Alright, since the old drug debate thread died out, and didn't have much to offer originally I'm going to post my own.
Drug policy has been controversial ever since drug use became commonplace in most societies all over the world, but [b]a ton[/b] of the information shared by the media and the public has been biased in the pro and anti direction.
Some of the causes of a lot of this controversy can be attributed to the following:
:eng101:
* Media/news/government exaggerating negative effects of drugs and dismissing positive effects
* Media/drug users dismissing or hiding negative effects of drugs
* Irresponsible behavior by drug users
* Teens and young adults using drugs
* Citizens rarely educated on safe drug use, just to avoid using drugs all together.
* Organized crime
The list goes on. So, here we discuss other contributing factors to drug controversy, and whether or not drugs should be allowed.
Personally, I think that if a person is of legal age, probably 18+, they should be able to buy any quantities of their desired drug so long as they plan to use them responsibly, and only distributing these drugs to people who are of legal age and consent to owning/ingesting the drugs.
Perhaps they should make permits that allow citizens without serious criminal records to purchase moderate quantities of drugs, but not to sell them. I believe people should be able to do what they want to their bodies, and if they decide to do something foolish on drugs, it's not the chemical's fault, only theirs, and they should be held fully accountable.
For the sake of me not having to type a long paragraph stating my opinion, I'll just leave this here.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5KVSP.png[/img]
[QUOTE=AgentBoomstick;33098780]For the sake of me not having to type a long paragraph stating my opinion, I'll just leave this here.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5KVSP.png[/img][/QUOTE]
what's your point
On a pure moral level I believe no substance should be prohibited. But on a political/economic/crime level I don't know if everyones "LEGALIZE WILL FIX EVERYTHING!" is even true
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33099533]what's your point[/QUOTE]The idea is that a spider on each of those drugs is able to function normally except for the one on caffeine, which is the only one of the four that is currently legal.
[QUOTE=AgentBoomstick;33098780]For the sake of me not having to type a long paragraph stating my opinion, I'll just leave this here.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5KVSP.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Except spiders aren't humans. Also, we have a great advantage over spiders in that we are conscious beings, and we know (usually) when we ingest a drug, and have a general idea of what to expect.
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;33099924]Except spiders aren't humans. Also, we have a great advantage over spiders in that we are conscious beings, and we know (usually) when we ingest a drug, and have a general idea of what to expect.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not sure whether AgentBoomstick was serious or not but it's still a pretty shitty example of the effects on drugs.
[QUOTE=Mooe94;33100460]Indeed. I'm not sure whether AgentBoomstick was serious or not but it's still a pretty shitty example of the effects on drugs.[/QUOTE]
Especially cause it makes it seem like LSD and caffeine have magically switched places.
Fine if you want Guys that are High Driving down the road and 100 mph then you can have it that way
But in my opinion no because When everyone go's to a drug store next moment everyones going to be high driving home from work.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;33101335]Fine if you want Guys that are High Driving down the road and 100 mph then you can have it that way
[/QUOTE]People do that regardless of whether or not they're high. There's also this thing called drink driving which is generally a lot worse. The high of weed doesn't really impair one's ability to drive unless fatigue is combined with it.
Anyway, enough people already use drugs, and most people who would already have.
Trying to police drug use has been unsuccessful and it's just money down the drain, what's needed is the educational backing to teach moderation, risks etc. before anything's properly legalised. Money freed up from decriminalisation can be allocated to said education, as well as better rehab and support for users of harder drugs. Through legalization, the quality and safety of recreational drugs will be regulated, and in addition to the education, addiction rates would be lower. Look at Portugal's drug laws and infrastructure, and the effects they've had on addiction rates and fatalities from or related to drug use.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33099786]On a pure moral level I believe no substance should be prohibited. But on a political/economic/crime level I don't know if everyones "LEGALIZE WILL FIX EVERYTHING!" is even true[/QUOTE]
Countries that have legalized all drugs have a decrease in hard drug usage(crack, cocaine, heroin, etc.).
So yeah, legalizing drugs fixes pretty much everything about them.
Gangs lose revenue, you get a right to your own body, you can't get arrested for only effecting yourself, they're easier to get if you use them, less people use them(not that using them is bad in the first place), drug cartels aren't as powerful, no more deaths from the war on drugs, and people can't use drugs as a way of controlling people if they're widely available.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33099786]On a pure moral level I believe no substance should be prohibited. But on a political/economic/crime level I don't know if everyones "LEGALIZE WILL FIX EVERYTHING!" is even true[/QUOTE]
Legalizing everything would actually put us in a better position than keeping it all illegal.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33099786]On a pure moral level I believe no substance should be prohibited. But on a political/economic/crime level I don't know if everyones "LEGALIZE WILL FIX EVERYTHING!" is even true[/QUOTE]
I don't think legalization would, but it's the right thing to do imo.
All drugs should be legalized, possibly sold by the state and taxed.
Income from taxing can go towards education on dangers of drug use and treatment of addiction, akin to cigerettes and alcohol. Perhaps then infomation on drugs would actually be closer to the truth than scare mongering, I'd like to say newspapers etc should have to fact check things before making bullshit claims but unfortunately I think that's more of a problem with everything not just drugs.
Criminalizing drug users just makes them have to turn to crime for jobs, someone with posession of cocaine/heroin on their record is not likely to get a job. I'd also say if there is a centralized, non profit organization for distribution of drugs then dealing drugs should be a civil crime, finable but not something that will go on your criminal record. By making it a state job then purity of drugs will rise, economies of scale can be achieved and risks reduced, this means lower costs in providing them and less chance of overdoses due to impurity.
[QUOTE=Mooe94;33100460]Indeed. I'm not sure whether AgentBoomstick was serious or not but it's still a pretty shitty example of the effects on drugs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, everyone knows the true effects that drugs have on spiders.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc[/media]
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;33101335]Fine if you want Guys that are High Driving down the road and 100 mph then you can have it that way
But in my opinion no because When everyone go's to a drug store next moment everyones going to be high driving home from work.[/QUOTE]
Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana, not so much.
Legalise the drugs which provide gang revenue, followed by eliminating the gangs and then putting the laws back in place for the hard drugs , whilst keeping the same law enforcement standards. If you set about on systematic elimination of the gangs after banning the drugs, followed by putting the laws back in place and making sure the gangs never rise again along with teaching every single child every single generation to stay away from hard drugs and to snitch on people whom do, then given a few generations you can probably eliminate hard drugs entirely.
[QUOTE=Dextro;33110167]Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana. not so much.[/QUOTE]
Yeah my friend drives high all the time.
Hell we take bong hits in the car while driving.
He says it makes you really focused on the road.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33113198]Legalise the drugs which provide gang revenue, followed by eliminating the gangs and then putting the laws back in place for the hard drugs , whilst keeping the same law enforcement standards. If you set about on systematic elimination of the gangs after banning the drugs, followed by putting the laws back in place and making sure the gangs never rise again along with teaching every single child every single generation to stay away from hard drugs and to snitch on people whom do, then given a few generations you can probably eliminate hard drugs entirely.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this would work for a few reasons:
*Even if you ban the drugs that bring in revenue for gangs, they will either sell drugs that they usually don't, and the government would have to catch onto what new drugs the gangs are selling and legalize those too.
*Gangs would resort to higher-risk methods of acquiring funds than selling drugs to keep themselves from collapsing.
*When the laws are put back in place, the police won't be able to block most new gangs from forming without violating constitutional rights.
Also, what if people who use the hard drugs are responsible, contributing members of society? Do you really think it'd be right to have those people thrown away? 'Cause that would be a big reason for legalizing some drugs for personal use, to keep prisons from being overflowed with people who didn't do anything to deserve to be arrested.
[QUOTE=Dextro;33110167]Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana, not so much.[/QUOTE]
It still lowers your reaction times so I still dont think it should be legal to be high and driving
[QUOTE=Dextro;33110167][B]Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability[/B]
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana, not so much.[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm somehow misreading this, the source you cited specifically states the exact opposite of what you just said, in that it affects your driving ability very much so.
I've driven with people who were high and they seemed really slow! I guess that'd be bad on like a super speedy highway but out where I live there's not a lot of traffic anyways so I don't think it's too big of a problem. It seems like a lot of issues with weed are just because people don't like the idea of drugs in general and look at it as some kind of nightmare terror thing that's gonna make people go crazy and burn things down. So it's illegal and people that do it are criminals, which is totally lame.
[QUOTE=Dextro;33110167]Studies found that marijuana did not affect driving ability
Source: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360[/url]
So you can strike marijuana off the list. There'd be a ton of drivers out there high on weed, as opposed to cocaine or meth, where not nearly as many people would do in general. I could see cocaine and meth creating a problem with driving too quickly. But marijuana, not so much.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the study?
"Both levels of [B]THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner[/B]. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose[B] were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities[/B], with some differences between the two drugs. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. [B]After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition[/B], while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition."
I can understand the desire to paint marijuana in a more positive light, but stating bullshit is irresponsible. You shouldn't drive under the influence of any strongly mind altering substance.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33115943]Did you even read the study?
"Both levels of [B]THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner[/B]. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose[B] were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities[/B], with some differences between the two drugs. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. [B]After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition[/B], while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition."
I can understand the desire to paint marijuana in a more positive light, but stating bullshit is irresponsible. You shouldn't drive under the influence of any strongly mind altering substance.[/QUOTE]
What about Caffeine products?
Is it fine to drive under their influence?
Furthermore we can see in studies like this one:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719045[/url]
That neurocognitive performance is significantly impaired in people who are not regular/heavy users of THC. Heavy users performed better under the influence of THC, in everything EXCEPT their stop reaction time. - this alone suggests THC is not a safe drug to be driving under the influence of.
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coffee;33116027]What about Caffeine products?
Is it fine to drive under their influence?[/QUOTE]
Caffeine isn't a mind altering substance/doesn't affect judgement, and increases reaction time in sporting performance model studies, so I don't see why not.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;33101335]Fine if you want Guys that are[B] drunk[/B] Driving down the road and 100 mph then you can have it that way
But in my opinion no because When everyone [B]goes[/B] to a [B]booze[/B] store next moment everyones going to be [B]drunk[/B] driving home from work.[/QUOTE]
Fixed (couldn't resist fixing your annoying spelling)
By the way, do you see people driving high doing that right now? What makes you think any people that would be stupid enough to do this don't already have access to drugs? If your argument is that people wouldn't touch drugs unless they're legal because they follow rules, then they'd be following road rules, like not driving whilst intoxicated, or speeding and driving dangerously.
To everyone else, driving whilst high on weed certainly isn't anywhere near as bad as drunk driving. but it's still more dangerous than sober driving, because of increased reaction times.
I know if hard drugs were legal I'd totally get high and drive for the sake of drugs being legal. Right now they're illegal so I don't drive high.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33116030]Furthermore we can see in studies like this one:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719045[/url]
That neurocognitive performance is significantly impaired in people who are not regular/heavy users of THC. Heavy users performed better under the influence of THC, in everything EXCEPT their stop reaction time. - this alone suggests THC is not a safe drug to be driving under the influence of.
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
Caffeine isn't a mind altering substance/doesn't affect judgement, and increases reaction time in sporting performance model studies, so I don't see why.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I drive excellently while high on pot. K2, not so much (K2 seems to make me inattentive as opposed to most strains of weed which tend to allow me to focus on driving better than if I was sober), but I've always driven like an absolute professional after smoking natural bud. But, then, my motor control and basic ability to function aren't being impaired. You simply can't compare driving drunk with driving high, they're different chemicals with different effects, and varying degrees of effect. Being lightly high is not the same as being lightly drunk. Nervous depressants work in the opposite direction, so even just starting off you're already making yourself less functional, whereas a high is not taxing at all on basic human function. I never drive when I'm completely stoned out of my mind, but that's more about personal responsibility and my ability to judge whether or not I possess the mental capability to drive (again, doesn't impair judgement, if anything, potentially enhances it), [b]HOWEVER...[/b]
...I empathize with this argument entirely. I would get on that side of the argument simply to make compromise. If I'm not going to be persecuted for smoking pot in my own home, then I don't have much of a reason to smoke on the go, and I would DEFINITELY vouch for driving while drugged laws and fines if it meant widespread drug legality. I can see the concern with non-users not trusting those under the influence of any substance driving vehicles, absolutely, and I would gladly make the compromise if it means making you feel personally safer. I think it's such a small thing to give up, and I support it based on my function as a human being, not petty arguments regarding the difference in perception and the effects of the chemicals in question. It'd probably be safer, overall, if it was illegal to drive while under the effects of any sort of drug to the degree where it alters your cognitive, speech or motor functions, and can be tested and verified on the spot, physical evidence necessary. Similar criteria is met for suspicion of DUI, and I'm fine with that. Perhaps I am being irresponsible driving while high, and I'd admit so if I were under the same suspicion, but just generally I'm not sure I even care. It doesn't matter if I'm driving or sitting or operating a 40-story crane, having or smoking pot is illegal. If I was caught in any of those situations, the fact that I'm operating a crane or lounging in my pad doesn't matter, I'm being prosecuted purely because of the weed. The action itself is already illegal, what do I care? Why should I care? (other than the blatant, I'd never want to hurt someone, obviously). If there was even one instance where a pothead wasn't already actively being a criminal, it would make the fear of getting caught drugged driving a bit more intense, do you agree? Why not smoke in a house and not get arrested as opposed to rolling high and being arrested [i]because[/i] you were driving high?
I'm not ignorant, I'll face it: I'm a stoner who drives high quite often, but would gladly stop doing so and make compromise if it meant legality countrywide. Prosecution under driving while drugged laws are just for the mere fact that you put other people's lives at risk merely by being a driver. Prosecuting a guy for smoking pot in his basement is not just solely because he's not operating a multi-ton vehicle moving at 55mph, he's not endangering anyone but himself. Most probably, the safest thing to do in this regard is to legalize and moderate.
A person should not have limits placed upon him by the government pertaining to what they can or cannot do with their own life, mind, and body. Laws should intervene where a person endangers these rights for another person, that being life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and death (though this is a discussion for another debate thread, eh). This is the precedence these laws should be created and considered upon, it's quite simple, and many, if not all then at least the majority, could agree upon these terms.
Though I must say I do know why many parents oppose reform: I understand fully the concept of parents not wanting their kids to fall in with the wrong crowds, I really appreciate that, too. Just parents wanting what they think is best for their kids, they love 'em, why wouldn't they? I don't walk over to the local school and peddle drugs to children, that'd be despicable. But at the same time, I am an adult, I have attained that legal status, and if I want to get high in the comfort and safety of my own home then that is not the business of others, and it sure is not the business of the government. Maybe if I was loud and obnoxious or stunk up the neighborhood or was generally an unclean and rude person then people would have a reason to complain, but I'm none of those and would be offended if I was told I was. As for the visual regarding a shady drug dealer? Legalization would destroy the street dealer. Imagine all of the dealers gone either out of business or legitimatized by legalization laws. Suddenly, that shady dealer disappears and is replaced by a place of legitimate business that pays taxes. Fuck, the owner might be a family man, driving the soccer mom van on the weekend. "Oh yeah, that's Jim. He owns the store that sells pot and acid uptown, great guy." Fun hypothetical situation, but my point remains. Legalization would gut and destroy the black market - but that's why most dealers oppose legalization anyway.
And then, there's the other thing is the public stereotype or stigma of stoners or drug users, and that's just as disgusting as the ridiculous policies that reinforce that perception. Against public stigma, I am actually noted by neighbors of mine for being extremely polite and courteous, being sure to drive slow when children are playing outside, and waving to passer-bys. My association with drugs has absolutely no negative bearing on my life (actually, quite the opposite), but it still offends me as a consumer and a part of that culture that is being stigmatized so heavily - because absolutely none of it is true, and even less is correlative. We could analyze the unbelievably long list of stereotypes thrown at drug users, but that's asinine. There are stereotypes for every group of people, acknowledging them is the type of thing that gives them power, so we should actively work against that by creating the appearance of responsible, clean, and joyous individuals who enjoy recreational drugs during recreational time, outside of the responsibilities of day-to-day life (and knowing so many people who smoke pot, the wide majority, including myself, exhibit these characteristics de facto).
But whats most detrimental to the image of a recreational drug user, is the stereotype of junkies. Meth-heads, coke fiends, heroin addicts, whatever. This is the absolute worst image people can conjur up to battle the cause. "WELL WHAT ABOUT HEROIN!" will be shouted, various mentions of addiction and death and worthlessness and junkies. Well, yeah, I don't exactly support Heroin, I know how it destroys lives so well. But, then again, isn't that [i]their choice[/i], not yours? How would you feel being arrested for trying to eat chocolate chip ice cream as opposed to superman like any other normal person (you sick fuck)? It'd be pretty shitty being arrested and prosecuted for a crime that hurt exactly no one but possibly yourself, wouldn't it? What if you went to McDonalds and the cashier ordered for you? The theater tells you what movie to see? That's the problem. It doesn't necessarily matter at all that a substance is dangerous if not used in responsible moderation, which is the core of drug use that sets apart people like me and people unconscious in a dirty-ass motel with a syringe in their arm.
That's the crux of it. The law should be argued over [b]freedom of choice[/b], a fundamental idea that everyone in the US should be quite familiar with, not "freedom to do durgs and get hi 420 lol". That's not the goal of changing drug policy. Sure is a nice effect, but that's not why policy should be changed. Choice. At the same time, regarding arguments about addiction and dying and getting hurt; why is this relevant? Why are you considering this when question drug policy? Why are you not asking this about cars? Cars cause millions of deaths per year, far more than cocaine overdoses, so using that type of logic you should conclude that cars should be illegal - but they're not. I'll tell you why, too, little secret...
...It's called being a responsible adult and [i]not[/i] driving like a fucking toddler. I won't ever cause an accident because I don't fuck around when I operate something that can level a brick wall if I stop paying attention for 5 minutes. Responsibility. Pretty reasonable concept, yeah? It applies to drugs, ANY drugs, as well. The guy who drops LSD every 3 days is not being responsible, he's driving at 103 without a seatbelt (metaphorically). OF COURSE it's possible he'll "crash", he was using a substance, an inanimate object or "tool", so-to-speak, in a way it shouldn't be used it. Go try driving a nail into some wood with an icepick and tell me you used the right tool after you drive a hole through your hand. These are the same rules that apply to everything we use every day. Video games, computers, cars, trains, planes, fast mcfucking food even. You stuff your face full of burgers for 15 years and I'd be surprised if you DIDN'T die of a heart attack. You snort too much coke too often and I'd expect the same.
A user is a stark contrast from an abuser. Two completely different people with completely different sets of motives and morals. An abuser is not a responsible person. They allow the drug to control them, they allow themselves to become a slave to their own gluttony and desire and they ruin their lives to pursue it. A user is a responsible individual who does not allow his recreational activities and endevours put himself or another person at risk. He separates his day-to-day life, be it schooling or work or both, from his recreational activities. He does not get addicted to a substance, and stays thoroughly informed on any substance he considers trying. I didn't start smoking pot until I knew absolutely everything about it, and the same goes for Shrooms and LSD and Molly and Adderall. I researched these substances prior to making any sort of decision to use and I then used that information to make an educated, logically sound and ethically positive decision, and I now live better, and live as a better person, because of it. I recognize myself as accountable for my own actions, which is somehow a rare trait these days. Strange, to me at least.
/!\This paragraph here has a bit of personal hearsay, gets a little subjective, so I'm going to comment out the account of my own experience at the end there relating to the subject so those interested can read it, and those uninterested can easily skip it:
Sometimes the argument is brought up that some drugs are "gateway" or that people become addicts because they started with pot, and that's bullshit. It's completely absurd, the entire concept is uninformed and ridiculous. I've smoked A LOT of weed and K2 in my day, but I'm also doing my homework, getting to class on time, attending class, getting decent marks. I'm not shooting up heroin because I tried pot, that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't that mean that everyone would be on cocaine? I mean caffeine's a pretty hefty stimulant but my mother never switched from coffee to coke. Personal experiences aside, it's a dumb thought and a dumber argument. Would I be pursuing acid if it wasn't for weed? I am not denying it, but the way it's conceptualized by the viewer is completely incompatible with the reality, which is much less dark than is directed by the argument. I researched weed, I smoked it. This led my thought process to question what I've been told, and thus, I did research. Purely unbiased information-seeking (the reason I began researching Cannabis as well, see paragraph below), that's all it was.
// I wanted to understand why these things were so stigmatized, I wanted to see if it was the same set of garbage I was fed about marijuana. Lo and behold, it was exactly that. Found out a whole slew of scientific information supported by studies and scientific journals, citations and factual information, which absolved psychedelics of their stigma entirely, and naturally, that peaked my interest. Finally, I got the chance to try Psilocybin/Psilocin Mushrooms one day Not to delve too deep into my personal life but I would like to share this:
/!\Purely an account of my own life, again, for those interested. It's a bit dark though, be aware, death isn't particularly pretty:
//Unbiased information seeking is what led to my research on cannabis and subsequent loss of trust and hope in every adult figure who has ever said to me anything about the topic. Suddenly, my teachers, the Police, the government, my peers, and even my own goddamned parents couldn't be trusted to tell me the truth. In an instant, all of these people became liars and traitors to me and my generation. I have more than an ideological squabble with our drug policy: I have a personal vendetta. Anyway: My mother was pretty incapacitated by Cancer at the time and I was searching for an alternative to the cocktail of drugs they gave her, found out that pot could help her. Unfortunately, due to her and my fathers predisposition to demonizing marijuana, they refused to look into medical marijuana as a treatment to supplement or replace her pills. I watched the slew of pills rob her of her sanity, smash her mind to bits. I watched the medication destroy her mind as the cancer destroyed her body. My mother died long before her body stopped working. If it wasn't for the war on drugs, maybe she would have lived, even a day longer. Maybe she wouldn't have lost her fucking mind, maybe I could have talked to her. Hell, maybe I'm being hopeful, but maybe she might still be here, maybe she'd be sitting in my kitchen like she did every morning, 6am on the dot helping my brother get ready for school before going to work for the day herself. But then, I guess that's pretty much the only thing this policy was ever good at, was turning lies into fact in the eyes of the people. They did propaganda well, there's no denying that, it worked very well. Probably one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history (rivaling Christianity of course). But hey, gotta give thanks to the system for demonizing a plant, a plant discovered to be beneficial to people with ailments such as those that victimized my mother, and once again to the system for continuing to demonize it in light of scientific breakthrough and factual evidence declaring the contrary. Gotta high-five Obama for redacting his own words and behaving in the same way any other drug war president would. Hundreds of thousands of victimized patients, their families and loved ones, myself and my mother, want to personally thank you for continuing the cycle of ignorance and depriving legitimate patients their chance at solace, [i]you fucking scumbag[/i].
This may sound quite similar to other types of addictions. Well, that's because you [i]can[/i] get addicted to just about anything. Addiction is bad, regardless of the target. It stagnates or depletes lives, breeds irresponsibility. Look at World of Warcraft, look at the stories behind players going broke over it, or players not moving for days at a time, or that Chinese starcraft player that gamed in a coffee shop until he literally dropped dead. These things are not inherently dangerous, they can't be. They are inanimate, they are devoid of ethical responsibility or even just basic sentience. They have less mental capacity than your pet fucking lizard. No, objects or substances aren't dangerous: People are. Yeah yeah, "guns don't kill people..." argument, but it's true, isn't it? It isn't money that is the root of all evil, it's the [i]love[/i] of money that is the root of all evil. Objects hold no power but what we give them.
That's all there is to it. You can argue so many different ways, point out chemistry and safety and all these cute trivia facts and pseudo-facts, and you can throw it back and forth for eternity. But what it all really boils down to are those two basic principles: Freedom of Choice, and Personal Responsibility. Do we want to live in a country whose government decides what you do with your own mind and body? Are you personally responsible enough to handle certain substances or even ask yourself if you are? Those are questions that should be thrown around because they deal with concepts that virtually every citizen can relate to. Even if Mary the middle-aged housewife doesn't smoke pot, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the same treatment regarding something she enjoys, say, a glass of wine before bed. She sure wouldn't appreciate alcohol prohibition laws, and I sure don't appreciate *any* sort of prohibition law. And at the same time you can examine the same hypothetical situation for that concept of responsibility. Mary moderates, she has a single glass before bed. She's no binge drinker, no DUI's to her name. Maybe once in a while she drinks more extensively with friends, but she still doesn't drive while intoxicated.
This is responsible and average recreational drug use. It isn't even an alien *thing*. We watch people use and abuse substances like fat and sodium and caffeine multiple times a day, every day. It's not foreign, and it's not new, either. We've got hundreds of years of history to look back on, even just the past 100 years is educational regarding substance use and substance laws. Your most prevalent example would of course be the prohibition of alcohol, because it shows us exactly what happens when a substance is stigmatized and made illegal, we knew full well that information when first making these substances illegal 40-50 years ago, and it happened anyway, and history repeated. Well, sort-of. I mean, the drug policy is a complete and utter failure purely because it's prohibitory in nature. If someone wants something, just bad enough, then no laws or words of warning will stop them from getting it, and we proved it over and over. How else do you think we get this shit in the first place? Not from government-regulated stores, of course. So instead of taxing and regulating these "dangerous" substances, the decision was made to drive them underground, and damn, it did it well. The black market for recreational drugs is so unbelievably large and diverse, you can find pot in virtually every single city in the United States.
Yet, it's illegal, surprise! A round of applause, please, for the war on drugs. The biggest failure of government decision-making to date (and it keeps on going!) and a quality example of people exhibiting pure ignorance and indolence. No matter what way anyone from either side looks at it, the most obvious evidence is the most compelling: The very fact that these drugs are so easy to get is a testament to the catastrophic failure of our government, not mentioning the MILLIONS of dollars floating tax-free within the black market regardless of policy.
So, let me cut this bad boy down into a tl;dr, for the less inclined to read:
1. Driving While Drugged is irrelevant to the argument of legalization, or at the very least, is simply too early to be discussed considering the illegal nature of the substances required for said set of laws.
2. I agree with DWD laws, even as a guy who drives high often. I'd gladly stop driving high if I wasn't already being sought out for being a criminal.
3. Throwing around facts and pseudo-facts and lies and propaganda and truth is neat, but it's novelty. The real argument is much simpler: Freedom of Choice, to allow the government to decide what we do with our bodies, or to decide for ourselves; and Personal Responsibility, to allow oneself to become a junkie or an addict, or to use in a safe and responsible moderated manner.
4. We already know anti-legalization arguments are founded in misinformation and pseudo-fact, that's not surprising. We also know pot is more harmless than alcohol. Not new information. This is all neat stuff, but again, it's not the core of the argument. [b]You're arguing "freedom to do durgs and get hi 420 lol" to people inclined to respond "gettin hi is bad durgs r bad", when what you should be fighting for is the [u]freedom to decide that for yourself.[/u][/b]
To conclude, it doesn't matter which side you're on. It doesn't matter if you smoke cigs, smoke pot or smoke meth. Doesn't matter if you enjoy alcohol over weed, and it sure doesn't matter if you only do caffeine. What we can all agree on is that we do not want the government deciding these things for us. We are a country founded on the idea of freedom from this type of legislation that inhibits our free will to determine what we consume or deny. And finally, we must recognize our own personal accountability in order to be a responsible user of [b]any[/b] vice of any kind. We must also recognize that with the ability to choose, we are bestowed the responsibility to make good choices and to be good people, to choose to control the vice, not let it control oneself. This is true for all styles of living, all across our country, and all across the world under any circumstance, for any object. Money, french fries, aspirin, alcohol, weed, adderall, xanax, books, games, tv, movies, news. It is not a maxim of drug use, it is the maxim of a responsible individual that maintains control over their own life, and it really is as simple as that.
Oh and by the way, for anyone who even considers the vague ideology "drugs are bad", or however you'd like to justify it; rec drug users are lazy, impotent, and indolent, or whatever stereotype to be put forward, note the length of the post and consider that if it weren't for my attaining Adderall without a prescription, I would not have had the ability to focus long enough to type something so fucking long. Though, the ethical or ideological value of something created under the influence can be called into question, but this really isn't the place for that argument, perhaps a new debate thread if you are the type of individual to argue such a thing. Alright, done typing. Typically I write this stuff in notepad, I enjoy writing recreationally, but I just figured I might as well post it. I typed it up in response to a post and I typed it all here.
Edit: Holy fucking christ I didn't think I typed that much god damn wall of fucking text king of the ring debate section 2011
Mother of god!!
Did you actually type all that or was it a copy and paste
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
wait ignore that im dumb and high
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.