[QUOTE=DinoJesus;35380651]Learn to read, the cartels wouldn't hunt down the drug providers, they would kill innocent civilians like they have been doing in greater numbers to try and put pressure on the government to make it illegal again, that way they can hold a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
do you actually believe the shit you're posting or are you just desperately coming up with possible scenarios in which this would be an issue?
the cartels are going to start slaughtering american citizens and force america to re-criminalize drugs, just so that they can have a monopoly? i seriously am having trouble coming up with a response to this post because of how far fetched and [I]stupid[/I] it is, as if the government would:
A. allow the cartels to massacre huge numbers of american citizens without a serious military response
B. actually cowtow to the demands of some mexican drug lords despite fighting a 10+ year war against 2 countries just because a handful of dudes attacked us ONCE?
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;35380687]Lost all credibility despite the common usage of "narcotic" to describe drugs in general.[/QUOTE]
"everyone else is too dumb to use this word properly, you're an idiot for using it correctly! haha!"
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;35380706]Y'all are quite the stubborn bastards, I'll give you that. I hope you have fun wasting your lives away when you could be doing something productive. I'm out.[/QUOTE]
die
Y'all are quite the stubborn bastards, I'll give you that. I hope you have fun wasting your lives away when you could be doing something productive. I'm out.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35380296]They do. Sell some pot, or some meth, or some cocaine? The police can come and steal your money from you, even though selling drugs is in itself not wrong in any way.[/QUOTE]
hey guys i'm selling something you're not supposed to legally have, but its not wrong in any way!
[QUOTE=JimmyA;35380808]hey guys i'm selling something you're not supposed to legally have, but its not wrong in any way![/QUOTE]
why is it wrong?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35380825]why is it wrong?[/QUOTE]
because that shit will fucking kill you and ruin your life
jesus christ, why can't you fucking understand that
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35380825]why is it wrong?[/QUOTE]
cuz the government told me it is and they never lied be4
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;35380848]because that shit will fucking kill you and ruin your life
jesus christ, why can't you fucking understand that[/QUOTE]
No it won't.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;35380848]because that shit will fucking kill you and ruin your life
jesus christ, why can't you fucking understand that[/QUOTE]
yeah i think this is yet another one of those scenarios that perfectly demonstrates why you should never ever post and just stick to quietly rating people dumb
you could say that about a lot of things that are legal and even endorsed and encouraged by society, what is your point? if you're an adult you should have the right to choose what you do in life as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. i don't endorse meth or think it's a good thing for you, but i have the choice to say "you know what? don't really feel like using meth!"
tada! my problem is solved, i'm completely safe from meth. if someone else wants to do meth, why should i care?
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
actually make it one better, don't post and don't rate people either! i guess you could say you would just log off and never come back to facepunch again! yeah, do that
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35379149]Our government steals from us so they can buy more equipment to oppress us with.
That's kinda neat.[/QUOTE]
no, use money captured from criminals to improve our lives and keep us safe
[QUOTE=Kopimi;35380874]
you could say that about a lot of things that are legal and even endorsed and encouraged by society, what is your point? if you're an adult you should have the right to choose what you do in life as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. i don't endorse meth or think it's a good thing for you, but i have the choice to say "you know what? don't really feel like using meth!"
tada! my problem is solved, i'm completely safe from meth. if someone else wants to do meth, why should i care?[/QUOTE]
The point I think he's trying to make is that it isn't just about saying "Oh hey, I can stop doing Meth" because meth is addictive. Your body craves it. The withdrawal can make you schizophrenic for up to a year afterwards, along with numerous other effects. Same goes for cocaine, and lord knows what else.
Simply saying "I don't care, it's your body, do what you want" I feel doesn't cut it. If these HIGHLY addictive drugs are legalized, sold in stores, and simply made available to the public with the slogan "we don't give a fuck! Do what you want!" people are gonna get a hold of them, and people are gonna see it and say "oh hey, that looks cool. Let's try it." Next thing you know, they're addicted too it and it's slowly destroying your body.
You can't exactly work a job or go to school when you're constantly driving for your next high. Why do you think these addicts usually end up in the street or in prison?
Not to mention you might not even have a CHOICE in your addiction. What if someone slips it into your drink? Or you ingest it my accident in some way? Oops, guess you're addicted too it now, but hey it was your choice right? A bit far-fetched, I know, but it's happened before. Peer-pressure is also a huge factor.
What if they start putting it in food, to make you addicted to the food? Hell, it's a legal substance, so why not?
Personally, I never want to see these substances legalized. They give nothing back to society, and do nothing positive for your body. You could say the same for smoking, sure, but smokers are much more restricted now then they were 10-15 years ago. Remember when you could smoke inside? Not to mention there's a ton of help out there for people who are smokers and want to quit.
Not to mention things like smoking and drinking are so engrained in our society, and have been for so long, criminalizing them would just simply mean more arrests, more money spent on prisons and trials. Hell, the US tried it once. Look where that ended up.
I'll respect your opinion about it now, but some of the things you've said have certainly... surprised me.
EDIT: Also, a side-note, I support the DE-criminalization of marijuana, as it's not as dangerous of a substance as alcohol or tobacco, and is very tolerated in most societies.
[QUOTE=Hank228;35381041]
Not to mention you might not even have a CHOICE in your addiction. What if someone slips it into your drink? Or you ingest it my accident in some way? Oops, guess you're addicted too it now, but hey it was your choice right? A bit far-fetched, I know, but it's happened before. Peer-pressure is also a huge factor.
[/QUOTE]
Addiction to meth and heroin come over time with prolonged use. Taking it one time will not get you addicted.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;35380553]lol yah brah tem stupid po po trying 2 stop our 420 fun tim! toke erryday man![/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axWsbQhNCs0[/media]
Seriously, the thinly veiled trolling attempts are getting REALLY annoying. Also, FTFY? Go the fuck back to Reddit.
I can understand both viewpoints on this topic, however I'm a bit more inclined the lean on the side of being against drug laws. Most people cite violence and self harm as the reasons why they think illegal drugs should stay illegal.
However, what right does the government have to tell you what to do with your own body? Arbitrarily, even. You can destroy your liver with alcohol and destroy your lungs with tobacco, but you can't self-medicate or enjoy a relatively harmless high from cannabis?
By this logic, plastic surgery should be illegal. While there are justified uses for it (just as there are justified uses for drugs,) it is heard of all too frequently of people going under the knife scores of times because their mental image is so fucked that they just can't stop. Plastic surgery helps reinforce these people's flawed belief in one set of characteristics that define beauty.
I won't belabour the fact that our governments could illegalise many other things, arbitrarily, for the same reasons drugs are illegal.
Now onto the point of violence. In a society where currently illicit drugs and substances were, instead, legalised and regulated, we would see a drop in the violence and secondary crime associated with these substances. I cite the precedent set by the fall of prohibition.
A VERY good portion of the drugs in DEA Schedules I and II have justifiable medical uses. For instance.....
"Marijuana" has such a wide variety of medical uses that I won't even start listing them; I'd be here all night. Also, it's been shown that compared to other Schedule I drugs, it's harmless. If I want to do something with my body that in no way infringes on the rights of other people, then that should be my right. I shouldn't be thrown in jail, fined, and/or fired from my job for that.
Heroin has its uses. If, for some reason, morphine can't be used as a pain reliever, then Heroin can be a substitute. Heroin's a bit more effective, too. Also, if, for some reason, methadone can't be used or isn't working... That can be used as a treatment for Heroin addiction. Self-necessitating solution, I know.
Ecstasy can be used in the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, among other deviations.
Recently, Acid has been shown to help in treating severe Alcoholism.
Peyote/Mescaline has religious uses. Basically, I see that our government has attacked religion on this one. From what I gather, if you use this religiously, but the government does not consider it to be a "bona fide religious ceremony," then you're screwed.
And on and on.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35381134]Addiction to meth and heroin come over time with prolonged use. Taking it one time will not get you addicted.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I know. Same thing with alcohol and cigarettes. But what if your friends think it'd be funny to get you addicted to it and start slipping it into your drink every single day? Or what if it happens to you several times?
Again, far-fetched, but entirely possible, especially if your friends have that kind of sense of humor (I know mine would) and it wouldn't be that difficult since it's legal and widely available.
[QUOTE=Hank228;35381225]Oh yeah, I know. Same thing with alcohol and cigarettes. But what if your friends think it'd be funny to get you addicted to it and start slipping it into your drink every single day? Or what if it happens to you several times?
Again, far-fetched, but entirely possible, especially if your friends have that kind of sense of humor (I know mine would) and it wouldn't be that difficult since it's legal and widely available.[/QUOTE]
There needs to be an "I guess" rating. I guess that's plausible, but lol all this hypothetical abstraction is hurting my brain.
[QUOTE=Hank228;35381225]Oh yeah, I know. Same thing with alcohol and cigarettes. But what if your friends think it'd be funny to get you addicted to it and start slipping it into your drink every single day? Or what if it happens to you several times?
Again, far-fetched, but entirely possible, especially if your friends have that kind of sense of humor (I know mine would) and it wouldn't be that difficult since it's legal and widely available.[/QUOTE]
For one:
Any friend that has that sort of humor, that they would intentionally try and get you addicted to a very serious chemical, is a pretty shitty person. If your friends would do that, then I wouldn't even talk to them again, just because the type of person who do that has to be fucked up on so many different levels.
Number 2, again, it takes some dedicated usage of the drug. I'm talking about binging for a couple days or taking it regularly for weeks before a real chemical dependency sets in. A few isolated cases of getting slipped meth, while still very troubling, is not going to necessarily create a dependency problem. You may, however, find yourself psychologically addicted to whatever they slipped it in, since the feeling of euphoria caused by meth is incredibly desirable once you've had it.
And yea, that would be unfortunate if it did hypothetically happen, of course. However, that isn't a reason to keep the drug illegal. It's a reason to make sure you educate people about drugs, and to make sure rehabilitative services are readily available for anyone who needs them.
[QUOTE=Hank228;35381041]The point I think he's trying to make is that it isn't just about saying "Oh hey, I can stop doing Meth" because meth is addictive. Your body craves it. The withdrawal can make you schizophrenic for up to a year afterwards, along with numerous other effects. Same goes for cocaine, and lord knows what else.
Simply saying "I don't care, it's your body, do what you want" I feel doesn't cut it. If these HIGHLY addictive drugs are legalized, sold in stores, and simply made available to the public with the slogan "we don't give a fuck! Do what you want!" people are gonna get a hold of them, and people are gonna see it and say "oh hey, that looks cool. Let's try it." Next thing you know, they're addicted too it and it's slowly destroying your body.
(truncated)
[/QUOTE]
That's the thing though, alcohol and tobacco [i]pretty much do the same shit[/i] and yet they hardly receive the same sort of demonization from society. Alcoholics can be every bit as dangerous as meth addicts, of course not so much in the case of nicotine. And besides, drugs which are every bit as addictive and dangerous as methamphetamine (e.g. benzos) are incautiously prescribed to people by the millions every year for loosely defined symptoms like "general anxiety" or "can't pay attention at school".
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that people in support of legislation changes simply want all law-related aspects of drugs forgotten about, when in fact a majority of people in support of legalisation agree that certain legal barriers do need to be enforced, e.g. age limits for purchase, penalties for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, penalties for public intoxication, penalties for distribution to minors, penalties for being under the influence at the workplace etc.
Your statement regarding how extensive support exists for people addicted to alcohol or nicotine is misleading, extensive support also already exists for people addicted to narcotics and other drugs. Surely you've heard of things like Narcotics Anonymous and Methadone clinics.
Your statement regarding the futility of criminalising alcohol/tobacco just plain conflicts with everything else you've said.
I'm not necessarily in support of full government endorsement of currently illegal drugs in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are, but I think it's absolutely fucking stupid that simple possession of small amounts of these substances is grounds for felony punishments rivaling those of murderers and paedophiles that carry the potential to ruin your life forever.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;35380628]
Fyi weed isnt the only narcotic substance, ever heard of LSD?[/QUOTE]
uh neither are narcotics.
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
and i think this money should go to helping the community instead of buying the police worthless shit they don't need.
i've seen plenty of police departments that have way more resources and police officers than they do crime.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35381317]uh neither are narcotics.
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
and i think this money should go to helping the community instead of buying the police worthless shit they don't need.
i've seen plenty of police departments that have way more resources and police officers than they do crime.[/QUOTE]
You know without this war on drugs, a good number of prisoners in for small, petty crimes such as selling dope to a few people here and there and possession might be free. I remember reading somewhere that on average, a prisoner costs a state around between 25 and 30 thousand USD per year. There's your money for social spending.
that's true as well.
America's whole crime and police system is nuts. i was shocked to find out that police officers had bloody guns.
when i was a kid this is what a police officer looked like:
[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/7/1241703020338/A-Sikh-Metropolitan-Polic-001.jpg[/img]
And they drove around in these:
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01654/police-car2_1654713c.jpg[/img]
When i moved to America suddenly it's:
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J6GQj5YL8v4/TPbpkREy4DI/AAAAAAAAAFk/3FiLzeRXXmA/s1600/Police-Fascism.jpg[/img]
And they drive around in these with machine guns and shotguns in the back:
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/467683092_e5f41de4b9.jpg[/img]
Well the police are going to need money for new equipment regardless, and I'd rather have it come out of the pockets of drug-dealers than my hard earned cash out of my wallet.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35381269]For one:
Any friend that has that sort of humor, that they would intentionally try and get you addicted to a very serious chemical, is a pretty shitty person. If your friends would do that, then I wouldn't even talk to them again, just because the type of person who do that has to be fucked up on so many different levels.
(truncated)[/QUOTE]
I suppose I should have clarified, I apologize. I did mean more in regards to a psychological addiction to the drug, rather than a physical one. But that's not the only reason that I feel the drugs should be kept illegal. I stated the rest in my original post.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;35381290]That's the thing though, alcohol and tobacco [i]pretty much do the same shit[/i] and yet they hardly receive the same sort of demonization from society. Alcoholics can be every bit as dangerous as meth addicts, perhaps not so much in the case of nicotine. And drugs that are every bit as addictive as methamphetamine (read: benzos) are loosely and incautiously prescribed to people by the millions every year.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that people in support of legislation changes simply want all law-related aspects of drugs forgotten about, when in fact a majority of people in support of legalisation agree that certain legal barriers do need to be enforced, e.g. age limits for purchase, penalties for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, penalties for public intoxication, penalties for distribution to minors, penalties for being under the influence at the workplace etc.
Your statement regarding how extensive support exists for people addicted to alcohol or nicotine is misleading, extensive support also already exists for people addicted to narcotics and other drugs. Surely you've heard of things like Narcotics Anonymous and Methadone clinics.
[/QUOTE]
I had a hard time locating specific symptoms of both usage and addiction to both alcohol and meth/cocaine, but I can see what you mean about the similarities. I am also aware of there being cases of individuals being prescribed certain drugs that are physically harmful as treatment. I just feel the potential for abuse is far too high for certain illicit drugs if they were legalized.
I also would have assumed that the substances themselves would obviously be regulated.
That in itself might not even cut out the crime associated with the drugs. If the government puts a cap on the potency of the legalized drug, to prevent addictions or for whatever other reason, then the criminal organizations might attempt to exploit that by selling a higher potency drug under the table. Or they might even try to sell it at a cheaper rate. Not to mention, simply having an age regulation doesn't stop under-aged people from drinking alcohol, as they just get it bootlegged by somebody. There's nothing stopping them from doing the same thing with any other regulated substance.
I'm well aware of the support system that's in place for current addicts, but some of them simply don't go because they don't view it as a problem, or they're on the street and can't afford to go. I don't think that fact would change if the substances were decriminalized/legalized.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;35381290]
Your statement regarding the futility of criminalising alcohol/tobacco just plain conflicts with everything else you've said.
[/QUOTE]
As I stated above, which I didn't state originally I admit, the potency is an aspect of it which might come into play in regards to it being sold in stores or being regulated by the government.
As far as I'm aware, the only regulation on potency of alcohol is that it needs to meet a certain requirement of alcohol level in order to label it as certain types of alcohol, such as I think in my province in Canada it needs to be at no more than 8% in order to be called a "beer". Obviously, I could be wrong, as I'm not a beer expert.
Simply decriminalizing or legalizing any currently illegal substance wouldn't necessarily lower the crime rate associated with the drug. There's a high chance of it, I admit, but my statement was simply trying to dispute those that were saying "If cocaine/meth/marijuana is illegal, so should alcohol and tobacco."
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;35381290]
I'm not necessarily in support of full government endorsement of currently illegal drugs in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are, but I think it's absolutely fucking stupid that simple possession of small amounts of these substances is grounds for felony punishments rivaling those of murderers and paedophiles that have the potential to ruin your life forever.[/QUOTE]
This, on the other hand, I am in complete agreement with. Drug possession is not the same as murder or child abuse, yet so many law makers attempt to treat it as such and there are so many cases were insane sentences are laid out for those who were simply in possession of marijuana.
We can, no doubt, debate about this for days at a time, but we'd get no where. There's positives on both sides and I certainly understand all of your arguments. Hopefully none of my contradict themselves, I do that sometimes when I ramble. Otherwise though, I'll stop.
Quite the derail we've got going here.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;35381509]Quite a derail we've got going here.[/QUOTE]
My bad. I'll stop.
I guess if this ends up helping the police get the equipment they need, then I really don't see much of a problem with it. As long as it's only a cut of it, and not the entire thing, because a lot of that money could go to places where it's needed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35379571]They are stealing money that belongs to an American citizen to buy more gear to arrest more American citizens who aren't even doing anything wrong.
At least as far as the drugs go.[/QUOTE]
Look if you think police arresting drug dealers is such a bad thing you should petition to change the laws or vote Ron Paul or something, the police officers are just respectable gentlemen who follow, serve and abide by these laws. You, the people, change them so the police are still servants of the majority and should be [I]respected[/I] as such.
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=newbz;35379592]Not everyone agrees with the war on drugs...[/QUOTE]
So? The police don't decide who they are supposed to arrest, the laws do. And the police can't change them. So tell me, what else are they supposed to do with this money?
[editline]1st April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35380506]lol are you 12? Do you really need someone else to tell you whether drugs are bad or not? Do you really need the government to make your decisions for you?
Thank you for clarifying that you are an authoritarian, and a child.[/QUOTE]
Grow up and gain some respect, sir.
[QUOTE=mac338;35381970]the police officers are just respectable gentlemen who follow, serve and abide by these laws.
[/QUOTE]
This isn't necessarily true. Policemen are human beings like anybody else and are susceptible to the same follies and corruptions. It would be easy for an officer to have the idea that "Boy it sure would be awesome if I had a shiny new Charger instead of this Crown Victoria...and hey it's only $50k, I could make that with a few kilos worth of of seized coke money!"
Still though you have a point in that an officer can't really just say "I'm not going serve this search warrant on this suspected drug dealer because I find it morally wrong", he would be putting his career at risk and by extension the wellbeing of his family and whatnot.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;35380491]Yeah, fuq da police who want people to not kill themselves. For that matter, fuq da FDA, they can't tell me what to put in my body.[/QUOTE]
you're a fucking imbecile
[QUOTE=joe588;35382132]you're a fucking imbecile[/QUOTE]
Get your sarcasm detector fixed.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;35382194]Get your sarcasm detector fixed.[/QUOTE]
I think his sarcasm detector is working just fine. That was indeed a shit post.
I find it amazing that so many people are convinced that every drug is [I]very[/I] bad and will end up killing you. Have you ever stopped to think about how many drugs exist inside and outside the natural world? Too many to count. When you throw all drugs in the "bad" bin, you're pretty much stooping with FOX with the whole videogame scenario. Imagine every single T-M rated game. Now take that whole list, and convince yourself that every single game contained grotesque violence, tasteless sexuality, and zero positive factors. Yeah... Regardless, I'm fine with this as long as it's not exploited, which it unfortunately will be in the future.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;35380491]Yeah, fuq da police who want people to not kill themselves. For that matter, fuq da FDA, they can't tell me what to put in my body.[/QUOTE]
Are the police doing anything about the children who are prescribed stimulants and amphetamines that rival cocaine in potency and health defects? No. They're cracking down on the wrong people. Hell yeah, crack/meth/heroin are awful for you, I whole heartily support keeping that shit off the street. But when a 16 year old gets in trouble for pot, that really crosses the line in law enforcement.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;35380628]So you're saying we should make harmful dangerous drugs easily open to the public. Gee, I don't see what could go wrong with that.
[editline]31st March 2012[/editline]
Fyi weed isnt the only narcotic substance, ever heard of LSD?[/QUOTE]
Ever done LSD? Obviously not. The only time anyone is disturbing the peace on acid is when a cop is forcefully disturbing the user, or the user wasn't in the right place mentally; even then, the backlash is out of fear, or self-defense. I generously ask that you do a bit of un-biased research before throwing around drug terms like so. LSD has no harm to the user physically, it was even used in mental institutions with a 40% success rate. Not all "illicit" drugs are the same, despite what your health teacher told you.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack[/url]
"The new paper updates a study carried out by Nutt and others in 2007, which was also published by the Lancet and triggered debate for suggesting that legally available alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis and LSD."
[QUOTE=Bledrix;35379132]I wonder what they do with the seized drugs.[/QUOTE]
They mix it with tear gas for a better effect.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;35382021]This isn't necessarily true. Policemen are human beings like anybody else and are susceptible to the same follies and corruptions. It would be easy for an officer to have the idea that "Boy it sure would be awesome if I had a shiny new Charger instead of this Crown Victoria...and hey it's only $50k, I could make that with a few kilos worth of of seized coke money!"
Still though you have a point in that an officer can't really just say "I'm not going serve this search warrant on this suspected drug dealer because I find it morally wrong", he would be putting his career at risk and by extension the wellbeing of his family and whatnot.[/QUOTE]
Like any human, police are susceptible to corruption. But the majority, and the idea behind police overall is honorable and necessary. Let's not forget these are the men and women who put their lives on the line to uphold our fundamental democracy, safety and peace. Without police there'd be anarchy. And the very system of laws certain people in this thread want the police to overstep are the ones keeping them in check. Though a noble idea, having police make their own judgment on laws and arrests would mean chaos. A few gentlemen seem to lack this understanding. In their best intrest I would suggest they do their utmost to petition congress and the senate to look at these issues, but do [I]not[/I] blame the police.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.