Legalize it. ALL of it.

[Force Majeure]

USA Murder Rate: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Australia Murder Rate: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
Canada Murder Rate: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people

You're trying to say that increased availability of Handguns doesn't help?

O_O But if a terrorist came into your house and raped your wife and daughters.... (I agree with your post. I'm just providing comic relief.

/hat in the ring.

I personally am for the legalization of marijuana, even though I think it's an awful habit. Saying that smoking marijuana only harms the user is hopelessly naive, as driving whilst loaded out of one's skull is incredibly dangerous, as well as other side effects. Then again, in today's society, that's to be expected. It's sad that people talk about legalizing drugs because I firmly believe that they bring more ill than good. However, the tax revenues alone would provide some much-needed capital for governments, and the increased sales of Cheetos and instant brownie mix would also provide a boost for their respective industries.

 

[akuchi]

Once again - rape is not comic relief. Jesus absolutely wept.

 

[Xia]

Agreeing with akutchi, not cool dude. =/

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

I personally am for the legalization of marijuana, even though I think it's an awful habit. Saying that smoking marijuana only harms the user is hopelessly naive, as driving whilst loaded out of one's skull is incredibly dangerous, as well as other side effects.

yes

smoking marijuana only harms the user

smoking marijuana and driving is dangerous to other people

nobody is arguing to legalize driving under the influence

as for the incredibly vague part two of that little fallacy, what side effects of marijuana use are harmful to people other than the user? jesus

i love how all the anti-drug dudes in this thread are like "smoking drugs impairs your judgment and muddles your thinking!!" when they're incapable of stringing together even the simplest logical argument dead sober

/o\

 

[DeLorean]

Note that Alchohol IS a drug. Perhaps the worst of them all.

fuck that. it's the most just available drug, not the worst.

 

[Trax]

Agreeing with akutchi, not cool dude. =/

Once again - rape is not comic relief. Jesus absolutely wept.

The joke wasn't about rape (at least, in my interpretation of it), it was about the (at times) ridiculous statements used by anti-gun control lobbies - you could substitute rape with Crucifixion, Flaying, Flogging, Blinding, whatever, and it would be exactly the same.



Now, back to the topic.

smoking marijuana only harms the user

smoking marijuana and driving is dangerous to other people

You're saying you don't see a relationship between legalization and misuse like we see every day with drink driving or firearms?

as for the incredibly vague part two of that little fallacy, what side effects of marijuana use are harmful to people other than the user? jesus

I already pointed these out last page, I'm not going to repeat myself because you're too lazy to read it.

i love how all the anti-drug dudes in this thread are like "smoking drugs impairs your judgment and muddles your thinking!!" when they're incapable of stringing together even the simplest logical argument dead sober

For what it's worth; I wouldn't be anti drugs (well, I would still be against some drugs but not as I am now) if people could be trusted to not be idiots and if the state had no responsibility to help any drug users, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever. My case is stated, and thus far nobody is really proving it wrong.

 

[Invective]

I already pointed these out last page, I'm not going to repeat myself because you're too lazy to read it.

if youre referring to the study you posted,
its highly inconclusive.

However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.
Study author, Professor Glyn Lewis, professor of psychiatric epidemiology, said: "It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness.

Professor Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, said of the Bristol study: "The studies they looked at were done in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

But Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.
"Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

also, there is something seriously wrong with us if our first priority is to maybe prevent 14% of schizophrenia cases while we do nothing to help curb 2 leading causes of death in america, tobacco and poor diet/physical inactivity.

sorry i keep bringin this link up, but i feel that there is something seriously fucked up we are arguing against marijuana, which causes 0 deaths directly (meaning it is almost impossible to OD on it), while we allow tobacco, and call being fat a life style choice. if someone chooses to be fat and it is shown to be the 2nd biggest cause of death in america, why the fuck can i not choose to smoke pot, which will not kill me and has a chance of giving me schizophrenia?

edit:
whoa, this is the same thing DM was saying on the first page.
wow, i think slow.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

USA Murder Rate: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Australia Murder Rate: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
Canada Murder Rate: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people

You're trying to say that increased availability of Handguns doesn't help?

Having a handgun does not mean that you will murder somebody. Just like having drugs does not mean that you will hurt someone else. I personally know a lot of people who own guns and not one of them has ever killed or shot anybody. I would accept this argument if a majority of gun owners had shot people or even intended to shoot people except in the most dire of emergencies, but obviously the cases you are bringing up are the exceptions to the norm.

Thank you vanguard for saying everything else that I wanted to say. This thread has just been going on and on with the same ridiculous anti-drug arguments being proven wrong with source after source. Even the source that Trax just gave went against his anti-drug views =\. Can we at least read the thread and see if our reasoning has already been stated?

 

[Vineon]

Having a handgun does not mean that you will murder somebody. Just like having drugs does not mean that you will hurt someone else. I personally know a lot of people who own guns and not one of them has ever killed or shot anybody. I would accept this argument if a majority of gun owners had shot people or even intended to shoot people except in the most dire of emergencies, but obviously the cases you are bringing up are the exceptions to the norm.

Let's push further, we could allow them in class, it isn't because students will be armed they might kill someone right? They would mostly be armed to protect themselves. During Columbine, wouldn't it have been wonderful if all students would have been armed? Those two mentals would have been stopped rather quickly.

But in case some argue kids aren't mature enough to handle gun, we should at least have the staff carry them. Let's also have them in hospitals, in isn't because sick people have guns they all become killers do they, it would remain for their protection.

Protection my ass, if you have a gun and I'm robbing your store I'm shooting you in the face before you can even draw your gun behind that counter of yours. You won't even see it coming : I know you have one, I'm not giving you that chance. Your gun just had you die.

Of course it doesn't make everyone that has a gun a killer, you would be hard pressed finding anyone that claims that. Why even make it your principal argument, who are you arguing with?

Besides, you are damn straight we are talking about exceptions. Going by these numbers, America just happens to have four times as many of them. Far from saying those numbers are solely attributable to guns, can we at least admit it is an important factor?

Hardened criminals will get guns no matter what, that much is true, the same does not apply to some isolated desperate guy going through a hard time considering dubious ways to make both ends meet. But you made guns available to him. You made guns available to a father going through a tough divorce emotionally snapping for a couple of seconds. These people bought their guns to defend themselves, but it was also right there when they needed it for something else, which they didn't originally plan. A gun kills too quickly and too easily to be within anybody's grasp. You gave a gun to Joe Horn, thinking he could play policeman, putting himself in danger and having him shoot two robbers from behind. Cold self justice, who needs a law force, who needs a judicial system.

 

[Surgo]

One thing that always seems to fall through the cracks in gun arguments is how an ordinary citizen having a gun makes everybody less safe. Where are criminals getting these guns with gun control enforcement in effect? Often times, gun theft. Guns stolen from legitimate buyers.

While I'm not necessarily pushing for more and more gun control, it's just something to think about.

 

[Trax]

if youre referring to the study you posted,
its highly inconclusive.

Ok, because this forum doesn't allow the quoting of quoted text, I'm referring to it numerically.

1. So, they're already headed down a bad path and you want it to be legal for them to take something that is well documented for making these things worse?

2. That's 3 decades of studies, there's nothing wrong with that. I dare say you're all fans of other things resulting from studies in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

3. I already pointed out that Psychotic symptoms are not confined to Schizophrenia, additionally pot has been around for over 30 years.

also, there is something seriously wrong with us if our first priority is to maybe prevent 14% of schizophrenia cases while we do nothing to help curb 2 leading causes of death in america, tobacco and poor diet/physical inactivity.

Who said that it was priority number one?

That said, there's nothing we can really do about physical inactivity being a problem short of cutting people off from the health system if they're too damn lazy to get off their arse and do some exercise.

Poor diet we could fix through education mostly, of course it's common sense for the most part (and if you want to eat fast food every day, I think you should be covering your own medical bills).

Tobacco: if anyone can explain to me why Tobacco should be legal when it has slightly less going for it than Pot (personally I think it should be phased out of legality over time and be banned in public places altogether).

sorry i keep bringin this link up, but i feel that there is something seriously fucked up we are arguing against marijuana, which causes 0 deaths directly (meaning it is almost impossible to OD on it), while we allow tobacco, and call being fat a life style choice. if someone chooses to be fat and it is shown to be the 2nd biggest cause of death in america, why the fuck can i not choose to smoke pot, which will not kill me and has a chance of giving me schizophrenia?

Because if you're a fatass and you get ill, it's your problem (or at least, it can be made that way) - if you're a pothead and you go nuts on someone, or need mental health care, it's a shared problem.

Having a handgun does not mean that you will murder somebody. Just like having drugs does not mean that you will hurt someone else.

It's glaringly obvious that it increases the likelihood of it occurring, in the ideal world we could trust people to be responsible but it's apparent based on the statistics that we can not do this safely.

This thread has just been going on and on with the same ridiculous anti-drug arguments being proven wrong with source after source. Even the source that Trax just gave went against his anti-drug views =\. Can we at least read the thread and see if our reasoning has already been stated?

No, you people just have the powers of selective reading and convenient interpretations of the facts and figures provided in that article, I have rebutted your responses to it already.

 

[Relictivity]

fuck that. it's the most just available drug, not the worst.

And very addicting, wouldn't you agree? In worse, I meant the worse effect (as in overall effect on society, since other drugs aren't as available). In other words, it has the worst effect on society currently, but with the legalization, that could change - we could (notice I said could, not would) have something much, much worse on the rise.

Something nobody's answered properly - why do we allow companies to put addictive substances in their drinks as an additive? A very avoidable addiction that is totally unnecessary since you can enjoy the drink without those substances. Why?

 

[DM]

Something nobody's answered properly - why do we allow companies to put addictive substances in their drinks as an additive? A very avoidable addiction that is totally unnecessary since you can enjoy the drink without those substances. Why?

Because the fact that soft drinks and coffee contain caffeine is freely advertised. It's written right on the package. The consumer then makes their own free choice whether to ingest that product, or to go for a caffeine-free variety.

Okay, I want to use this post to address a word that has been thrown around this thread a lot: "logic."

Legalizing drugs makes more druggies. You can say there isn't any proof in this statement either but it's simple logic. Laws outlawing drugs are a discouragement to potential users. Remove simple laws and more users will be created.

When I said "you cannot extrapolate on an alternate reality and say that the driver wouldn't have hurt anybody if he was sober instead of high," I got this response:

It's logic, not proof. And quite sound logic too.

Okay, so here we go... I'm going to give you a quick demonstration on why your "logic" is horseshit, and anyone who's taken Course II math will be able to follow along.

X = the usage of drugs
Y = harm to others

I'm simplifying, but that's your general argument. In essence you are saying:

X -> Y

Even though that's already been proven to be a fallacy, let's accept it as truth for the purpose of this exercise. Now, what you're also claiming as fact is:

-X -> -Y

As I said, anyone who has taken Course II math will tell you that that is just not true. Logic does not allow you to make that assumption. The only other true statement we can glean from your first "true" statement is the contrapositive:

-Y -> -X

This has also been proven to be wildly incorrect. The same thing goes for Son of Disaster's original statement that removing laws will lead to more druggies. He says:

X (laws) -> -Y (less druggies)
-X (less laws) -> Y (more druggies)

YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

Thank you for your time. I'm Dr. Felix R. Merryweather IV, and this has been Lesson One of my tutorial series "Why I'm Always Right."

 

[Surgo]

Not to mention that logic is proof! If something is shown to follow logically, that is a proof.

 

[Force Majeure]

yes

smoking marijuana only harms the user

smoking marijuana and driving is dangerous to other people

nobody is arguing to legalize driving under the influence

as for the incredibly vague part two of that little fallacy, what side effects of marijuana use are harmful to people other than the user? jesus

i love how all the anti-drug dudes in this thread are like "smoking drugs impairs your judgment and muddles your thinking!!" when they're incapable of stringing together even the simplest logical argument dead sober

/o\

You're obviously very obstinate, or you simply cannot understand what I'm saying. Why would you assume that people are smart enough to only smoke pot? People aren't even smart enough to not drive after they drink, and since both have some judgment ....altering.... capabilities, it is only rational to assume that people would do stupid things with marijuana as they already do with alcohol. That's the crux of my argument: people are stupid. Read the quoted material as figure 1. Attacking the rationality of my assertions puts you on the defensive, as you simply haven't said anything. Attacking those who are anti-drug doesn't mean you're right.

 

[Relictivity]

Okay, so here we go... I'm going to give you a quick demonstration on why your "logic" is horseshit, and anyone who's taken Course II math will be able to follow along.

X = the usage of drugs
Y = harm to others

I'm simplifying, but that's your general argument. In essence you are saying:

X -> Y

Even though that's already been proven to be a fallacy, let's accept it as truth for the purpose of this exercise. Now, what you're also claiming as fact is:

-X -> -Y

As I said, anyone who has taken Course II math will tell you that that is just not true. Logic does not allow you to make that assumption. The only other true statement we can glean from your first "true" statement is the contrapositive:

-Y -> -X

This has also been proven to be wildly incorrect. The same thing goes for Son of Disaster's original statement that removing laws will lead to more druggies. He says:

X (laws) -> -Y (less druggies)
-X (less laws) -> Y (more druggies)

YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

Unfortunately, life is not mathematical. Also, there are some "flaws" in known mathematics, I have seen it proved that 1 = -1. I know there is a mistake, but the textbooks do not go over where. Enough about that though.

Though caffeine may be written on the package, it is an unnecessary addiction. So why is it in it? Are you saying you want to give up your freedom?

IMO, you would not think that the products of the diagonals of a rhombus divided by 2 equal the area of the rhombus, but there is a proof for that. No, logic applies to non-mathematica scenarios. Proof is for mathematical scenarios. People's minds are not mathematical.

If we make drugs available --> More Availability --> More people will do it
If we get rid of drugs --> People resist --> More people will do it
If we get rid of drugs after advertising against it --> People don't care --> Nobody doing it.

 

[akuchi]

I drink caffiene because it tastes nicer than the non-caffiene version and I quite like being slightly more awake in the mornings. Without a cup of tea (and several sugars) I ain't getting out of bed (well, up, dressed, and doing things during the day) for hell nor high water.
What the hell is it with you and personal choice? Wanting to stop people shooting up smack is stupid but understandable, but drinking coffee? Jesus wept. I suppose you'd barricade me away from alcohol, cigarettes, tea, my destructive relationship, the internet, my textbooks, my art materials, my mobile phone, and my TV, and tie my hands up in case I get so bored I turn into a compulsive masturbator, and..
um. yeah.

 

[Invective]

You're obviously very obstinate, or you simply cannot understand what I'm saying. Why would you assume that people are smart enough to only smoke pot? People aren't even smart enough to not drive after they drink, and since both have some judgment ....altering.... capabilities, it is only rational to assume that people would do stupid things with marijuana as they already do with alcohol. That's the crux of my argument: people are stupid. Read the quoted material as figure 1. Attacking the rationality of my assertions puts you on the defensive, as you simply haven't said anything. Attacking those who are anti-drug doesn't mean you're right.

Its posts like these that make me think the only people arguing against legalization are the ones who have never tried drinking or smoking, and believe everything the see on those anti drug commercials.
first of all, pot doesnt affect your judgment, it affects your perception. so you may be trippin balls, but youll know it. alcohol affects both judgment and perception, so youll be wasted but you wont feel like it.
also, when youre baked, you dont really feel like driving, or really doing anything. you kinda just want to stay in the same place and eat chocolate chip cookies and watch someone else play guitar hero. you dont really want to be driving.

also, a lot of studies disagree with you.

 

[Luduan]

Unfortunately, life is not mathematical. Also, there are some "flaws" in known mathematics, I have seen it proved that 1 = -1. I know there is a mistake, but the textbooks do not go over where. Enough about that though.

If there is a mistake (which there is), then it is mistaken and not mathematically correct... How, pray tell, does this indict "known mathematics"? Mentioning something completely irrelevant and changing the subject is not likely to prove a very successful line of argumentation.

Though caffeine may be written on the package, it is an unnecessary addiction. So why is it in it? Are you saying you want to give up your freedom?

If someone chooses to use caffeine, that is their prerogative. I am dependent upon caffeine to function normally; I also don't fucking care. You can become addicted to anything. Should we also mandate an addiction disclaimer for ISPs? For video gaming companies? For restaurants? For televisions? Psychological addiction is just as powerful as physical dependence. Speaking of physical dependence, what about benzodiazepine? Beta blockers? Methaqualone? Your zealous prohibitionism can be extended indefinitely.

IMO, you would not think that the products of the diagonals of a rhombus divided by 2 equal the area of the rhombus, but there is a proof for that. No, logic applies to non-mathematica scenarios. Proof is for mathematical scenarios. People's minds are not mathematical.

"What you would think" is ambiguous and inconsequential. Logic is a common rhetorical device and method of determining valid (note the distinction between "valid" and "true") lines of argumentation; proof is used in logic. I am far from a fan of analytic philosophy, but the predicate calculus certainly can serve a useful function.

If we make drugs available --> More Availability --> More people will do it
If we get rid of drugs --> People resist --> More people will do it
If we get rid of drugs after advertising against it --> People don't care --> Nobody doing it.

How does "more availability" lead to "more people will do it"? Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Can you provide any evidence for any of these assertions? This isn't logic; it's drawing invalid, untenable, unsubstantiated conclusions. Your posts thoroughly evince utter ignorance, a woefully clumsy ineptitude for argumentation, and sheer intellectual laziness.

 

[Relictivity]

Let's ban anesthesia. People have the right to think clearly, after all.

Is anesthesia necessary for some people? Yes.

If there is a mistake (which there is), then it is mistaken and not mathematically correct... How, pray tell, does this indict "known mathematics"? Mentioning something completely irrelevant and changing the subject is not likely to prove a very successful line of argumentation.

It's because DM simplified the therom. It's not as simple as positive-negative, it's relating to people's thought processes. I'll send you the proof your reffering to if you want, just PM me.

If someone chooses to use caffeine, that is their prerogative. I am dependent upon caffeine to function normally; I also don't fucking care. You can become addicted to anything. Should we also mandate an addiction disclaimer for ISPs? For video gaming companies? For restaurants? For televisions? Psychological addiction is just as powerful as physical dependence. Speaking of physical dependence, what about benzodiazepine? Beta blockers? Methaqualone? Your zealous prohibitionism can be extended indefinitely.

Yes, you can become addicted to anything. Is it ever a good thing (excluding the medical cases where the person needs the substance)? Nope, or at least not most of the time. Therefore, if we get to the point where people do not get addicted anymore (we stay where we are with the laws until then), there will be no more need for addictive substances. Also, there is something called moderation... but things like alchohal and other worse drugs can't really be used without becoming addicting.

"What you would think" is ambiguous and inconsequential. Logic is a common rhetorical device and method of determining valid (note the distinction between "valid" and "true") lines of argumentation; proof is used in logic. I am far from a fan of analytic philosophy, but the predicate calculus certainly can serve a useful function.

As I said, DM oversimplified the proof. If you can totally explain the human mind (which nobody can), then you can use the proof. Otherwise, you can't.

How does "more availability" lead to "more people will do it"? Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Can you provide any evidence for any of these assertions? This isn't logic; it's drawing invalid, untenable, unsubstantiated conclusions. Your posts thoroughly evince utter ignorance, a woefully clumsy ineptitude for argumentation, and sheer intellectual laziness.

I'll explain. There are three possiblities that could happen if drugs get legalized. A - They will grow less popular. B - They will continue with the same popularity. C - They will grow more popular.

Let's tackle A first. You are intoducing drugs so that they become more easily available. So how are they going to grow less popular if you don't do anything else? More people will want to take them, as they are now "ok".

Now for B. You are adding something new to the enviroment. What's the chance that someone won't get curious and try it out? What's the chance that there is nobody out there that doesn't have drugs now, but will get them if they are unbanned. You see what I mean - the number won't stay stable.

That leaves C - the number will increase.

Hopefully I explained that well enough.

@Akuchi - There are other things you can use to wake your self up in the morning, alarm clocks usually do a good job. If your staying up so late that you can't wake up, your not getting enough sleep anyways. I don't see how in the world caffeine would make something taste better.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Let's tackle A first. You are intoducing drugs so that they become more easily available. So how are they going to grow less popular if you don't do anything else? More people will want to take them, as they are now "ok".

Now for B. You are adding something new to the enviroment. What's the chance that someone won't get curious and try it out? What's the chance that there is nobody out there that doesn't have drugs now, but will get them if they are unbanned. You see what I mean - the number won't stay stable.

I'm just going to pop in here and say that none of your claims have any merit. Where is the evidence that would suggest that more people would take drugs if they were legalized? What you *THINK* *MIGHT* happen isn't enough. People I know that don't do drugs dont give a shit if they are legal or not, they just don't want to do them. It's their personal decision, and they are smart enough to make it without Big Brother telling them what is and isn't good for them. I have never even heard of someone saying "I would smoke with you j7r but sorry, that's illegal." Not only did you not provide evidence, but all of the empirical evidence I've collected over the years makes it pretty clear that legality of drugs does not influence whether or not people want to do them. If heroin was legalized tomorrow, I would still never want to do it.

Basically, what everyone is trying to tell you is that drug users don't care if drugs are legal or not, and that people who don't use drugs are not deterred by their illegality. Do you think that if sex were banned tomorrow, people would stop having sex because its illegal? Then why would people stop doing something that is easier to get and arguably feels better just because its illegal? People would still abstain from sex if it were banned, citing STDs etc, but its illegality has nothing to do with the amount of people who are doing it/using drugs. I hope this clears it up a bit for you. If what you proposed were the case, the amount of pot smokers would be decreasing, not increasing.

As for part B- the chances of that happening are about the same as they are now. I don't know if youve been to a party or a public school lately but it is pretty easy to get a very wide range of drugs. If heroin/pot/etc were legalized tomorrow, would you want to do them? That line of thinking is completely inconsistent with reality.

Unfortunately, life is not mathematical.

Unfortunately, it is. Logic has very specific rules.

Also, there are some "flaws" in known mathematics, I have seen it proved that 1 = -1. I know there is a mistake, but the textbooks do not go over where. Enough about that though.

That isn't mathematics. You said it yourself. We are talking about math and logic that actually exist, not some brain teaser asking you to find the error in a "proof". Using a blatantly false proof that is advertised as false does not make math wrong. "the textbooks dont go over where"....is this even a serious post? How could you possibly say "I know this isn't math, but it looks like math and its wrong. Therefore, all math is irrelevant" and expect people to take that seriously?

If we get rid of drugs after advertising against it --> People don't care --> Nobody doing it.

Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic. People will not just forget about a multi-billion dollar industry, and that is evidenced by the fact that we have been doing this for decades with the exact opposite effect.

 

[Invective]

Is anesthesia necessary for some people? Yes.

really? people seemed to do just fine before anesthesia, it seems like anesthesia is a mere luxury for people who dont want to feel pain.

Yes, you can become addicted to anything. Is it ever a good thing (excluding the medical cases where the person needs the substance)? Nope, or at least not most of the time. Therefore, if we get to the point where people do not get addicted anymore (we stay where we are with the laws until then), there will be no more need for addictive substances. Also, there is something called moderation... but things like alchohal and other worse drugs can't really be used without becoming addicting.

are you fucking kidding me? i know plenty of people who use drugs and alcohol in moderation. i myslef was able to follow through with my seriously, have you ever left the comfort of your home to go out and see the fucking word for what it really is? not all people who drink or do drugs get addicted. seriously, you seem to think that as soon as someone does anything, they instantly get addicted and lose all self control. thats not how it fucking works!

I'll explain. There are three possiblities that could happen if drugs get legalized. A - They will grow less popular. B - They will continue with the same popularity. C - They will grow more popular.

Let's tackle A first. You are intoducing drugs so that they become more easily available. So how are they going to grow less popular if you don't do anything else? More people will want to take them, as they are now "ok".

Now for B. You are adding something new to the enviroment. What's the chance that someone won't get curious and try it out? What's the chance that there is nobody out there that doesn't have drugs now, but will get them if they are unbanned. You see what I mean - the number won't stay stable.

and what is stopping them from using the drugs now? if people want drugs, they will find someone dealin. the only people who dont do drugs are those who have decided they dont want to take them, or those who have taken them and decided they didnt like them and gave them up.

That leaves C - the number will increase.

this conclusion is reached upon faulty reasoning and rash assumptions. you assume that people want to do drugs but wont because of the illegality. thats not how people think.


Hopefully I explained that well enough.

@Akuchi - There are other things you can use to wake your self up in the morning, alarm clocks usually do a good job. If your staying up so late that you can't wake up, your not getting enough sleep anyways. I don't see how in the world caffeine would make something taste better.

okay, seriously you need to get out and see the world for what it is. if you think alll it takes to wake up is an alarm clock, then you must live the most sheltered life in the world.

 

[Luduan]

It's because DM simplified the therom. It's not as simple as positive-negative, it's relating to people's thought processes. I'll send you the proof your reffering to if you want, just PM me.

You are the one who claimed it is logical, so you are directly contradicting yourself by claiming it cannot be reduced into the propositional calculus. I agree that thought processes are more complex; however, your own argument belies this very claim. You are being disingenuous. Here is the quotation in question:

Of course it doesn't. Legalizing means admittine that you "don't care" about it. Legalizing will make drugs more available, therefore leading to more drug usage.

This argument can follow the direct logical model of the form "If p, then q".

• If drugs are legalized, then greater drug use will ensue.

From this you attempt to argue that:

• If drugs are not legalized, then greater drug use will not ensue.

i.e, ~p, therefore ~q

DM's objections to this are perfectly valid and adhere to strict logical rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't play the game. Don't claim your argument is using logic if you are unwilling to accept its destruction by logical means.

This truth table demonstrates why reasoning in the form of ~p, therefore ~q is invalid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication

For reference I will juxtapose the latter part of the post to which I am responding here:

I'll explain. There are three possiblities that could happen if drugs get legalized. A - They will grow less popular. B - They will continue with the same popularity. C - They will grow more popular.

Let's tackle A first. You are intoducing drugs so that they become more easily available. So how are they going to grow less popular if you don't do anything else? More people will want to take them, as they are now "ok".

Now for B. You are adding something new to the enviroment. What's the chance that someone won't get curious and try it out? What's the chance that there is nobody out there that doesn't have drugs now, but will get them if they are unbanned. You see what I mean - the number won't stay stable.

That leaves C - the number will increase.

Hopefully I explained that well enough.

this can also be translated syllogically thusly:

1. Legalizing drugs will increase availability
2. Increased availability leads to increased consumption
3. Legalizing drugs will increase consumption

The problems with your argument are manifold. Firstly, you have provided absolutely no reason for us to accept either of your premises. Even granting (1), (2) cannot be reasonably inferred from any evidence whatsoever. You attempt to use "common sense" "law" of human behaviour that I simply do not accept. There is no reason to believe that many more people will seek drugs following hypothetical legalization for reasons that have already been endlessly expounded upon by others in this thread. Furthermore I challenge that you can deduce (3) from (1) and (2). This argument is both invalid and unsound.

Yes, you can become addicted to anything. Is it ever a good thing (excluding the medical cases where the person needs the substance)? Nope, or at least not most of the time. Therefore, if we get to the point where people do not get addicted anymore (we stay where we are with the laws until then), there will be no more need for addictive substances.

Try as I might, I have failed in parsing your last sentence; but I do wonder on what grounds you wish to keep laws the way they are. Why not ban everything that is potentially habit-forming? Who are you to arbitrarily decide which substances are O.K. for consumption and which are not?

Also, there is something called moderation... but things like alchohal and other worse drugs can't really be used without becoming addicting.

Really? You do realize that hallucinogens like marijuana and LSD are not dependence forming. What is your rationale for banning them? Your claims about alcohol are misguided as well: It is perfectly possible and quite common for people to use alcohol without becoming addicted.

As I said, DM oversimplified the proof. If you can totally explain the human mind (which nobody can), then you can use the proof. Otherwise, you can't.

This seems to directly contradict your own argument.

@Akuchi - There are other things you can use to wake your self up in the morning, alarm clocks usually do a good job. If your staying up so late that you can't wake up, your not getting enough sleep anyways. I don't see how in the world caffeine would make something taste better.

Some people run on what is known as a "long" circadian rhythm. Simply telling someone to go to bed earlier is not an effective way of counteracting this biological fact. Moderate caffeine use also carries significant health benefits: it reduces the likelihood of developing Parkinson's, possibly reduces the likelihood of heart disease, and may slightly increase cognitive abilities, in addiction to the obvious painkilling applications (notice how Excedrin, etc. all contain moderate amounts of caffeine). In the same vein, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are widely cited and well documented. Moreover, I would much rather have someone drinking caffeine in the mornings and early afternoons (when we experiences a "dip" in our circadian rhythm) than falling asleep behind the wheel. You'll note that many automobile accidents occur between the hours of 1400-1700 (2 pm to 5 pm) for this very reason. Dozing is implicated in up to a fifth of automobile accidents in some nations.* To forestall this, many health professional recommend drinking a large caffeinated beverage and then napping for 15-20 minutes before making a long afternoon commute.

* See, e.g., http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/310/6979/565

 

[Relictivity]

You are the one who claimed it is logical, so you are directly contradicting yourself by claiming it cannot be reduced into the propositional calculus. I agree that thought processes are more complex; however, your own argument belies this very claim. You are being disingenuous. Here is the quotation in question:This argument can follow the direct logical model of the form "If p, then q".

It may have seemed that way, but that is not the case. I just explained my reasoning in the previous post. You guys seem to like to use indirect proofs, but if you look back at my post, I gave you the reasoning I use for putting this together. Let me give it you again.

I'll explain. There are three possiblities that could happen if drugs get legalized. A - They will grow less popular. B - They will continue with the same popularity. C - They will grow more popular.

Let's tackle A first. You are intoducing drugs so that they become more easily available. So how are they going to grow less popular if you don't do anything else? More people will want to take them, as they are now "ok".

Now for B. You are adding something new to the enviroment. What's the chance that someone won't get curious and try it out? What's the chance that there is nobody out there that doesn't have drugs now, but will get them if they are unbanned. You see what I mean - the number won't stay stable.

That leaves C - the number will increase.

DM's objections to this are perfectly valid and adhere to strict logical rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't play the game. Don't claim your argument is using logic if you are unwilling to accept its destruction by logical means.

Well then you guys are using a different definition from logic than I am. How is my form of logic wrong? I am not using an indirect proof, so you guys cannot say "you are wrong" using that method. Because thought is not a black and white process, which is essentially what an indirect proof is.

For reference I will juxtapose the latter part of the post to which I am responding here:this can also be translated syllogically thusly:

1. Legalizing drugs will increase availability
2. Increased availability leads to increased consumption
3. Legalizing drugs will increase consumption

The problems with your argument are manifold. Firstly, you have provided absolutely no reason for us to accept either of your premises. Even granting (1), (2) cannot be reasonably infered from any evidence whatsoever. You attempt to use "common sense" "law" of human behaviour that I simply do not accept.

Why do you not trust these arguments? What is wrong about them? Don't just say "you haven't proved them", that's just avoiding the point (sorry, that's the harsh truth). What is wrong with them? What is illogical with them? What evidence do you have against them?

There is no reason to believe that many more people will seek drugs following hypothetical legalization for reasons that have already been endlessly expounded upon by others in this thread. Furthermore I challenge that you can deduce (3) from (1) and (2). This argument is both invalid and unsound.

Please look at them again. 3 CAN be deduced from 1 and 2. I hate how you are making me use a proof to prove something that is such common sense, so why don't you prove why 1 and 2 are wrong. Also, note that as they are not truths, but common sense, tell me why you believe they are wrong. Don't just say "their common sense". Use common sense to disprove them.

Try as I might, I have failed in parsing your last sentence; but I do wonder on what grounds you wish to keep laws the way they are. Why not ban everything that is potentially habit-forming? Who are you to arbitrarily decide which substances are O.K. for consumption and which are not?

Montesquieu. You can't pass laws until the people are ready for them.

Really? You do realize that hallucinagins like marijuana and LSD are not dependence forming. What is your rationale for banning them? Your claims about alcohol are misguided as well: It is perfectly possible and quite common for people to use alcohol without becoming addicted.

Is there justification for using them?

Some people run on what is known as a "long" circadian rhytm. Simply telling someone to go to bed earlier is not an effective way of counteracting this biological fact. Moderate caffeine use also carries significant health benefits: it reduces the likelihood of developing Parkinson's, possibly reduces the likelihood of heart disease, and may slightly increase cognitive abilities, in addiction to the obvious painkilling applications (notice how Excedrin, etc. all contain moderate amounts of caffeine). In the same vein, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are widely cited and well documented. Moreover, I would much rather have someone drinking caffeine in the mornings and early afternoons (when we experiences a "dip" in our circadian rhytm) than falling asleep behind the wheel. You'll note that many automobile accidents occur between the hours of 1400-1500 (2 pm to 5 pm) for this very reason. Dozing is implicated in up to a fifth of automobile accidents in some nations.* To forestall this, many health professional recommend drinking a large caffeinated beverage and then napping for 15-20 minutes before making a long afternoon commute.

If the person has "long" circadian rhytm, then fine, else, why are they taking it? You've heard people say "caffeine is not a substitution for sleep". There are also other ways to keep yourself awake, with not so much of an addiction. Again, do they need the caffeine?
[/quote]

really? people seemed to do just fine before anesthesia, it seems like anesthesia is a mere luxury for people who dont want to feel pain.

There is a point where you can die (or at least faint) from pain.

are you fucking kidding me? i know plenty of people who use drugs and alcohol in moderation. i myslef was able to follow through with my seriously, have you ever left the comfort of your home to go out and see the fucking word for what it really is? not all people who drink or do drugs get addicted. seriously, you seem to think that as soon as someone does anything, they instantly get addicted and lose all self control. thats not how it fucking works!

No, not all get addicted. Many do.

and what is stopping them from using the drugs now? if people want drugs, they will find someone dealin. the only people who dont do drugs are those who have decided they dont want to take them, or those who have taken them and decided they didnt like them and gave them up.

See how bad addictions are?

this conclusion is reached upon faulty reasoning and rash assumptions. you assume that people want to do drugs but wont because of the illegality. thats not howpeople think.

No, I assume that somebody out there has this opinion, not all people. Most people will stay away from drugs - I hope.

okay, seriouslyyou need to get out and see the world for what it is. if you think alll it takes to wake up is an alarm clock, then you must live the most sheltered life in the world.

It was an example. There are alternatives to caffeine for waking up in the morning.

I'm just going to pop in here and say that none of your claims have any merit. Where is the evidence that would suggest that more people would take drugs if they were legalized? What you *THINK* *MIGHT* happen isn't enough. People I know that don't do drugs dont give a shit if they are legal or not, they just don't want to do them.

What makes you *THINK* they *MIGHT* not happen?

It's their personal decision, and they are smart enough to make it without Big Brother telling them what is and isn't good for them. I have never even heard of someone saying "I would smoke with you j7r but sorry, that's illegal." Not only did you not provide evidence, but all of the empirical evidence I've collected over the years makes it pretty clear that legality of drugs does not influence whether or not people want to do them. If heroin was legalized tomorrow, I would still never want to do it.

Same here. I'm not going to assume that though. Many people just want to be happy in the short term, so there may be somebody who this applies to.

Basically, what everyone is trying to tell you is that drug users don't care if drugs are legal or not, and that people who don't use drugs are not deterred by their illegality. Do you think that if sex were banned tomorrow, people would stop having sex because its illegal? Then why would people stop doing something that is easier to get and arguably feels better just because its illegal? People would still abstain from sex if it were banned, citing STDs etc, but its illegality has nothing to do with the amount of people who are doing it/using drugs. I hope this clears it up a bit for you. If what you proposed were the case, the amount of pot smokers would be decreasing, not increasing.

Of course they don't. But some are deterred by the law in some way. I don't think it's easy to get drugs everywhere. Also, there are other ways to get around STDs too.

The moral "ok" has a huge influence on whether others do things. For a moment, smoking was considered a bad thing, but now people are starting to think it's "cool" again. What if drugs become an "ok" thing to do?

As for part B- the chances of that happening are about the same as they are now. I don't know if youve been to a party or a public school lately but it is pretty easy to get a very wide range of drugs. If heroin/pot/etc were legalized tomorrow, would you want to do them? That line of thinking is completely inconsistent with reality.

Again, what if drugs become "ok". If so, then drug use rises.

Unfortunately, it is. Logic has very specific rules.

When you have only 5% of a puzzle completed, are you going to guess at what the puzzle is?

That isn't mathematics. You said it yourself. We are talking about math and logic that actually exist, not some brain teaser asking you to find the error in a "proof". Using a blatantly false proof that is advertised as false does not make math wrong. "the textbooks dont go over where"....is this even a serious post? How could you possibly say "I know this isn't math, but it looks like math and its wrong. Therefore, all math is irrelevant" and expect people to take that seriously?

Forget I said that, it was off topic :/

Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic. People will not just forget about a multi-billion dollar industry, and that is evidenced by the fact that we have been doing this for decades with the exact opposite effect.

Eventually, if we can convince people that drugs are bad, they won't care about us banning them, right? The exceptions will still be allowed access.

 

[akuchi]

I suggest you answer the rest of my post. Not to mention there's a difference between feeling awake and *being* awake.