[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;37658105]Anyone determined enough is going to be able to get their hands on drugs. TamTamJam's point is that you can be assured that there isn't anything mixed in with the drugs you're taking and you'll know the exact strength of whatever you're taking to prevent an accidental overdose. Being able to buy drugs from a store is much safer than meeting a drug dealer in some dark alley in an unsavory part of town.[/QUOTE]
But drugs have severe mental consequences no matter how much you monitor your usage. Honestly, we don't need any more stupid people in this country. In addition I'm sure that no matter how much you moderate, if you use drugs on a regular basis not only will you suffer mental degradation but your physiology will break down internally.
What?
Drugs don't just make people stupid as soon as they use them, where did you pull that out of?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37659026] In addition I'm sure that no matter how much you moderate, if you use drugs on a regular basis not only will you suffer mental degradation but your physiology will break down internally.[/QUOTE]
You're sure, how sure? It would depend on the substance and most recreational substances do not tend to degrade the mind unless heavily abused (happens with alcohol more than anything else which is proven to be more dangerous than a regular correct dosage of heroin and many other drugs). If you're going to claim that people who use "drugs"(umbrella term) on a regular basis suffer mental degradation and physiological breakdown at least specify which "drugs" you are talking about and provide evidence for the claim instead of hopping on a fearmongering bandwagon.
Again I ask, what orifice did you pull this out of? I assume one that's full of shit (or no longer so as you appear to have emptied it onto this page). Are you just trying to persuade your "reckoning" or vague whims about the subject on others with no facts to fall back on?
This is a big problem in the whole drugs debate. So many people listen to so much crap and scaremongering about the subject and form their own opinion based on it which they then fight for as absolute truth when actually they don't have a clue themselves and won't admit this until it is too late. Thousands of people die because of this kind of lazy behaviour every day and the uninformed public opinion, behaviour, and policy that is birthed with it.
Well lets see, maybe pot wouldnt be too bad.
But then you'd have other, more harmful drugs, and at first yes, you can measure out your doses and shit but as you build tolerance to the drug you're going to eventually need more and more.
You might lose control and go over the limit and overdose, which is a serious problem since now its easier than ever to get
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
And yes people dont immediately "get stupid" but over time with continued use they might suffer brain damage and they sure as hell will get withdrawals if they do it on a regular basis; and there are bound to be people like this
If harder drugs were legalized/decriminalized, it doesn't mean that a huge amount of people would go out and start doing them just because they were legalized. People aren't stupid, we know what's bad and good for us - People who have no interest in doing it right now wouldn't be interested in doing it after decriminalization. Can't think of anyone ever saying "I don't do it because it's illegal" to anything other than underage drinking/pot smoking.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37663266]
But then you'd have other, more harmful drugs, and at first yes, you can measure out your doses and shit but as you build tolerance to the drug you're going to eventually need more and more.
You might lose control and go over the limit and overdose, which is a serious problem since now its easier than ever to get
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
And yes people dont immediately "get stupid" but over time with continued use they might suffer brain damage and they sure as hell will get withdrawals if they do it on a regular basis; and there are bound to be people like this[/QUOTE]
"Might lose control and go over the limit and overdose" No matter how bad their choices, a drug addict isn't a brainless retard who loses control for no fucking reason. Who the fuck wants to overdose on drugs? If people knew their limit, they would not go over it. Who wants to overdose on purpose other than someone wanting to commit suicide? and brain damage, from what drug(s) exactly?
Problems like overdose usually happen because of street drug adulterants/impurity due to drugs being manufactured without control, as they are illegal and there is no standard they have to be made in.
Legalizing drugs would GET RID of these issues.
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
I think the problem with drug debates are the people who have no knowledge of how recreational drugs work in the real world. There is no proper drug education being given to you, you just get brainwashed in to believing every single drug is the devil by bullshit gov't programs. I'm not even going to say something remotely defending these programs like "They are horridly word-twisting the truth", they are giving out misinformation and absolute bullshit.
[QUOTE=polarbear.;37664303]Can't think of anyone ever saying "I don't do it because it's illegal" to anything other than underage drinking/pot smoking.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that people won't start doing hard drugs because they're legal, but you do have to reconsider your stance on that particular subject, because a lot of people do base their moral decisions on legality. That's why alcoholism is so rampant, people see it as legal therefore it's not a bad thing. Most episodes of Intervention that I see are about extreme alcoholics, especially young people.
So all of your points are sound, people do need to be educated more, but this is the problem we've created by trying to influence our morality through legislation. We have generations of people who've grown up having to deal with certain legal conditions and they base right/wrong on those conditions, and drinking is perfectly legal even though it's extremely dangerous and toxic, so it's not seen as wrong by a lot of people.
And even with proper education, you can't expect to get rid of this 'legal = good, illegal = bad" mentality overnight. As a society, we're going to have to deal with the real issue: People actually trust the state to make good/bad moral decisions for them.
[QUOTE=Satane;37664539]heroine, weed, alcohol, cocaine,... the list is pretty long[/QUOTE]
So you know alcohol is the only drug you just cited that causes the most brain damage, The others are very small and hardly hard facts that they cause brain damage. The most marijuana use does is slightly lower IQ but that's after a very long time, and continued use, if you quit, your brain function would return to normal. I'm so tired of so many people in this thread talking out of their ass about what they know. How can you be knowledgeable in a subject you don't frequent or are around those who frequent. The answer is simple, you can't be, hence why all of the people making sense and citing real scientific and social facts are users, and most everyone else are just going off of what they've been told by their parents or school, or the government to an extent.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;37658105]Anyone determined enough is going to be able to get their hands on drugs. TamTamJam's point is that you can be assured that there isn't anything mixed in with the drugs you're taking and you'll know the exact strength of whatever you're taking to prevent an accidental overdose. Being able to buy drugs from a store is much safer than meeting a drug dealer in some dark alley in an unsavory part of town.[/QUOTE]
I understand if they're determined they can get drugs. I also understand the product would be safer if drugs were legal. But you're forgetting that they're still drugs. Drugs do damage. Whether the damage is severe or not, doesn't matter. As stated before, people drink alcohol even though it does a lot more damage than other drugs simply because [I]it's legal[/I] and [I]they can[/I]. That's why legalizing drugs would never work. People would just abuse it. It doesn't matter how much you educate people. At the moment, America is pretty educated on the subject of drug use. Does that stop a lot of my friends from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. No, it certainly doesn't. Granted, education helps. But it's not this ultimate cure that stops everyone from abusing drugs.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37665675]I understand if they're determined they can get drugs. I also understand the product would be safer if drugs were legal. But you're forgetting that they're still drugs. Drugs do damage. Whether the damage is severe or not, doesn't matter. As stated before, people drink alcohol even though it does a lot more damage than other drugs simply because [I]it's legal[/I] and [I]they can[/I]. That's why legalizing drugs would never work. People would just abuse it. It doesn't matter how much you educate people. At the moment, America is pretty educated on the subject of drug use. Does that stop a lot of my friends from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. No, it certainly doesn't. Granted, education helps. But it's not this ultimate cure that stops everyone from abusing drugs.[/QUOTE]
You say that legalizing drugs would never work, but the statistics from Portugal show that it does work, it works very well, the only problem with their system is the supply-side is still illegal, we need complete legalization instead of simple decriminalization. Controlled legal distribution makes things a lot harder to get hold of than when a black market's involved.
At least in the united states, all drugs were legal before prohibition legislation came about, and there wasn't a drug problem. There will always be drug casualties, but there will also always be car casualties and people falling from tall buildings, but we don't ban any of these things because it's nonsensical.
[QUOTE=Satane;37664539]heroine, weed, alcohol, cocaine,... the list is pretty long[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zach1193;37664983]I'm so tired of so many people in this thread talking out of their ass about what they know. How can you be knowledgeable in a subject you don't frequent or are around those who frequent. The answer is simple, you can't be, hence why all of the people making sense and citing real scientific and social facts are users, and most everyone else are just going off of what they've been told by their parents or school, or the government to an extent.[/QUOTE]
this. You seriously pulled that out of your ass, and you don't know jack shit how those drugs affect your brain, or even give brain damage. Fuck off with these posts.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37665675]I understand if they're determined they can get drugs. I also understand the product would be safer if drugs were legal. But you're forgetting that they're still drugs. Drugs do damage. Whether the damage is severe or not, doesn't matter. As stated before, people drink alcohol even though it does a lot more damage than other drugs simply because [I]it's legal[/I] and [I]they can[/I]. That's why legalizing drugs would never work. People would just abuse it. It doesn't matter how much you educate people. At the moment, America is pretty educated on the subject of drug use. Does that stop a lot of my friends from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. No, it certainly doesn't. Granted, education helps. But it's not this ultimate cure that stops everyone from abusing drugs.[/QUOTE]
Who said that's the "ultimate cure"? There never will be.
I don't know myself if harder drugs should be decriminalized, it would solve a lot of issues but potentially create more (although most people with knowledge on this subject will agree that it will likely do more good than harm)
But weed shouldn't be against the law, I really think you are an idiot if you think so.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37663266]Well lets see, maybe pot wouldnt be too bad.
And yes people dont immediately "get stupid" but over time with continued use they might suffer brain damage and they sure as hell will get withdrawals if they do it on a regular basis; and there are bound to be people like this[/QUOTE]
With what substances? Most recreationally used substances tend not to do those things. Perhaps contaminated heroin or meth...? (which doesn't need to be contaminated and could be distributed far more cleanly and effectively)
[quote=drugabuse.gov]heroin withdrawal is considered less dangerous than alcohol or barbiturate withdrawal, sudden withdrawal by heavily dependent users who are in poor health is occasionally fatal. In addition, heroin craving can persist years after drug cessation, particularly upon exposure to triggers such as stress or people, places, and things associated with drug use.[/quote]
Oh shit I used a US government website as a source... what the fuck am I taking?
So basically with heroin, one of the "hard drugs", it is pretty safe and the main risks lie with the lifestyle often adopted by users which is mostly due to the black market distribution being the main way of obtaining it. The craving thing can happen with other addictive substances such as alcohol too and be triggered by pretty much anything that the user mentally assosiates it with.
Heroin withdrawal does not cause brain damage, can cause some pretty mental constipation though. Also - heroin addicts are the minority of heroin users. There are plenty of people who use heroin occasionally like every few weeks or months with no problems - addictive or otherwise.
I say drugs should be legal.
Why would I care if someone kills himself by over-dosing drugs instead of using a knife ?
Also it would be good for the state, to get $ but I guess alcohol and cigarettes already give them enough.
People who overdose on drugs don't generally do it on purpose...
they do it because they don't know the strength of what they're getting or what it is mixed with so they have no idea what dosage to take.
Taxing them too much would just keep demand for the underground market up, why would you want to finance a corrupt and coercive state any more than you need to anyway?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37667430]People who overdose on drugs don't generally do it on purpose...
they do it because they don't know the strength of what they're getting or what it is mixed with so they have no idea what dosage to take.
Taxing them too much would just keep demand for the underground market up, why would you want to finance a corrupt and coercive state any more than you need to anyway?[/QUOTE]
They don't overdose on purpose, but they take it while knowing the risk.
Same goes for alcohol and cigarettes.
People always warn them about the risk, how bad it is, that they can get help - If they don't listen, why should we listen to them ?
Surely if they're gonna take them anyway it would be best to make taking them as safe as possible by regulating their distribution and labeling strengths and dosage, etc. even for alcohol
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37668231]Surely if they're gonna take them anyway it would be best to make taking them as safe as possible by regulating their distribution and labeling strengths and dosage, etc. even for alcohol[/QUOTE]
Perhaps that why I'm against legalisation of harder drugs. Until I see things like alcohol and nicotine regulated then I fail to believe that hard drugs can be made safe to take.
Sometimes I think that the fast food industry is more regulated in what they can put in their products than cigarette companies.
In my opinion, all drugs should be legal. People that smoke/inject/snort/eat x are going to do it regardless, so you might as well have a system in place to at least regulate it, rather than prohibit it and only create an underground crime market.
[editline]wat[/editline]
[QUOTE=deaded38;37665675]
As stated before, people drink alcohol even though it does a lot more damage than other drugs simply because [I]it's legal[/I] and [I]they can[/I]. That's why legalizing drugs would never work. People would just abuse it.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know why someone would say "legalizing drugs wouldn't work..." and then use "because people abuse drugs" as an example. What is your point? People seem to think that once it's legal, everything would change. No, if you are someone that abuses a substance, you will abuse it regardless. People are already abusing drugs... And you also said "People abuse alcohol, because it's legal and they can." Is this implying that is alcohol was illegal they wouldn't abuse it? I don't really understand your point, it seems to be pretty asinine.
[QUOTE=Satane;37664539]heroine, [B]weed[/B], alcohol, cocaine,... the list is pretty long[/QUOTE]
Please, stop, you don't know what you're talking about, at all. Marijuana does not cause brain damage, if anything, cannabinoids are neuroprotectants (which is the opposite of brain damage, derp).
[QUOTE]
United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Abstract:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##
[/QUOTE]
Look, the bottom line is that drugs only effect the user. It's a personal freedom that everyone should have, to do what you want with your body. Obviously if someone takes a mind-altering drug then gets into a car, etc, they're at fault, and should be punished i.e. driving under the influence.
[QUOTE=Cruma;37673555]
Look, the bottom line is that drugs only effect the user. It's a personal freedom that everyone should have, to do what you want with your body. Obviously if someone takes a mind-altering drug then gets into a car, etc, they're at fault, and should be punished i.e. driving under the influence.[/QUOTE]
Nothing ever only affects one person. If that person ran over a pedestrian while high, you could blame them all you want but the drugs are still part of the cause.
Yes but ultimately it was the person who chose to take the drugs and ended up running someone over. It is them and their choice that is at fault, not the drug. The drug is just an aggravating factor.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37678770]Yes but ultimately it was the person who chose to take the drugs and ended up running someone over. It is them and their choice that is at fault, not the drug. The drug is just an aggravating factor.[/QUOTE]
But if we remove this factor then the accident is 90% less likely to happen
Also, ok Marijuana is a brain protectant
What about respiratory effects? Can someone point me to a study that talks about this?
It is impossible to remove the factor entirely without a police state and pushing it underground makes the substances way more dangerous than they themselves are on their own by introducing the black market stuff (contamination, unknown strength causing overdose, not knowing what you are actually getting, inflated pricing leading to property crime, having to mix with questionable individuals who often only care about their income). Pushing them underground also creates a "forbidden fruit" effect drawing more people to try it. This is evidenced by the lower usage overall in countries that have adopted decriminalisation and tolerance approaches such as Portugal and the Netherlands.
In my opinion, adults should be allowed to decide for themselves what recreational substances they wish to use and be able to obtain a clean supply along with detailed scientifically based usage instructions including dosage and methods. If they are found to be behaving irresponsibly like using a substance that impacts driving ability [B]negatively[/B](not all of them do) when driving or causing public nuisance due to intoxication similar to big drinkers they should be dealt with using the existing channels which would be modified to accommodate a wider spectrum of substances and ways to test for them.
Respiratory effects of marijuana tend to vary depending on the method of consumption however even with smoking, if I remember correctly, it has been shown to be less damaging than tobacco with the only "damage" being temporary paralysis of cilia which repairs itself over a short amount of time. Also it has been shown to shrink tumours I believe.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37670811]Perhaps that why I'm against legalisation of harder drugs. Until I see things like alcohol and nicotine regulated then I fail to believe that hard drugs can be made safe to take.
Sometimes I think that the fast food industry is more regulated in what they can put in their products than cigarette companies.[/QUOTE]
So you are against legalisation of hard drugs because of government incompetence at regulation of the currently legal substances alcohol and tobacco? Generally government regulation tends to fall short in these industries (and many others) due to the wonders of the corporate lobbying of Big Booze and Big Tobacco. Any business where there is a large amount of money at stake is at risk of being under-regulated due to the vested interests of policymen who want to keep getting their handouts from the big companies. This is a problem with corporate consumer state capitalism, not drugs.
I highly recommend checking out a book called You Will Die: The Burden of Modern Taboos as a kick-off point and wake-up call regarding drugs and other taboo topics.
I also recommend Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams if you're interested in the policy surrounding consensual "risky" activities (of which drug-taking is one) itself and the effects it can have.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37626684]
I'm not sure if you actually build a physiological tolerance to weed.[/QUOTE]
Quite sure it happens to anything that affects the brains neurotransmitters in a repeatable fashion as the body makes more enzymes to break down the substance before it takes effect and the receptors wear down due to heavy use.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37678979]
So you are against legalisation of hard drugs because of government incompetence at regulation of the currently legal substances alcohol and tobacco? Generally government regulation tends to fall short in these industries (and many others) due to the wonders of the corporate lobbying of Big Booze and Big Tobacco. Any business where there is a large amount of money at stake is at risk of being under-regulated due to the vested interests of policymen who want to keep getting their handouts from the big companies. This is a problem with corporate consumer state capitalism, not drugs.
I highly recommend checking out a book called You Will Die: The Burden of Modern Taboos as a kick-off point and wake-up call regarding drugs and other taboo topics.
I also recommend Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams if you're interested in the policy surrounding consensual "risky" activities (of which drug-taking is one) itself and the effects it can have.[/QUOTE]
Then don't you think this is a problem we should address before allowing these companies to be able to make and sell inherently very addictive substances and/or things that can impair decision making?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37678851]But if we remove this factor then the accident is 90% less likely to happen
Also, ok Marijuana is a brain protectant
What about respiratory effects? Can someone point me to a study that talks about this?[/QUOTE]
Respiratory effects are irrelevant, if you're going to take marijuana and smoke it, then no shit it's going to rock your lungs, you're burning plant material. Marijuana can be safely consumed as an edible, or using a vaporizer.
Well even though I support marijuana for medicine (my mother's mother was administered marijuana as she was dying from cancer) I'm still a little skeptical about people using it for recreational use, but if anything, I'd much rather support it than the legalisation of drugs like cocaine and heroine.
With much of these "hard" drugs so to speak they tend to do physical damage to someone after regular usage; I see people saying that its no big deal and that it would be safer if ithe market were regulated, so people would know dosages, etc etc but I say bullshit. It still does damage to one's body over time, much like ciggarettes or alchohol, but it tends to happen faster and is way more addictive
And I don't know about you but I dont want to start walking into people's houses with the scent of drug usage in the air.
In response to the whole driving under the influence thing, I think we'd see it more if drugs were legalized no matter how responsible people are. We already have troubles with drinking and driving and alchohol is a legal drug, imagine adding a slew of other drugs into the mix which we entrust to citzens to use responisbly when they clearly cant even handle their beer.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37683429]Then don't you think this is a problem we should address before allowing these companies to be able to make and sell inherently very addictive substances and/or things that can impair decision making?[/QUOTE]
Yes it is a problem that needs to be dealt with but the thing is these substances are already available via the black market and the companies are the lesser of two evils because they are publicly known and have a reputation to maintain as well as regulations that they have to follow - even if the incompetent government does not step in to enforce them, citizens would likely boycott them and make it known that they will not stand for irresponsible behaviour by corporations like they do for other industries already.
In a world driven by the profit motive, it is hard to escape the side effects of greed.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37684880]Well even though I support marijuana for medicine (my mother's mother was administered marijuana as she was dying from cancer) I'm still a little skeptical about people using it for recreational use, but if anything, I'd much rather support it than the legalisation of drugs like cocaine and heroine.
With much of these "hard" drugs so to speak they tend to do physical damage to someone after regular usage; I see people saying that its no big deal and that it would be safer if ithe market were regulated, so people would know dosages, etc etc but I say bullshit. It still does damage to one's body over time, much like ciggarettes or alchohol, but it tends to happen faster and is way more addictive[/QUOTE]
Unhealthy eating does far more damage to the body than even misuse of the harder drugs, should we start picketing lard and soda factories and issuing a government-mandated compulsory diet for all?
Also, having them "illegal" does not necessarily make less people use them and introduces all of the dangerous black market factors I mentioned before hence putting those who end up taking them (often vulnerable people, especially in the case of heroin addicts who turn to it as a last resort because of it's stigmatised position) in more danger than they need to be and potentially leading to their serious illness or death.
Cocaine was not a problem until it was made illegal because of "making black men go after white women" or some other stereotyped filthy lie. In fact, it didn't really have prominence as a form of coca. Coca tea was the main way to consume it which is not a concentrate (unlike cocaine) and does not have addictive properties any more than, say, a cup of coffee. It is used for altitude sickness still today in mountainous regions and is very effective for that. Prohibiting coca, especially in the non-producing countries, made it far harder to transport the leaves used to make the tea in large quantities so they came up with a way of making a concentrated extract of the compounds of thousands of leaves which took the form of a white powder a a few grams compared to a few hundred kilos of leaves and was far easier to transport. Cocaine is a successful product created by prohibition, much like the moonshine in alcohol prohibition in the USA.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37684880]And I don't know about you but I dont want to start walking into people's houses with the scent of drug usage in the air.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to walk into people's houses with the scent of "drug usage" then don't. Nobody is making you visit the houses of drug users, if you don't want your friends or family to use drugs why not explain to them why and reason with them instead of call the state in to do your dirty work and impose that agenda by force?
If you don't like a smell in someones house, step outside and let them make their own choices, why would you want to manhandle their personal preferences like that?
Do you want to ban opium and cannabis scented incenses too? Oh no, a bad smell! BAN BAN BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is besides the point but pretty much all food is or contains a drug in one way or another - you already smell that - and there are many substances that are not covered by prohibition that have psychoactive properties and a scent.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37684880]In response to the whole driving under the influence thing, I think we'd see it more if drugs were legalized no matter how responsible people are. We already have troubles with drinking and driving and alchohol is a legal drug, imagine adding a slew of other drugs into the mix which we entrust to citzens to use responisbly when they clearly cant even handle their beer.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the people who would drug-drive do it already or are drink drivers. Initially it would probably skyrocket initially as more so-called "responsible" people tried drugs as a result of them becoming "legal" but I think that it would decline as the relapse of the "forbidden fruit" effect diminished. Just making substances legal does not turn everybody who takes them into an irresponsible moron. Irresponsible morons are a separate problem - they aren't going to disappear any time soon, there will always be stupid people. The behaviour itself is the problem and not the substance. Just because we need to cater to the lowest common denominator does not mean that we should restrict the choices of the majority/everyone else.
I would personally never support any law that relies solely upon the initiation of force (banning, in this case) in response to a non-violent act (using ones chosen drug and not harming anyone else in the process) to enforce it.
I'm enjoying discussing this, please do not think I am presenting my opinion as absolute truth but I have read a number of books on this subject and I don't think you have? That is where much of my information is coming from - this is a special interest of mine.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37685928]should we start picketing lard and soda factories and issuing a government-mandated compulsory diet for all?
[/QUOTE]
That would be great.
[QUOTE](using ones chosen drug and not harming anyone else in the process)[/QUOTE]
If somebody is deliberately harming themselves, they are not mentally healthy. And irrational people are an active hazard to society.
You really think that would be great? You don't see what is wrong with that? Are you some kind of masochist with Stockholm syndrome for the state? Don't you like being able to utilise your personal freedom to choose what you eat and consume? Also, do you really think the wonderful government would choose well rather than just putting whatever the most successful corporate lobbyists want in the diet?
Every activity and choice is harmful in one way or another. Lets ban horseriding and climbing while we're at it and close down all gyms because of safety concerns. Don't leave the house bitch, you might breathe in something bad by accident.
Drug use is not irrational and the benefits can outweigh the negatives. Banning them doesn't solve any problems, it actually creates more and makes them more dangerous than they are. Without a police state to enforce total control over the daily lives of citizens, which would be horrible, drug prohibition is a terrible failure.
Every choice each of us make in our daily lives is a personal judgement of the positive against the negative so it is natural for us to have different views on what activities and drugs are good and what are not based on our own unique interpretations. Trying to standardise these choices by force and through authoritarian means is futile and, if it ever succeeded (it won't!), the world would become a very mundane and boring place. Not a world I'd want to live in.
By the way, are you a supporter of totalitarianism (a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible)? It seems like it.
Even nazi germany didn't have a mandatory diet for citizens.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37693839]do you really think the wonderful government would choose well rather than just putting whatever the most successful corporate lobbyists want in the diet?[/quote]
There are lots of problems that can't be addressed as long as the corporation issue exists. You can't change anything without changing everything.
[quote]Every activity and choice is harmful in one way or another. Lets ban horseriding and climbing while we're at it and close down all gyms because of safety concerns. Don't leave the house bitch, you might breathe in something bad by accident. [/quote]
Risk of injury is different from subtle degradation of health. Accidents affect individuals and the impact can be largely minimized. Bad health affects everyone and is impossible to negate the impact of.
[quote]Drug use is not irrational and the benefits can outweigh the negatives.[/quote]
And in those cases the drug wouldn't be banned. You said "and not harming [B]anyone else[/B]" and that seemed to imply it harms yourself.
[quote]Every choice each of us make in our daily lives is a personal judgement of the positive against the negative so it is natural for us to have different views on what activities and drugs are good and what are not based on our own unique interpretations. Trying to standardise these choices by force and through authoritarian means is futile and, if it ever succeeded (it won't!), the world would become a very mundane and boring place. Not a world I'd want to live in.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as subjective, only lack of context. Unfortunately, some freedom would have to remain because science hasn't advanced far enough to get all that context. But, it would advance a lot quicker without political and corporate bias getting in the way.
Corporations + drugs = mind control
We need drugs to be legalized, but illegal to sell and to use in public.
Also facts about drugs in schools
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.