[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;37801813]Yes. I don't think it's the business of the state to regulate what we put in our bodies.[/QUOTE]
How do you feel about medical drugs and their limitations?
If drugs are legalized then more kids (10-18) will be going out and buying these products and getting "high" and it will be terrible. 1st off gang violence would probably rise since the drugs will be legal and they can sell them anywhere (turf wars) and 2nd Its just not ethnically right.
I think they should, but what happens when someone's addiction becomes someone else's problem, like when heroin addicts steal and kill for their next fix, and become anti-productive members of society? Or people driving under the influence (includes drugs already). These things must be worked out.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;37889933]I think they should, but what happens when someone's addiction becomes someone else's problem, like when heroin addicts steal and kill for their next fix, and become anti-productive members of society? Or people driving under the influence (includes drugs already). These things must be worked out.[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree. Certain drugs should be legalized, but the highly addictive ones should remain illegal.
[QUOTE=BeeHiveOfDeat;37889725]If drugs are legalized then more kids (10-18) will be going out and buying these products and getting "high" and it will be terrible. 1st off gang violence would probably rise since the drugs will be legal and they can sell them anywhere (turf wars) and 2nd Its just not ethnically right.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't just go out and "buy" them if they're regulated like alcohol is now (age). Sure, kids could get a hold of them anyway, but most drugs are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco anyway.
If the drugs were completely legalized, including manufacture and distribution, they would have to undergo quality control to make sure a good product is being released. Also, since they would be mass-manufactured, there's a good chance it would end up cheaper for a buyer to go the legal route instead of buying from some back-alley dealer. I think this would alleviate the gang violence and turf wars.
Also, "ethnically right"?
[i]Definition for ethnically:
with respect to ethnicity; "the neighborhood is ethnically diverse".[/i]
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;37889933]I think they should, but what happens when someone's addiction becomes someone else's problem, like when heroin addicts steal and kill for their next fix, and become anti-productive members of society? Or people driving under the influence (includes drugs already). These things must be worked out.[/QUOTE]
Both of those issues will happen whether or not legalization happens. It's inevitable that there will be irresponsible users of any substance. Should we punish the rest of the people for their actions? I personally don't think so.
[QUOTE=BeeHiveOfDeat;37890170]I kind of agree. Certain drugs should be legalized, but the highly addictive ones should remain illegal.[/QUOTE]
How predictable.
[QUOTE=BeeHiveOfDeat;37889725]If drugs are legalized then more kids (10-18) will be going out and buying these products and getting "high" and it will be terrible. 1st off gang violence would probably rise since the drugs will be legal and they can sell them anywhere (turf wars) and 2nd Its just not ethnically right.[/QUOTE]
Do you have proof of that? That's the same argument that people used against prohibition. If kids want to get high, they [I]will[/I] get high. Getting drugs is not a difficult task.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37892177]Do you have proof of that? That's the same argument that people used against prohibition. If kids want to get high, they [I]will[/I] get high. Getting drugs is not a difficult task.[/QUOTE]
But the point is not whether they'll be able to get it or not. Because likely it will just be easier.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37893009]But the point is not whether they'll be able to get it or not. Because likely it will just be easier.[/QUOTE]
Right now it's easier to buy cannabis than it is to buy alcohol, if drugs are regulated then the government can put an age restriction on purchase.
If anything less kids will get high.
[QUOTE=BeeHiveOfDeat;37889725]If drugs are legalized then more kids (10-18) will be going out and buying these products and getting "high" and it will be terrible. 1st off gang violence would probably rise since the drugs will be legal and they can sell them anywhere (turf wars) and 2nd Its just not ethnically right.[/QUOTE]
Kids are already going out and buying these products? When I was at school drugs were far easier to get than alcohol so I think it would reduce the problem. And noone would buy off the gangs if its legal because it would be better to buy from a regulated store
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37893009]But the point is not whether they'll be able to get it or not. Because likely it will just be easier.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it can be easier than buying drugs during lunch break like you can right now
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
or even during class
Related amusing (and informative!) webcomic: [URL]http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/war-on-drugs[/URL]
[IMG]http://cdn.stuartmcmillen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-en-War-on-Drugs-24.png[/IMG][IMG]http://cdn.stuartmcmillen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-en-War-on-Drugs-25.png[/IMG][IMG]http://cdn.stuartmcmillen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-en-War-on-Drugs-26.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=n0cturni;37885286]How do you feel about medical drugs and their limitations?[/QUOTE]
Could you explain a little more precisely what you mean
The fact that it's entirely recreational makes the whole thing a joke to me. I just can't take it seriously. Imagine if everyone pushed for the legalization of X because 'it makes me feel good'? Instead coming off as a real issue it's like, why can't you just do something else?
Other than for medical use, I don't see the point.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37904878]The fact that it's entirely recreational makes the whole thing a joke to me. I just can't take it seriously. Imagine if everyone pushed for the legalization of X because 'it makes me feel good'? Instead coming off as a real issue it's like, why can't you just do something else?[/QUOTE]
It is a real issue because the federal government is telling us that we can't do something that feels good because they don't want us to. It's like if they prohibited video games. Sure, you could say that we should just go outside and do something useful and constructive, but you'd be a cynical asshole, because the real issue is that the state shouldn't be trying to legislate morality. It has never and will never be effective at doing anything other than making criminals out of citizens who do nothing wrong. It doesn't matter that it's recreation, because prohibition perpetuates a black market and that does nothing to help us, it only ever hurts us. Well, I mean, it helps drug users because drugs are cheaper and more potent and easier to get than they ever have been, but I mean, it hurts our country overall.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;37899205]Could you explain a little more precisely what you mean[/QUOTE]
Like, the more heavily regulated drugs that may no longer be obtained over the counter, like pseudoephedrine or pretty much anything that is now behind the counter when it used to not be the case. Or maybe even some drugs that are controlled such as morphine.
What are your opinions on it?
[QUOTE=J Paul;37904945]It is a real issue because the federal government is telling us that we can't do something that feels good because they don't want us to. It's like if they prohibited video games. Sure, you could say that we should just go outside and do something useful and constructive, but you'd be a cynical asshole, because the real issue is that the state shouldn't be trying to legislate morality. It has never and will never be effective at doing anything other than making criminals out of citizens who do nothing wrong. It doesn't matter that it's recreation, because prohibition perpetuates a black market and that does nothing to help us, it only ever hurts us. Well, I mean, it helps drug users because drugs are cheaper and more potent and easier to get than they ever have been, but I mean, it hurts our country overall.[/QUOTE]
So the argument is in fact "the government is not allowing me to have fun the way I want to; legalize it".
Also, laws are based on morality, of course they can legislate them...
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37905370]So the argument is in fact "the government is not allowing me to have fun the way I want to; legalize it".
Also, laws are based on morality, of course they can legislate them...[/QUOTE]
Laws are not based on morality because morality is subjective and completely personal. That is why prohibition laws make no sense. What may seem immoral to you may not be considered immoral by someone else, which is why you don't base your laws on personal morality, you base them on real things that you can verify. Murder absolutely causes harm to others, so it's illegal. Thievery causes harm to others through harming their possessions, so it's illegal. Not all illegal drugs cause harm to the user, but some do, but the point is that it doesn't effect anyone but the user, who makes the personal choice to use. You can't legislate against someone punching themselves in the face, it just doesn't make any sense. But you can certainly legislate against someone punching other people in the face, because maintaining the peace is what the law primarily seeks to accomplish.
I don't understand your argument. If my argument is "the government is trying to influence my recreation through legislation and they shouldn't do that", then what's your argument? Do you believe the government has any business telling you how you should have fun as long as it doesn't involve you harming others?
Marijuana should be legal considering it's less harmful than smoking or Alcohol. Most other drugs aren't too great to get into.
[QUOTE=J Paul;37905492]Laws are not based on morality because morality is subjective and completely personal. That is why prohibition laws make no sense. What may seem immoral to you may not be considered immoral by someone else, which is why you don't base your laws on personal morality, you base them on real things that you can verify. Murder absolutely causes harm to others, so it's illegal. Thievery causes harm to others through harming their possessions, so it's illegal. Not all illegal drugs cause harm to the user, but some do, but the point is that it doesn't effect anyone but the user, who makes the personal choice to use. You can't legislate against someone punching themselves in the face, it just doesn't make any sense. But you can certainly legislate against someone punching other people in the face, because maintaining the peace is what the law primarily seeks to accomplish.
I don't understand your argument. If my argument is "the government is trying to influence my recreation through legislation and they shouldn't do that", then what's your argument? Do you believe the government has any business telling you how you should have fun as long as it doesn't involve you harming others?[/QUOTE]
Does murdering an evil dictator cause harm? Or what about stealing food for the survival of your family?
Saying drugs don't harm others is extremely naive. Even a parent smoking what could be considered harmless, weed, spends all kind of money on the drug that could have otherwise been put towards the well being of their family or future. They can have terrible mood swings which are usually taken out on the family and most their lives revolves around making sure they can get another high so they can be happy. And that's just weed. Tell me drugs are harmless when you see articles about some guy jacked up on something trying to tear another man's face off. You actually want to legalize something like that? Something that has the potential to completely override all rational thought and control?
And for the last part I believe it harms others. My first argument was that it's recreational therefore not a necessity in any way so it's not a valid issue. Now it's that plus they're harmful to the user and others around them.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37905852]Does murdering an evil dictator cause harm? Or what about stealing food for the survival of your family?
Saying drugs don't harm others is extremely naive. Even a parent smoking what could be considered harmless, weed, spends all kind of money on the drug that could have otherwise been put towards the well being of their family or future. They can have terrible mood swings which are usually taken out on the family and most their lives revolves around making sure they can get another high so they can be happy. And that's just weed. Tell me drugs are harmless when you see articles about some guy jacked up on something trying to tear another man's face off. You actually want to legalize something like that? Something that has the potential to completely override all rational thought and control?
And for the last part I believe it harms others. My first argument was that it's recreational therefore not a necessity in any way so it's not a valid issue. Now it's that plus they're harmful to the user and others around them.[/QUOTE]
People will use drugs despite prohibition laws, prohibiting them just makes everything all around worse and increases drug use. Nobody is saying drugs are harmless, however used in the right context nearly any drug can be used safely and with little if any harm.
I really don't understand why you think just because something is recreational it has no use. Sports are recreational, video games are recreational, television is recreational. Should we stop doing all of these things just because they have no other use but recreation?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37905852]Does murdering an evil dictator cause harm? Or what about stealing food for the survival of your family?
Saying drugs don't harm others is extremely naive. Even a parent smoking what could be considered harmless, weed, spends all kind of money on the drug that could have otherwise been put towards the well being of their family or future. They can have terrible mood swings which are usually taken out on the family and most their lives revolves around making sure they can get another high so they can be happy. And that's just weed. Tell me drugs are harmless when you see articles about some guy jacked up on something trying to tear a man's face off. You actually want to legalize something like that?
And for the last part I believe it harms others. My first argument was that it's recreational therefore not a necessity in any way so it's not a valid issue. Now it's that plus they're harmful to the user and others around them.[/QUOTE]
The things you bring up here have nothing to do with the drugs themselves, they have to do with poor personal choices. The state shouldn't be in charge of forcing people to make good decisions that will benefit their future. This is why we don't ban firearms, motor vehicles, tall buildings, aircraft, financial irresponsibility, and all of the other things that have the ability to harm the self and others if poor decisions are made. You are encouraged to do the right thing, but you have the freedom to do as you wish. Sitting around playing video games and wasting time on internet forums does just as much harm to yourself and your future and those for whom you will at some point be responsible as any other useless recreational activity, so why don't we also make video games illegal? Remember that kid who killed his mom and baked her in the oven because she took his PS3?
Besides, you clearly have no experience with marijuana if you honestly think it does anything like the above. And you seem to forget that if someone needs drugs that badly that they're willing to harm others to get them, it would be a lot safer for the user and for society for them to get it through a legal, controlled, regulated supply line where quality can be assured and prices can be as low as possible, drastically reducing or eliminating the motivation to commit crimes in order to pay for the habit. Beyond that, legal access allows for the collection of taxes and prevents money from further circulating through the black market.
Prohibition causes far more problems than simply allowing people to freely use drugs. We have lots of empirical data to support this. We also have real empirical data to show that there's not much of a consequence to society to allow people to use drugs. Before there were prohibition laws in the US, there was no drug problem. Drug prohibition has historically been a means by which for unscrupulous, evil people to make lots of money from the opportunities created by the prohibition itself. There is no rational, logically sound argument supporting prohibition, it simply doesn't work.
[QUOTE=J Paul;37905921]The things you bring up here have nothing to do with the drugs themselves, they have to do with poor personal choices. The state shouldn't be in charge of forcing people to make good decisions that will benefit their future. This is why we don't ban firearms, motor vehicles, tall buildings, aircraft, financial irresponsibility, and all of the other things that have the ability to harm the self and others if poor decisions are made. You are encouraged to do the right thing, but you have the freedom to do as you wish. Sitting around playing video games and wasting time on internet forums does just as much harm to yourself and your future and those for whom you will at some point be responsible as any other useless recreational activity, so why don't we also make video games illegal? Remember that kid who killed his mom and baked her in the oven because she took his PS3?
Besides, you clearly have no experience with marijuana if you honestly think it does anything like the above. And you seem to forget that if someone needs drugs that badly that they're willing to harm others to get them, it would be a lot safer for the user and for society for them to get it through a legal, controlled, regulated supply line where quality can be assured and prices can be as low as possible, drastically reducing or eliminating the motivation to commit crimes in order to pay for the habit. Beyond that, legal access allows for the collection of taxes and prevents money from further circulating through the black market.
Prohibition causes far more problems than simply allowing people to freely use drugs. We have lots of empirical data to support this. We also have real empirical data to show that there's not much of a consequence to society to allow people to use drugs. Before there were prohibition laws in the US, there was no drug problem. Drug prohibition has historically been a simple means by which for people to make lots of money from the opportunities created by the prohibition itself. There is no rational, logically sound argument supporting prohibition, it simply doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
If I didn't have experience with the effects of marijuana I wouldn't be against drugs. And the problems I brought up do have to do with drugs. The poor choice is taking the drug in the first place. The drug itself maintains the problems associated with it. This isn't an issue of banning or making something legal illegal. Drugs are already illegal, I'm saying just leave it that way. I see no genuine benefit from reversing that.
And drugs would be more expensive if distributed legally. Users would have more desire to pursue them being legal, yet they would cost more at the same time causing even more problems.
Also, why does prohibition seem to work so well for a country like Japan?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906060]If I didn't have experience with the effects of marijuana I wouldn't be against drugs. And the problems I brought up do have to do with drugs. The poor choice is taking the drug in the first place. The drug itself maintains the problems associated with it.
And drugs would be more expensive if distributed legally. Users would have more desire to pursue them being legal, yet they would cost more at the same time causing even more problems.
Also, why does prohibition seem to work so well for a country like Japan?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. There's still a huge black market for illegal drugs and marijuana use among university students in japan is higher than it has ever been.
And you're seriously deluded if you honestly believe your first comment.
How could you possibly say that drugs would be more expensive if they're legal? Honestly, how does that make any sense at all? If drugs are legal, there's no overhead caused by the opportunism inspired by the black market. The drugs can be made in extreme bulk with guaranteed quality, so of course the prices go down. The only reason drugs make so much money now is because it's extremely lucrative because people are willing to pay a premium to get something that they aren't allowed to have. If they're allowed to have it, the premium doesn't exist.
It's why Brazilian rosewood is so rare and so prized for guitar manufacturing, it is now illegal. Back when it wasn't illegal, there wasn't so much of a premium on it.
[quote]This isn't an issue of banning or making something legal illegal. Drugs are already illegal, I'm saying just leave it that way. I see no genuine benefit from reversing that. [/quote]
Sure, I can understand how you could think that if you don't know much about history, but if you'd read up just a little about what happened before and after the alcohol prohibition experiment, you'd see the obvious benefits of reversing it. And for the majority of our history as a nation, drugs were legal, and there was no problem. The war on drugs is a recent development and has been an utter and colossal failure that has cost us an untold amount of money and lives.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906060]Also, why does prohibition seem to work so well for a country like Japan?[/QUOTE]
Turns out prohibition can slightly 'work' if you restrict freedoms and enforce harsh penalties on something non-violent that shouldn't be a criminal offense in the first place.
[QUOTE=J Paul;37906088]It doesn't. There's still a huge black market for illegal drugs and marijuana use among university students in japan is higher than it has ever been.
And you're seriously deluded if you honestly believe your first comment.
How could you possibly say that drugs would be more expensive if they're legal? Honestly, how does that make any sense at all? If drugs are legal, there's no overhead caused by the opportunism inspired by the black market. The drugs can be made in extreme bulk with guaranteed quality, so of course the prices go down. The only reason drugs make so much money now is because it's extremely lucrative because people are willing to pay a premium to get something that they aren't allowed to have. If they're allowed to have it, the premium doesn't exist.
It's why Brazilian rosewood is so rare and so prized for guitar manufacturing, it is now illegal. Back when it wasn't illegal, there wasn't so much of a premium on it.[/QUOTE]
I'm deluded because you think you know what I've experienced better than I do?
So the government wouldn't slap massive taxes on drug companies kind of like it does with alcohol and cigarettes? It's just another opportunity to make money from addicts. Then dealers would raise their prices to match them.
And when Brazilian rosewood was legal it wasn't endangered, therefore not being rare, and not being expensive.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906142]I'm deluded because you think you know what I've experienced better than I do?
So the government wouldn't slap massive taxes on drug companies kind of like it does with alcohol and cigarettes? It's just another opportunity to make money from addicts. Then dealers would raise their prices to match them.
And when Brazilian rosewood was legal it wasn't endangered, therefore not being rare, and not being expensive.[/QUOTE]
No amount of taxing would ever amount to the overhead that drug dealers charge for the fact that they have to circumvent the law and take huge risk in order to supply you. I'm calling you deluded because you have no experience in this field that you're talking about, because any amount of experience whatsoever with the actual facts would clearly demonstrate to you that prohibition is literally the worst idea ever. I mean you do know about alcohol prohibition, right? I mean, every time I bring up something that is grounded in absolute fact, you ignore it and then just divert to saying what you've said already without providing anything substantial to support what you've said, that's why I'm calling you deluded.
If you want to learn about this subject, you're welcome to do some research, because you're clearly not going to listen to me.
[QUOTE=J Paul;37906153]No amount of taxing would ever amount to the overhead that drug dealers charge for the fact that they have to circumvent the law and take huge risk in order to supply you. I'm calling you deluded because you have no experience in this field that you're talking about, because any amount of experience whatsoever with the actual facts would clearly demonstrate to you that prohibition is literally the worst idea ever.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol is one thing for prohibition. Where do you draw the line with drugs?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906168]Alcohol is one thing for prohibition. Where do you draw the line with drugs?[/QUOTE]
Alcohol is absolutely no different from drug prohibition, and the only reason you perceive them differently is because of the societal conditions into which you've been brought up. I don't see a rational reason to draw a line with anything. The best we can do is provide a safe, legal, controlled, regulated supply line for those who want to use, while investing money that would be used for enforcement into providing drug abuse education and treatment when necessary. This is what they do in Portugal and the statistics are incredibly positive; addiction rates decline, rehab attendance rises, and overall drug use declines. The only problem with the way Portugal does it is that they've only decriminalized use and possession, the supply side is still illegal so they're still feeding a tax-free black market run by opportunist criminals.
[QUOTE=J Paul;37906181][B]Alcohol is absolutely no different from drug prohibition, and the only reason you perceive them differently is because of the societal conditions into which you've been brought up.[/B] I don't see a rational reason to draw a line with anything. The best we can do is provide a safe, legal, controlled, regulated supply line for those who want to use, while investing money that would be used for enforcement into providing drug abuse education and treatment when necessary. This is what they do in Portugal and the statistics are incredibly positive; addiction rates decline, rehab attendance rises, and overall drug use declines. The only problem with the way Portugal does it is that they've only decriminalized use and possession, the supply side is still illegal so they're still feeding a tax-free black market.[/QUOTE]
The difference between weed and bath salts is [I]slightly[/I] different than say beer and whiskey.
So you're saying we can't ban the least popular, most dangerous drugs? We have to let them all through?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906231]The difference between weed and bath salts is [I]slightly[/I] different than say beer and whiskey.[/QUOTE]
It's not at all different. Prohibition influenced America's shift from low alcohol content drinks like beer and wine to hard liquors which pack much more of a punch. The reason being is because beer and wine take up much, much more space to smuggle than hard liquor, so the opportunist criminals who took advantage of prohibition sought the higher profits of smuggling hard liquor, and since that's what they were selling, that's what we drank.
Similarly, drug prohibition influenced America's shift towards the use of designer drugs in favor of prohibited drugs. The fact that opportunists can engineer a new (untested, potentially dangerous) molecule that is technically not illegal and doesn't show up on a drug test and then sell it in a really small package in comparison to marijuana, at a somewhat economic price to boot, and sometimes with much higher potency and a totally new or different psychological experience for users to try out, encouraged the shift. That's what they're selling, so that's what we'll smoke/snort/swallow.
So its' the exact same thing.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37906231]So you're saying we can't ban the least popular, most dangerous drugs? We have to let them all through?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. There's no reason for there to be a black market for any of this stuff. Like I said, you provide education at the point of sale and treatment when necessary, both of which would be funded several times over by the amount of money it takes to enforce prohibition. It can be absolutely proven that prohibition does nothing except create criminals where there were none, and support a black market, rife with opportunities for those willing to take the risks, and it can also be proven by Portugal's drug policy that education and treatment does help drug users and society.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.