War on Drugs has Failed... and in Other News the Sky is Blue

[Populus Romanus]

Ummm. You know the FARC was started as an oposition to US policies and influence and imperialism and colonialism in Colombia? No? Oh?! You thought they were a bunch of terrorist who hated everyone and were narcotrafficants?

American colonialism in Colombia? You don't say? That is completely wrong, so wrong that I wonder how that could ever even get into someone's head. What? Did American colonists land Colombia and start farming the land? FARC was started as a military branch of the Communist Party in Colombia. Its only goal is to destroy Colombia and impose their own rule on the country. In the end, it comes down to FARC wanting money, which is why they rebelled in the first place (to gain power, and the corresponding rise in $$$), why they kidnap innocent civilians who do nothing wrong (for the ransom $$$), and why they got into narcotrafficking (for the drug $$$). Somehow I get the feeling that you feel the horrendous crimes commited by FARC, which go far beyond trafficking and kidnapping, are actually justified by the propoganda you gave.

[Idaho]

Alchohol doesn't really give you a "high" now, does it, and Cannabis smoke smells like rotting flesh - even if it is ever made legal don't expect to be allowed to smoke a joint walking down the street.

Of course it does. You seem oblivious to the power of language in this debate. The way the illegal drugs are given their own separate words to male them seem different and justify the status quo.

"High" just describes a pleasurable drug effect. Alcohol gets you high just like any other drug.

Meanwhile America is discovering another negative side effect of limiting peoples right to get high:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13735793
More deaths from prescription ods in a year than for all the crack and heroin use in the 70s and 80s....

[Viking]

Ahh I see. But it seems you are coming from a fact of "humans are social, so they will make friends no matter what". I find that line of thinking flawed.

It is the reality, though.

Just because it does happen without alcohol to a large extend doesn't necessarily mean that if there was never any alcohol ever to begin with that it would still happen with the same frequency as it does today.

Yet, what do we know about efficiency of these fewer parties? You might just find that the achievements are the same in relevant respects.

A world that never had alcohol does not know of it's pleasurable effects. Our world does, and this makes it a large motivating factor to do things that people otherwise would not do. If there was never any alcohol then yeah, I'm sure everyone would be happy going to parties and doing something else instead. But the reality is that people know about alcohol and that it can be really fun and that it has some pleasurable side effects. So you have lots of people talking outside my dorm window going:

"Are you going to Jeff's tonight?"
"Is there alcohol?"
"Nah, Jeff got busted by the cops at his party last time so he is just inviting us over for pizza and stuff."
"I was planning on getting wasted tonight to celebrate, so I will pass this time."

I hear a variant of this kind of conversation everyday at my uni. The world of no alcohol imo can't be used to make a point because the world of no alcohol from my understanding of what you are saying has people unaware of what alcohol is at all.

The theoretical world is useful because it underscores the superfluity of alchol, which was what you contested. Of course, this also effects the real world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it does. You seem oblivious to the power of language in this debate. The way the illegal drugs are given their own separate words to male them seem different and justify the status quo.

"High" just describes a pleasurable drug effect. Alcohol gets you high just like any other drug.

Funny, I thought "high" was confined to "uppers", alchohol is a "downer". Caffine can get you "high", get you "buzzed" but alchohol is more likely just to make you wall over throw up and pass out.

I've never had a positive effect from excessive drinking, which is why I barely drink.

Meanwhile America is discovering another negative side effect of limiting peoples right to get high:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13735793

"Right to get high" what a novel and silly concept that is. Talk about language use, people use the word "right" as a lever to try to force any behaviour they want to partake in into acceptable society. Why, pray tell, do you have a "right" to get high? Getting high is not necessary for life, you can get by just fine without it, societies where people don't get high, Mormons, Amish, etc. are perfectly functional.

I contend that getting high is a privilage that one might reasonably expect to partake in in a civilised environment provided it is not overly harmful to one's self or society. It is on that basis that certain drugs are prohibitted and certain others are restricted.
More deaths from prescription ods in a year than for all the crack and heroin use in the 70s and 80s....

[Idaho]

Funny, I thought "high" was confined to "uppers", alchohol is a "downer". Caffine can get you "high", get you "buzzed" but alchohol is more likely just to make you wall over throw up and pass out.

I've never had a positive effect from excessive drinking, which is why I barely drink.

It's a fairly poor descriptor of the subjective effect of any drug. So is best used a blanket term for general recreation effect. A few pints of cider or a bottle of champagne can have a very up effect. Likewise dark Afghan hash will send you to sleep.



Do you have the right to go sky diving? How about the right to take part in a boxing match? Do you have the right to go to the pub to have a drink? What function do any of those things have other than to alter mood and consciousness?

You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.

Alas I fear we are getting nowhere in this discussion. I think you are grasping at straws to fend off the logical. When it comes down to it, like many people you just feel threatened and scared of the idea of change.

[jirisys]

American colonialism in Colombia? You don't say? That is completely wrong, so wrong that I wonder how that could ever even get into someone's head. What? Did American colonists land Colombia and start farming the land? FARC was started as a military branch of the Communist Party in Colombia. Its only goal is to destroy Colombia and impose their own rule on the country. In the end, it comes down to FARC wanting money, which is why they rebelled in the first place (to gain power, and the corresponding rise in $$$), why they kidnap innocent civilians who do nothing wrong (for the ransom $$$), and why they got into narcotrafficking (for the drug $$$). Somehow I get the feeling that you feel the horrendous crimes commited by FARC, which go far beyond trafficking and kidnapping, are actually justified by the propoganda you gave.

For the knowledge impaired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Also, they were a peasant army who rebelled against the government because of the assassination of a populist. I'm not justifying their crimens either, What are those "horrendous crimes" you speak of? I have read about worse in my country back in the old'n day of american control of the government.

How is it that you use so many ad misercordiams and cannot see that it is your own misinformation that you are transmitting the people.

Their cause was just, it is still. Yet their methods aren't.

"Later, in 1964, a section of these guerrillas would develop into the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), which initially was considered as the official armed wing of the Communist party."

In the beginning. The PCC supported the FARC.

"Gradually the PCC and FARC-EP grew apart politically, in particular during the later 1980s. Both organizations had their share of internal debates, for example as to which entity would have greater influence and control over the Unión Patriótica (in the end the PCC accepted FARC supremacy in this regard) during its formation, and later on the issue of continuing to participate in elections as the UP suffered violent suppression (the FARC began to separate itself from legal UP activities starting in 1987)."

In Reagan's administration? You don't say! HE would never intervene negatively in Latin America for USA's own gains! Oh wait... Yeah, he did. ****** **** up.

Besides his utter failure with the war on drugs would not give him much recognition anyways.

"Despite this, human rights organizations and PCC members argue that some Generals and their subordinates in the Colombian National Army have contributed either indirectly or directly to many of the violent actions of drug lords, paramilitaries and death squads against the PCC. Occasionally these individuals have been brought to justice, but the majority of the crimes remain unsolved."

Really? You call the FARC criminals? I guess you never been in a latin american country, criminals are the governments, not the people. It's because of the government that so much criminalization has been going on.

And really. Would it take so much effort to TRY and legalize drugs. See the result.

How can things get worse anyways?

In the words of the great George Carlin: "Pretty soon you have a melting pot; child killers, corpse ******, drug zombies and full **** wackaloos. Wandering the landscape in search for truth and fun. Just like now! Everyone will have guns, everyone will have drugs, and no one will be in charge. Just like now! But at least we'll have a balanced budget."

~Jirisys ()

[TheLastDays]

Drugs kill people. Fact. I don't see any positive effect they have that would counter that.

Again... I don't think it gets any better by prohibiting drugs that are legal right now and I'm not even suggesting that a legalization of currently illegal drugs would make things worse, it might even make things better in some aspects but I can't understand how anyone can argue that drugs have a net positive effect on society.

[Ice]

Drugs kill people. Fact. I don't see any positive effect they have that would counter that.

Again... I don't think it gets any better by prohibiting drugs that are legal right now and I'm not even suggesting that a legalization of currently illegal drugs would make things worse, it might even make things better in some aspects but I can't understand how anyone can argue that drugs have a net positive effect on society.

Then you can't read; there is a report commissioned by the UN and about 7 pages of discussion about it.

[TheLastDays]

No need to insult me.

I can read and I have read the article and most posts since I joined the discussion a few pages ago (I can't be bothered to read what has been said before in a constant back and forth between chewing on the same arguments over and over)

Neither in the article nor in anything that was said thereafter did I read of a positive effect of drugs that outweighs the negative effects they do have, on a large scale. What I did read is that the article and most users said, that you can't stop it anyway and trying harder so stop it might make things worse, while legalizing it would maybe make things a bit better. Which is exactly what I said if you read my last post carefully. But that's something completely different than saying "Drugs are good for people" (in general)

[Ice]

No need to insult me.

I can read and I have read the article and most posts since I joined the discussion a few pages ago (I can't be bothered to read what has been said before in a constant back and forth between chewing on the same arguments over and over)

Neither in the article nor in anything that was said thereafter did I read of a positive effect of drugs that outweighs the negative effects they do have, on a large scale. What I did read is that the article and most users said, that you can't stop it anyway and trying harder so stop it might make things worse, while legalizing it would maybe make things a bit better. Which is exactly what I said if you read my last post carefully. But that's something completely different than saying "Drugs are good for people" (in general)

I apologize as you are correct, and I did indeed misread what you originally wrote. However, it depends on how you look at the situation. I don't think you'll find one member here who will argue that crack cocaine has a net positive impact on society, but soft drugs like marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, etc are really harder to figure. These drugs cause little harm to society and offer the benefit of relieving stress and having a good time, while arguably having a medical benefit as well. Many opium derivatives are also used in to ease a patient's pain, but have a much more drastic impact when abused and used incorrectly. This is a rather moot discussion though because the drugs are available and aren't going away any time soon.

Once again, sorry jumping the gun. I'm just get annoyed with a few posters in this thread, but you shouldn't be one of them.

[TheLastDays]

No worries

You are right, it is dependable on what substance you're talking about. Medicinal purposes of course are a good argument, for some people relaxation may be a good argument, for me the human life is of higher priority so, if some persons die from it, how few they might be, even thousands gaining relaxation or other "minor" positive effects from it wouldn't make the substance worth having to me...

It is a philosophical question though, in that you are correct, these drugs are around and that won't change...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a fairly poor descriptor of the subjective effect of any drug. So is best used a blanket term for general recreation effect. A few pints of cider or a bottle of champagne can have a very up effect. Likewise dark Afghan hash will send you to sleep.

Or best not used at all.

Do you have the right to go sky diving? How about the right to take part in a boxing match? Do you have the right to go to the pub to have a drink? What function do any of those things have other than to alter mood and consciousness?

No...you don't have a right to go sky diving, if you did everyone would get free lessons, same way you don't have a right to drive a car. You can't extend the concept of "rights" beyond those needed for the polity to function politically, leiasure activity is in no way part of that. If the polity deems a certain activity harmful to the individual and/or society it bans it.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I assume you wouldn't want to un-ban fox hunting, would you?

You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.

I would wager there is some, but much less than in society in general Mormans and the Amish really are very clean living, especially the Amish.

Alas I fear we are getting nowhere in this discussion. I think you are grasping at straws to fend off the logical. When it comes down to it, like many people you just feel threatened and scared of the idea of change.

On the contrary, we have hit the nail on the head.

Is drug using a "Right" or a "Privilage"?

[jirisys]

Or best not used at all.
Is drug using a "Right" or a "Privilage"?

Privilege?

Alcohol kills people. Fact. You get more car accidents, and domestic violence, and drunken murders and drunken accident that all drugs do.

We should ban alcohol.

It doesn't HAVE to be good for society because it's a ************* private deed. It's not like you go around converting people into cocainism.

You do it yourself, you are free to do so, you have the RIGHT to do so if you can get a hold of it.

No...you don't have a right to go sky diving, if you did everyone would get free lessons, same way you don't have a right to drive a car. You can't extend the concept of "rights" beyond those needed for the polity to function politically, leiasure activity is in no way part of that. If the polity deems a certain activity harmful to the individual and/or society it bans it.

Ok, let me clear things out for you.

Right is something that you can do with few, if not any restrictions; that is, if you ever wish to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do said thing.

Privilede is the ability to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do a specific task or thing.

I have the right to remain silent. I can choose not to. That doesn't make it a priviledge.

Polity you say? So you want to give the government the right to willingly pinpoint a criminal just because they believe they are.
What is it about methheads that is so dangerous? only to themselves. Like self-masochists or self-mutilators. Unlike drunkards, drunk drivers, or even robbers, they are not a problem to anybody else.

You are right, it is dependable on what substance you're talking about. Medicinal purposes of course are a good argument, for some people relaxation may be a good argument, for me the human life is of higher priority so, if some persons die from it, how few they might be, even thousands gaining relaxation or other "minor" positive effects from it wouldn't make the substance worth having to me...

It is a philosophical question though, in that you are correct, these drugs are around and that won't change...

Why do you care about what a man wishes to sniff, puff, drink or smoke if it doesn't affect you? Isn't that a bit egocentric?

"Say dave! You have a mighty fine hash there, care to tell us why are you endangering yourself without asking permission from the world to do things that only affect you (besides a little smell which nobody really bothers much about). Why are you so selfish to do things you should be liable do without anybody medling; without being authorized by society to do so?"

That's why I don't go around trowing water at other people's cigarette, as long as they don't smoke near me, that is.

~Jirisys ()

[ajaxfetish]

You can do fine without it? Most can, very few do. I'd wager there was a lot of drug use in Mormon and Amish society. Read a little about Rumspringa.

I would wager there is some, but much less than in society in general Mormans and the Amish really are very clean living, especially the Amish.

Here are some Statistics, apparently from BYU sociologist Stephen J. Bahr:

SUBSTANCE USE. LDS doctrine prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other addictive drugs. Among adults and adolescents, usage rates are considerably lower among Latter-day Saints than among other religious groups. Only 28 percent of adult Latter-day Saints say they drink alcohol, compared with 65 percent of Protestants, 85 percent of Catholics, and 86 percent of Jews. Fourteen percent say they smoke tobacco, compared with 36 percent of Protestants, 38 percent of Catholics, and 28 percent of Jews.

The NIDA survey of substance use among high school seniors reveals substantial differences between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups. About 33 percent of LDS high school seniors said they had used alcohol within the previous thirty days, compared to 62 percent of Protestants and 75 percent of Catholics. The percentage of LDS seniors who smoke is half as large as among the other religious groups—14 percent among LDS, 28 percent among Protestants, and 32 percent among Catholics. The differences for marijuana are not as large, but are still lower for LDS students. For example, 14 percent of LDS seniors had used marijuana during the past month, compared to 22 percent among Protestants and 25 percent among Catholics. LDS students also have low rates of cocaine use. Five percent had used cocaine during the past month, compared to 5 percent among Protestants, 7 percent among Catholics, and 8 percent among Jews.

It looks like the data supports PVC's suspicion: use is present but lower than in other groups. Speaking from personal experience, which probably had as much to do with my social circles as my religion, I don't think I've ever been offered drugs (incl. alcohol/tobacco) by another Mormon. I suspect there's considerably more substance use among Mormons who are not actively participating in religious life. Drug use really is socially stigmatized in Mormon culture (even caffeine carries some stigma, and it's not even prohibited by Mormon doctrine). On the other hand, I think I recall hearing that prescription drug abuse was high in some predominantly Mormon areas, which makes sense to me as they lack the stigma attached to others.

Ajax

edit: ah, here's what I was thinking of: Utah leads the nation in the use of prescription anti-depressants

Salt Lake City -- Doctors here have for years talked about the widespread use of antidepressants in the state. But there was no hard evidence until a national study that tracked drug prescriptions came to an unexpected conclusion:

Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.

Utah's high usage was cited by one of the study's authors as the most surprising finding to emerge from the data. The study was released last summer and updated in January.

Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed.

Few here question the veracity of the study, which was a tabulation of prescription orders, said Dr. Curtis Canning, president of the Utah Psychiatric Assn. But trying to understand the "why" has puzzled many, he said.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Privilege?

Alcohol kills people. Fact. You get more car accidents, and domestic violence, and drunken murders and drunken accident that all drugs do.

We should ban alcohol.

It doesn't HAVE to be good for society because it's a ************* private deed. It's not like you go around converting people into cocainism.

You do it yourself, you are free to do so, you have the RIGHT to do so if you can get a hold of it.

Yes, alchohol kills people, so do almost all drugs when taken to excess, more people drink than do other drugs so obviously more people will over indulge. No surprise there.

That does not make intoxication a right, it isn't something you need to do, just something people enjoy.

Ok, let me clear things out for you.

Right is something that you can do with few, if not any restrictions; that is, if you ever wish to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do said thing.

Privilede is the ability to do so and can acquire the needed requirements to do a specific task or thing.

I have the right to remain silent. I can choose not to. That doesn't make it a priviledge.

Let me clear this up for you. A right is something that may not be restricted without due cause, it being considered necessary for your basic functioning as a person, usually. A privilage is something you are permitted to do, and are otherwise unable to do.

These vary from society to society, the only society in the West where it is considered a right to carry a deadly weapon is the US, for example.

Polity you say? So you want to give the government the right to willingly pinpoint a criminal just because they believe they are.
What is it about methheads that is so dangerous? only to themselves. Like self-masochists or self-mutilators. Unlike drunkards, drunk drivers, or even robbers, they are not a problem to anybody else.

What do you think a government is, exactly, the Empire from Star Wars? The legislature is elected from the polity, it passes laws - it as an organ of society.

Why do you care about what a man wishes to sniff, puff, drink or smoke if it doesn't affect you? Isn't that a bit egocentric?

Depends, if he steals from me it's my business, if he blows halucinagenic smoke in my face it's my business.

"Say dave! You have a mighty fine hash there, care to tell us why are you endangering yourself without asking permission from the world to do things that only affect you (besides a little smell which nobody really bothers much about). Why are you so selfish to do things you should be liable do without anybody medling; without being authorized by society to do so?"

Aside from the smell (which is akin to rotting flesh) the lit end of Dave's spliff is emitting the same fumes he's breathing in, so if I want to avoid his drug of choice I can't breathe the same air as him.

Who say's you "should" be allowed to intoxicate yourself. You can't just say, "it's a right" and be done with it.

"It doesn't hurt anyone else" has fallen by the wayside already, as we have firmly established that all drug use has the potential to hurt others.

What other justification do you have?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have a right to take any drug I want, whenever I want. Have all of you forgotten the right to live?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a right to take any drug I want, whenever I want. Have all of you forgotten the right to live?

Joke?

[jirisys]

Yes, alchohol kills people, so do almost all drugs when taken to excess, more people drink than do other drugs so obviously more people will over indulge. No surprise there.

That does not make intoxication a right, it isn't something you need to do, just something people enjoy.

You don't need to use your computer, yet it's something you enjoy. Does that mean you shouldn't do it?

Let me clear this up for you. A right is something that may not be restricted without due cause, it being considered necessary for your basic functioning as a person, usually. A privilage is something you are permitted to do, and are otherwise unable to do.

These vary from society to society, the only society in the West where it is considered a right to carry a deadly weapon is the US, for example.

Wrong. Those are not the definitions and you still mispelled "privilege". Is it a privilege for a rich 21 year old from a 3rd world country to go buy a 4Runner without any real economic loss? Yes; although people would love to buy one, and would be able to buy it with a loan, they don't do it because it's expensive. He does it because he's rich. Not because he has some special clause that dictates that he, over all people CAN buy that car.

What do you think a government is, exactly, the Empire from Star Wars? The legislature is elected from the polity, it passes laws - it as an organ of society.

Funny, considering how the Empire never actually had a war on drugs since they were so common.
Polity? What the hell do you mean by that? Politicians? Politics? Politburo?
Considering how most of the politicians do not care about the ACTUAL care of the people. See the Arizona immigration law, or the no evolution without creationism Kansas law.

Consider this: Making illegal immigrants will not solve the problem. Immigrants will still be coming, and as time passes, with even more numbers. You only made it successful to **** their lives a little bit more, and jail them more, does that solve the problem? NO.

How bout politicians agree that television is too violent, and decide to filter all channels so they are baby-friendly. And if someone watches even an old 24 episode, they are going to jail. Does that make any sense to you? Can you transposition this into something that only hurts a person that chooses to do it? Not drunk driving, or a company product, but a person who lost his right to do something he wanted to do/see/smell himself.

They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.

If you don't believe we are in a dystopia (not an orwellian, I'll grant you that), then you see five lights.

Depends, if he steals from me it's my business, if he blows halucinagenic smoke in my face it's my business.

But yet he doesn't. I doubt we would legalize smoking pot on the street, it has a foul odor, I grant you that. But we will also ban al cigars and cigarettes too. They all smell bad in my book. And I'm a boulean programmer, so 1 AND 0. IF 1, THEN PRINT 'banned'.

Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.

Aside from the smell (which is akin to rotting flesh) the lit end of Dave's spliff is emitting the same fumes he's breathing in, so if I want to avoid his drug of choice I can't breathe the same air as him.

Get a gas mask and also a hold of yourself. Cigarette smokers are worse actually, since the smoke is filled with nicotine, possibly also cancerogenic. Let the guy smoke his pot, and if you can't stand it, just ask him to leave. He's not gonna fight you high, and if he does, well. He's done for.

Who say's you "should" be allowed to intoxicate yourself. You can't just say, "it's a right" and be done with it.

It IS a right. I have the right suicide. Ergo, I can inject some stuff on my veins. I have the right to do whatever I want with my body.

You don't go around pouring liquor and sipping in some MDMA to someone else, are you? If you are, you should face the consequences. Otherwise. Go ahead, it's your ****** body, you do what you want with it.

"It doesn't hurt anyone else" has fallen by the wayside already, as we have firmly established that all drug use has the potential to hurt others.

What other justification do you have?

In what way? Families broken? They are imbeciles because they cannot accept his child for what he does. Same thing I would say to a gay-hating family who was broken by a gay son.

Grief? I can think of many, less fun ways to grieve families than that. Going to war is one very easy.

What else? Tell me something about currently illegal drugs that hurt other people; AND in a bigger way than any legal drug (alcohol, medicinal, smoke).

Joke?

Truth.

~Jirisys ()

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't need to use your computer, yet it's something you enjoy. Does that mean you shouldn't do it?

It means I won't bitch unduly if I'm stopped from using it for a good reason.

Wrong. Those are not the definitions and you still mispelled "privilege". Is it a privilege for a rich 21 year old from a 3rd world country to go buy a 4Runner without any real economic loss? Yes; although people would love to buy one, and would be able to buy it with a loan, they don't do it because it's expensive. He does it because he's rich. Not because he has some special clause that dictates that he, over all people CAN buy that car.

OED:


Right, noun

1. [mass noun] that which is morally correct, just, or honourable: she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong | [count noun] the rights and wrongs of the matter.
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something: [with infinitive] she had every right to be angry | you're quite within your rights to ask for your money back | [mass noun] there is no right of appeal against the decision. ■(rights) the authority to perform, publish, film, or televise a particular work, event, etc.: they sold the paperback rights.
3. (the right) the right-hand part, side, or direction: take the first turning on the right | (one's right) she seated me on her right. ■ (in football or a similar sport) the right-hand half of the field when facing the opponent's goal. ■ the right wing of an army. ■ a right turn: he made a right in Dorchester Avenue. ■ a road or entrance on the right: take the first right over the stream. ■ a person's right fist, especially a boxer's. ■ a blow given with the right fist: the young copper swung a terrific right.
4. (often the Right) [treated as sing. or pl.] a group or party favouring conservative views and supporting capitalist principles: the Right got in at the election | his proposal was viewed with alarm by the right of the party.

[i]Privilege, noun

▶noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group: education is a right, not a privilege | [mass noun] he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.
■ something regarded as a special honour: I had the privilege of giving the Sir George Brown memorial lecture.
■ (also absolute privilege) (especially in a parliamentary context) the right to say or write something without the risk of incurring punishment or legal action for defamation.
■ the right of a lawyer or official to refuse to divulge confidential information.
■ chiefly (historical) a grant to an individual, corporation, or place of special rights or immunities, especially in the form of a franchise or monopoly.

▶verb [with obj.] (formal) grant a privilege or privileges to: English inheritance law privileged the eldest son.
■ exempt (someone) from a liability or obligation to which others are subject: barristers are privileged from arrest going to, coming from, and abiding in court.

So, it is not a legal (or moral) entitlement to be intoxicated, as it is generally accepted only certain people (over a certain age) are allowed to do it.

Ergo, intoxication is a privilege.

Funny, considering how the Empire never actually had a war on drugs since they were so common.
Polity? What the hell do you mean by that? Politicians? Politics? Politburo?
Considering how most of the politicians do not care about the ACTUAL care of the people. See the Arizona immigration law, or the no evolution without creationism Kansas law.

"Polity" would be the whole politically active community, which would be composed of all elligable electors.

Consider this: Making illegal immigrants will not solve the problem. Immigrants will still be coming, and as time passes, with even more numbers. You only made it successful to **** their lives a little bit more, and jail them more, does that solve the problem? NO.

Well, you just deport them. Legal immigration implies becoming part of the polity, and there is no morel, legal or logical imperative that the polity should admit anyone who wants in. For example, we produce enough murderers of our own, we shouldn't import more from other places.

How bout politicians agree that television is too violent, and decide to filter all channels so they are baby-friendly. And if someone watches even an old 24 episode, they are going to jail. Does that make any sense to you? Can you transposition this into something that only hurts a person that chooses to do it? Not drunk driving, or a company product, but a person who lost his right to do something he wanted to do/see/smell himself.

Have you seen some American TV?

Seriously though, should small children be allowed to watch snuff porn, or porn generally? You are just resorting to argumentum absurdum, which is pointless. Censorship is perfectly reasonable in some contexts.

They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.

If you don't believe we are in a dystopia (not an orwellian, I'll grant you that), then you see five lights.

I'm not familliar with the reference. In any case, politicians are just like other people - with the exception that they can be bothered to go up for election. People always whine about politicians but by and large democracy works.

But yet he doesn't. I doubt we would legalize smoking pot on the street, it has a foul odor, I grant you that. But we will also ban al cigars and cigarettes too. They all smell bad in my book. And I'm a boulean programmer, so 1 AND 0. IF 1, THEN PRINT 'banned'.

Yet, he does, we have all but banned smoking in public in the UK and this is a far more pleasent country for it. I no longer have to take a shower when I come back from the pub.

[/quote]Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.[/quote]

That would be:

A: Uncivilised.

B: Illegal

C: Breach his right to be free from violent assault.

Get a gas mask and also a hold of yourself. Cigarette smokers are worse actually, since the smoke is filled with nicotine, possibly also cancerogenic. Let the guy smoke his pot, and if you can't stand it, just ask him to leave. He's not gonna fight you high, and if he does, well. He's done for.

I have a right to not have my health endangered by another, in the same way the smoker has a right not to suffer a broken nose. Ergo, I should not have to risk being exposed to the smoke. Hash smoke is carcenogic as well, it also has tar in - more or less than tobacco we're not quite sure - but it is a health hazard.

It IS a right. I have the right suicide. Ergo, I can inject some stuff on my veins. I have the right to do whatever I want with my body.

Say's you, but when the Human Rights Charter etc. were framed the determination was that you have a positive right to control your own body, i.e. a right to be free from harm. It is a very modern idea that this means you also have a right to inflict harm upon yourself. I completely reject that, especially when it is extended to the "right to suicide". Suicide is a form of homocide and I am opposed to all forms of homocide except in the etreme of preserving your own life or the life of another.

You don't go around pouring liquor and sipping in some MDMA to someone else, are you? If you are, you should face the consequences. Otherwise. Go ahead, it's your ****** body, you do what you want with it.

Personally, I think this attitude shows the threadbare state of our society and modern ideas of morality.

In what way? Families broken? They are imbeciles because they cannot accept his child for what he does. Same thing I would say to a gay-hating family who was broken by a gay son.

Even if the child is stealing to support their haibt? Lying to their parents, endangering their own lives? Don't be so glib.

Grief? I can think of many, less fun ways to grieve families than that. Going to war is one very easy.

The alternative being.... War is War, War is Hell. Such is life.

What else? Tell me something about currently illegal drugs that hurt other people; AND in a bigger way than any legal drug (alcohol, medicinal, smoke).

Crime to support the addiction, for one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A couple quick points;

On whether drugs are "good" for society. We already know some are (prescribed drugs, alcohol (people who drink moderately live longer), weed for pain). Others (cocaine, LSD) just get people high.

But to me, I don't really give a rip whether allowing people to get high is 'good for society'. We should be free to do what we want even if it doesn't benefit 'society' because we should not be slaves to 'the greater good'.

On banning drugs because they're bad for people; guess what - people will use them anyway. It's like thinking banning guns stops illegal use of guns. Illegality just makes the problems worse.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Joke?

Do the Isle's not have the same double meaning of the word live?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do the Isle's not have the same double meaning of the word live?

Yes - but I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, as that's manifestly not the intention when that particular right was framed.

[jirisys]

It means I won't bitch unduly if I'm stopped from using it for a good reason.

There is only one good reason, and it is when you directly may, will or have harmed others. No other such reason exists.

So, it is not a legal (or moral) entitlement to be intoxicated, as it is generally accepted only certain people (over a certain age) are allowed to do it.

Funny how you went through all this complication to prove my definitions were closer than yours.

Who will stop them from doing it? The LAW?

Ergo, intoxication is a privilege.

Intoxication is a word which describes a state where one substance is harming a person.

Intoxication is not a privilige. And you can get intoxicated with pretty much anything. A child in Indonesia smokes 2 cigarette packages a day. So? It's not a right to get intoxicated, it's a damned action. The right you are talking about, is the right to consume, inject and sniff copious amounts of anything you want. As long as it doesn't directly affect anybody or is unintended.

You confused yourself, the definitions you put forward make your argument invalid. You put forward that "intoxicating yourself is not a right, it's a privilege."

And then:

[i]Privilege, noun

▶noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

WT*?

"Polity" would be the whole politically active community, which would be composed of all elligible electors.

Pseudo intellectualism plus spelling mistakes make for a funny situation.

Take it all the way and say "Politeia", makes more sense.

Well, you just deport them. Legal immigration implies becoming part of the polity, and there is no morel, legal or logical imperative that the polity should admit anyone who wants in. For example, we produce enough murderers of our own, we shouldn't import more from other places.

For crying out loud! Say POLICY! Stop using the same word that can be easily replaced.

MORAL. Not "Morel"

So we just learned you are xenophobic, you think of immigrants as murdereds. That's cute.

Also you missed my point.

My point is that the problem is still there, even if you deport them and jail them, there's no resolution to that problem. You're just wasting time and money that could go to solve the problem, not cut it's fingernails.
nails.

Have you seen some American TV?

Seriously though, should small children be allowed to watch snuff porn, or porn generally? You are just resorting to argumentum absurdum, which is pointless. Censorship is perfectly reasonable in some contexts.

Have you seen American TV?*

You missed my point again. I put forward a hypothetical situation, you turned into a censorship debate.

Kids watch porn. I think you never heard that many kids start watching porn before they even become of legal age. Does the law stop it? No. Is it really that big-a deal? No. Why? He's going to watch it anyways, even if you censor it till midnight. I doubt that any internetz will claim that he has never seen porn, or at least a naked woman.

They don't care about most people. They only care about their agenda. Drugs scare people, people pay money to govt and police to lock drug users, govt gives more budget to WoD, govt makes more people, more rich.

I'm not familliar with the reference. In any case, politicians are just like other people - with the exception that they can be bothered to go up for election. People always whine about politicians but by and large democracy works.

Picard.

Representative democracy fails in every way possible. When have you ever felt secure at night in a low-class neighborhood? Why is there a low-class neighborhood? Why isn't equality really emphazised? Why do people still kill gays in Uganda, where a president and reprentative democracy is installed? Why do people still protest the goverment even if their choices are supposed to be heard? Why did thousands pour into Seattle to protest agaisnt the G-8? Were they protesting because the democracy worked too much?

Yet, he does, we have all but banned smoking in public in the UK and this is a far more pleasent country for it. I no longer have to take a shower when I come back from the pub.

Then let him smoke in his house. I don't give a damn. Doesn't bother you if he smokes 30 miles away from you? He always has anyways.

Then kick his ***. A mi que me cuentas? Why should I give a damn about some guy who throws smoke at your face. I would punch him! Not try to ban smoking.

That would be:

A: Uncivilised.

B: Illegal

C: Breach his right to be free from violent assault.

The privilege to be free from violent assault? It's not truly right. It's a privilege only few people get. (I base this on my definitions, not yours)

Then how do you expect to handle ANY smoker that does that stupidity? You plan to sue him?

What is it with you and impossible questions? You never have asked a single question that can be answered by your own imposed narrow limits.

Besides, you don't have to worry about it. If the UK banned smoking from public areas, then they would ban pot smoking too.

I have a right to not have my health endangered by another, in the same way the smoker has a right not to suffer a broken nose. Ergo, I should not have to risk being exposed to the smoke. Hash smoke is carcenogic as well, it also has tar in - more or less than tobacco we're not quite sure - but it is a health hazard.

"In Europe, some Commonwealth nations and the Middle-East, joints or "spliffs" are rolled by mixing hashish with tobacco to get it to burn easier, a practice which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction[10] and health problems associated with tobacco use, often later blamed on the cannabis. Young users are frequently warned to "cut" or pad "strong" cannabis (such as "skunkweed") with seemingly "milder" cigarette tobaccoes to ward off dangerous "drug effects".[citation needed]

A practice in some countries is to "roast" tobacco before mixing it with cannabis[citation needed], for example by heating a cigarette slowly with a lighter, then blowing air through the filter when it gets hot enough, in order to remove sugars, nicotine, etc., leading to a cleaner-tasting tobacco flavor.

Blunt: in North America, since the 1990s when the practice was promoted in the lyrics of rap songs by significantly named artists like Tupac and LL Cool J, a "blunt" is rolled using an empty cigar skin (from which the filler tobacco has been removed but which itself contains addictive nicotine) to "wrap" cannabis in. The "blunt" is named after a commercial brand of cigar from which wrapper skins were often salvaged and used to smoke cannabis."

"Although cannabis smoke is not nearly as harmful as tobacco smoke,[23] smoking is the most harmful method of cannabis consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems[24] (e.g., coughing and sputum)."

So... You make the link yet? Make packaged joints without nicotine, and you get better smokes.

The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer,"[12] while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day.[11][12] It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer, but THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[12] Cannabidiol (CBD), an isomer of THC and another major cannabinoid that is also present in cannabis, has been reported elsewhere to have anti-tumor properties as well.[

Also:

Not many cancer health hazards from hash mah brotha'. You just making that **** up!

Say's you, but when the Human Rights Charter etc. were framed the determination was that you have a positive right to control your own body, i.e. a right to be free from harm. It is a very modern idea that this means you also have a right to inflict harm upon yourself. I completely reject that, especially when it is extended to the "right to suicide". Suicide is a form of homocide and I am opposed to all forms of homocide except in the etreme of preserving your own life or the life of another.

Good for you to reject that.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

They're gonna do it anyway. If I want to end my life, I should be entitled to do so. Euthanasia for the sad.

Personally, I think this attitude shows the threadbare state of our society and modern ideas of morality.

Yes, it shows that we are no longer middle-age religious fanatics who would be shocked and order and execution when seeing a women prancing around with half of her belly showing.

Even if the child is stealing to support their haibt? Lying to their parents, endangering their own lives? Don't be so glib.

Gullible. Why should he need to steal if Meth and Marijuana are highly less addictive than even alcohol and tobbaco? I think the difference between alcoholic thieves and hash thieves is a ratio of 20:1. Only one with high amounts is cocaine. And only becasue it's illegal, so it's expensive. Get rid of the conjured up illegality and drop crime rates. They don't have anything to steal.

What are you implying? That every single pot smoker is a thief? I have two hashead friends, never stole a thing besides a few pencils since they lost their own.

The alternative being.... War is War, War is Hell. Such is life.

Pointlessness.

Crime to support the addiction, for one.

So the only reason you have to make drugs illegal is; first, one of th many consequences of making them illegal; and second, the most vocal and outspoken that everyone wants them legalized?

Guess it sums up your argument pretty nice.

Good days to you. Contradiction man!

~Jirisys ()

[Fragony]

'Colombia, for the spelling impaired.'

apologies to spelling-autists

[Idaho]

A couple quick points;

On whether drugs are "good" for society. We already know some are (prescribed drugs, alcohol (people who drink moderately live longer), weed for pain). Others (cocaine, LSD) just get people high.

A couple of quick points:

Alcohol use doesn't make people live longer. The figures are skewed by people with long term health problems not drinking.

Prescribed drugs, as has been pointed out on this thread, are not necessarily beneficial. They are often prescribed because people want to get high, but have no legal, or socially acceptable way of doing so.


PVC

A right is the general and legal acceptance that someone be allowed to do something without impediment. Not that something MUST be done, or that it would be provided free.

Throughout human history we have taken intoxicants. We are attracted to them. Most cultures have had one or more intoxicants that they have used for ritual or pleasurable purposes. Trying to prevent people is foolish and counterproductive.

[Fragony]

Indeed, always have always will.

War on drugs is war on users now, why would you? The real war on drugs is simply a war against a currency, there is no need to harass users. Bloody let them do what they want

[TheLastDays]

Indeed, always have always will.

War on drugs is war on users now, why would you? The real war on drugs is simply a war against a currency, there is no need to harass users. Bloody let them do what they want

You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is only one good reason, and it is when you directly may, will or have harmed others. No other such reason exists.

Opinion, not fact.

Funny how you went through all this complication to prove my definitions were closer than yours.

Who will stop them from doing it? The LAW?

My definition was not wrong, a right is something you are automatically allowed to do, a privilege is granted to you.

Intoxication is a word which describes a state where one substance is harming a person.

Intoxication is not a privilige. And you can get intoxicated with pretty much anything. A child in Indonesia smokes 2 cigarette packages a day. So? It's not a right to get intoxicated, it's a damned action. The right you are talking about, is the right to consume, inject and sniff copious amounts of anything you want. As long as it doesn't directly affect anybody or is unintended.

You confused yourself, the definitions you put forward make your argument invalid. You put forward that "intoxicating yourself is not a right, it's a privilege."

And then:


WT*?

I'm sorry - where's the problem? Intoxication would only be a right if everyone was allowed to do it, but we restrict intoxication by age and chosen substance. Only adults are allowed to intoxicate themselves, ergo it is a privilege.

Pseudo intellectualism plus spelling mistakes make for a funny situation.

Take it all the way and say "Politeia", makes more sense.

Focusing on spelling mistakes is a vage form of ad hominem and irrelevent.

For crying out loud! Say POLICY! Stop using the same word that can be easily replaced.

I don't mean "policy" though.

MORAL. Not "Morel"

Impossible to read? No. Get over it.

So we just learned you are xenophobic, you think of immigrants as murdereds. That's cute.

Ad hominem, and incorrect. I simply said that a murderer from another country should not be allowed to immigrage, nor should other undesirables like professional criminals.

Also you missed my point.

My point is that the problem is still there, even if you deport them and jail them, there's no resolution to that problem. You're just wasting time and money that could go to solve the problem, not cut it's fingernails.
nails.

So, because a particular policy doesn't work perfectly we should abandon it? Don't be infantile, whatever policy is adopted will be imperfect and fail to be succesful 100% of the time, that does not make immigration control something that should just be abandoned.

Have you seen American TV?*

You missed my point again. I put forward a hypothetical situation, you turned into a censorship debate.

Kids watch porn. I think you never heard that many kids start watching porn before they even become of legal age. Does the law stop it? No. Is it really that big-a deal? No. Why? He's going to watch it anyways, even if you censor it till midnight. I doubt that any internetz will claim that he has never seen porn, or at least a naked woman.

So, at what age is it ok, 2, 6, 10? Again, your argument is "well we won't stop everyone, so let's just give up."

Picard.

Not helpful.

Representative democracy fails in every way possible. When have you ever felt secure at night in a low-class neighborhood? Why is there a low-class neighborhood? Why isn't equality really emphazised? Why do people still kill gays in Uganda, where a president and reprentative democracy is installed? Why do people still protest the goverment even if their choices are supposed to be heard? Why did thousands pour into Seattle to protest agaisnt the G-8? Were they protesting because the democracy worked too much?

Well, I live in a poor neighbourhood, and I'm really fairly happy with our political system. Is democracy perfect? No. What you suggest instead.

Also, you might not that, on reflection, the Ugandan parliament did not pass a law mandating the death penalty for homosexuality. Even so, that debate is a result of Ugandan society, not Ugandan democracy.

The privilege to be free from violent assault? It's not truly right. It's a privilege only few people get. (I base this on my definitions, not yours)

No, it's a right - at least here - it is illegal to assault someone in the UK, which includes threatening them, it has been this way for around 400 years. Actually touching someone it "Battery" if you are convicted of both that can be up to a year in prison.

Then how do you expect to handle ANY smoker that does that stupidity? You plan to sue him?

Actually, blowing smoke in my face is illegal, it is also a form of assault, or maybe actually battery, but you'd be prosecuted under assult - if I bothered to bring charges. The point is that I should never have to deal with that in the first place.

What is it with you and impossible questions? You never have asked a single question that can be answered by your own imposed narrow limits.

You just think that because they aren't the sort of answers you want.

So... You make the link yet? Make packaged joints without nicotine, and you get better smokes.

Packaged joints would have what else in, though? Loose Hash would still be cut with tobacco to stretch it out, why would people start smoking it pure anyway. How soon do you want the walls to start oozing?

Also:

Not many cancer health hazards from hash mah brotha'. You just making that **** up!

Any smoke inhalation is bad for your health, cannabis has tar in, doesn't it? That's the thing that causes most of the lung disease and the hacking cough in smokers.

Good for you to reject that.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

They're gonna do it anyway. If I want to end my life, I should be entitled to do so. Euthanasia for the sad.

There's the difference between you and me then, I care about other people and about society in general. You don't.

Yes, it shows that we are no longer middle-age religious fanatics who would be shocked and order and execution when seeing a women prancing around with half of her belly showing.

Right... so modern exploitation of women is better, then?

Gullible. Why should he need to steal if Meth and Marijuana are highly less addictive than even alcohol and tobbaco? I think the difference between alcoholic thieves and hash thieves is a ratio of 20:1. Only one with high amounts is cocaine. And only becasue it's illegal, so it's expensive. Get rid of the conjured up illegality and drop crime rates. They don't have anything to steal.

What are you implying? That every single pot smoker is a thief? I have two hashead friends, never stole a thing besides a few pencils since they lost their own.

I was thinking more of heroin users, or is drug legalisation just for some drugs all of a sudden?

Pointlessness.

Not if you were the French in WWI or WWII, it was fight or be enslaved or exterminated. Sadly their are worse things for a country to endure than war, much worse ones.

[Fragony]

You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

And also for discriminalising no? There are shops that sell 'amazing' glasses should you need one

[Idaho]

You don't cease to amaze me and I don't really mean in a good way... Haven't you spent the rest of the thread arguing for prohibition?

Fragony is a conservative. He is scared of any change he might not understand. He knows that in his country he has ready access to drugs and has little or no danger of legal penalty for taking them. Beyond that he doesn't really care, so doesn't want any change in the law or culture of his country.