes would likely make up much of the price difference. This does not, however, mean people would be more likely to still turn to the black market. After all, how much power does the illegal alcohol trade have today? It was certainly huge back in the day, but is now only a memory. Legal drug prices would likely still be lower, not to mention the goods being regulated and thus much more uniform and comparably much safer.
Legalizing the use of hard drugs =/= legalizing driving, using heavy machinery, assaulting others, or otherwise causing harm to others while intoxicated.
We keep drugs illegal because we still have a puritan and anti-libertarian mentality on the issue, and because we hate to admit that we were wrong. Is it stupid to take such drugs? Yes, but not nearly as stupid as it is to keep them illegal.
Ajax
Out of curiosity, how many people here have read Freakonomics?
EDIT: *raises hand for W&F*
You know what the definition of insane is, right? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
So when do you want your personal government agent to come by and make sure you're getting enough exercise?Quote:
I'm against allowing stupid people to make stupid decisions.
The drug war has been a monumental failure. Drugs are not harder to get. Innocent people are dead or robbed by the government. How can it truly be justified that we continue it?
CR
There is absolutely no justification at the moment to keep many hard drugs illegal. However, it all comes down to personal responsibility, every dollar spent on drugs could be spent on something more important, but people don't realize this. I'm not trying to be preachy (eh' each to their own). When it comes to some drugs the whole "my body is my temple" advert is bollocks, and I don't trust the guy down the street to be responsible enough to keep his body within his temple while on a Cocaine High.
If it's legal, you give the vibe that it's OK when it isn't.
Ever seen any of the anti-smoking ads we've got in the US?
Somehow we've managed to cut down on smoking without (straight up) banning it (though I dislike the heavy handed taxes and rules against it).
CR
There are tons of things which are legal but looked down upon by society, and many which are illegal that no one cares about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.
See? The government can be a good.
(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)
That is true, but it still legitimizes something that should not be legitimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Hehe. Well maybe bad and short lived ideas go both ways. If we are talking about what works vs what doesn't we could legalize most drugs and see if that idea isn't as bad as prohibiting alcohol. Two way street - better try it before I have children.
The fact that people break a law is no argument for doing away with the law. Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it. When will we come to our senses and legalize it? Similarly, the war on theft has also been a miserable failure and should be ended. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm all for rethinking how we prosecute illegal narcotics if when can do so more efficiently. But just because the current strategy hasn't been totally successful doesn't mean that the only alternative is legalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.
I think we should go for decriminalization for those over 18 as a start. It's easy to see **** getting out of hand with dumbass teenagers. I think your right in that a sudden legalization would lead to a snap back pretty quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuffstuff
Choosing to get high is perfectly legitimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by EMFM
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Alcohol is very important for our nations happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
It's really not scary...don't diss it till you've tried it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary. Would you do it?
Yeah, well. *rambles on about reasons how it makes sense in pever's mind*Quote:
Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.
Um, no. Rapists have been imprisoned and stopped from harming others. That has cut down on the number of rapes that would otherwise have occurred. The war on drugs has imprisoned a lot of people, hurting society, for non violent offenses.Quote:
Our war on rape has also been a total failure- despite years of enforcement and billions spent, people still do it.
The war on drugs is a total failure, with the main causality being our liberties.
LoL!Quote:
Umm, the government is more like a friend that says "Please jimmy, don't do drugs" and then gets pissed when you do and throws you in jail.
CR
yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen