Drug Prohibition Discussion

choop

Okay folks this is going to be a serious thread about something I feel passionate about: drugs and freedom.

I would like to start the thread with two quotes from two personal heroes.

As Bill Hicks says "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom"

And Jimi Hendrix "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live how I wanna live"

Any country where the citizens are not allowed the choice of what they put in their own body is NOT a free country. As simple as that.

Drugs like opium and alcohol have been used for centuries, and will be used for centuries to come. Prohibition does not work! It did not work with alcohol, and instead of the government getting tax dollars from alcohol sales, criminals were getting the money. This is the same with illegal drugs today. A few pros and cons of drug prohibition.

Pros:
* You know what you are buying. Drugs like ecstasy and heroin are notoriously impure on the street due to dealers cutting them to make a profit. If drugs were legal and sold in shops, you would know exactly what you are getting. This would result in a healthier way to buy drugs than off some criminal.
* The government could tax drugs like they tax alcohol and cigarettes. This money could be used to fund education about drug abuse to minors and rehab clinics.
* Drug users would be less paranoid as what they are doing isn't against the law.
* Drugs would be cheaper and of better quality

Cons:
* There would, possibly, be a lot more drug addicts.
* There would, possibly, be a lot more drug overdoses on drugs like cocaine and heroin.

These two points are purely hypothetical. This video is of a very smart man talking about decriminalization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBB7l-SfoK4




EVERYTHING IS DANGEROUS WHEN ABUSED. PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM DRINKING TOO MUCH WATER. ABUSE IS ONLY ASSOCIATED WITH DRUGS BECAUSE THEY MAKE YOU FEEL SO GOOD.
 
My opinion on legalization is sort of a case-by-case thing, and the way I see it, the question to ask is, "is X drug better or worse than stuff that's already legal"? I don't see much problem with legalizing weed because it's hardly worse than other stuff out there, and it's not like everybody isn't already doing it anyway.

I also support just about anything for medicinal purposes.


FYI - it doesn't matter what's legal, I'm never going to do any of it myself, lol
 
I believe we should test Marijuana in the OU environment. It already has enough counters, and the ability to make the slower opponent go first should be extensively used in lieu of the Trick Room Team--effectively making the strategy more viable.
 
A side note: Increased availability of drugs could lead to an increase in spiking. You can't trick someone into smoking a joint, but you can slip all kinds of shit into food and drink. Perhaps I'm paranoid because several years ago I found out what I was smoking was laced with speed..hours later I swear I have never been sicker in my entire life.

But yeah, legalization should be fine provided the government runs awareness campaigns to keep kids informed, and taxes accordingly. I don't touch anything other than alcohol these days because all engineering jobs drug test and even if they didn't I need my brain in peak fighting form.

StrangerDanger said:
I believe we should test Marijuana in the OU environment. It already has enough counters, and the ability to make the slower opponent go first should be extensively used in lieu of the Trick Room Team--effectively making the strategy more viable.
Click to expand...
Cones could quite easily substitute for a second Choice Scarf under Item Clause. It's really up to the trainer, do you want to be locked into one move, or do you want your Pokes to be standing around in a circle giggling?
 
Misty said:
My opinion on legalization is sort of a case-by-case thing, and the way I see it, the question to ask is, "is X drug better or worse than stuff that's already legal"? I don't see much problem with legalizing weed because it's hardly worse than other stuff out there, and it's not like everybody isn't already doing it anyway.

I also support just about anything for medicinal purposes.


FYI - it doesn't matter what's legal, I'm never going to do any of it myself, lol
Click to expand...

Good point. Nicotine has barely any recreational value, but is one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Perhaps the government knows that the smoker will keep coming back for more, and pumping more money into their pockets.

PS how the hell did you get a million posts lol
 
I'm all for legalization, but then again, I've tried pretty much everything out there at this point. I am 100% about responsible drug usage, and I think everyone has a limit on their usage. Some people can't use drugs at all and still be responsible. Some people only use drugs on the weekend or on occasion, and that works for them. Some people get high every day(like us cool people), and still manage to live respectable lives. It's all about how you can handle it.

I agree with you 100%, it's our bodies, so we should be able to put in them whatever we want. Sure, I might smoke a lot of weed, drink a fair amount, and engage in other choice substances like the sexy lady we refer to as cocaine, I still think I'm a lot healthier then most of the people out there. I like to get high, sue me. I still hit the gym four times a week, engage in other countless cardiovascular activities, and maintain a pretty reasonable diet on top of that. How does that make me any more unhealthy then some overweight computer (BAN ME PLEASE) who thinks that "weed is for burners" or something like that, and sits on his ass all day eating McDonalds? Fast food, obesity, and hell, smoking cigarettes, are far more serious for your health in my opinion.

Plus, everyone can agree that getting high is good for the soul.
 
* You know what you are buying. Drugs like ecstasy and heroin are notoriously impure on the street due to dealers cutting them to make a profit. If drugs were legal and sold in shops, you would know exactly what you are getting. This would result in a healthier way to buy drugs than off some criminal.
Click to expand...
Uh, have you ever like, read all the additives that are added to cigarettes to make them more addictive? I'm a smoker, but I recognize the fact that the whole "companies adding chemicals to make it more potent/addictive thing" is pretty much true. Like, I've tasted the difference between just like tobacco leaves, and commercial cigarettes, and it's pretty significant. If you get the chance, look at the filter of a personally rolled cigarette (from tobacco leaves, not like loose tobacco; start from the source), and look at one from a commercial cigarette. It makes you wonder.

I, for one, am all for keeping my marijuana rat poison free. =/
 
^ while very true, I think this applies to hard drugs mostly. Think about your average cocaine or ecstasy, you know that shit is cut with whatever the fuck your drug dealer can put in there: meth, ritalin, fuck baking powder or something, and other random stuff. If you could buy straight, uncut cocaine or ecstasy, those drugs would be MUCH more safe.
 
Yeah. The government says they ban drugs to make it safer for people when they know people are still going to take these drugs. So they're pretty much forcing people who choose to take drugs to buy 'dirty' drugs. There is too much stereotypes involved with drugs.

When I go to a party, I walk around seeing people with huge pupils hugging and kissing eachother, having deep conversations in the quiet about personal issues and getting rid of serious emotional baggage. I also see people dancing like crazy and having an awesome time. I have always been a person that believes in what he sees and hears rather than what i have been told, especially from people I don't know. When I see parties like this with obvious drug use, it makes no sense to me why these people are criminals in today's society.

I am the coastguard of my body. I decide what goes in and what comes out. Nobody else.
 
if tobacco and alcohol which are some of the most dangerous drugs out there are legal, i honestly don't understand why weed isn't. tobacco has been proven that it causes cancer, there are more and more studies that cannabis doesn't, and even can reduce the risk (i don't know how accurate this is, but i've seen a lot of articles on it)

you can overdose on alcohol. you can get physically addicted, and die from the withdrawl. it can seriously fuck up your internal organs. can you really say that about weed?

it is ridiculous how many people get put in jail for possesion of marijuana alone. they really need to start going after the real criminals, instead of drug users.

the thing i'm worried about if they legalize all drugs, i'm sure a lot of people would assume they're safe, just because they're legal. alcohol's legal and most people assume that its a safe drug, but in reality its one of the most dangerous drugs out there (if really abused)
 
choop pretty much summed it up in the first post for me. but when it comes to this:

Misty said:
My opinion on legalization is sort of a case-by-case thing, and the way I see it, the question to ask is, "is X drug better or worse than stuff that's already legal"?
Click to expand...

that shouldnt make any difference, and its all subjective anyway. alcohol is bad for the liver and brain, weed is bad for your lungs and brain, cigarettes are bad for your... everything, etc etc. its almost like, what do you value more?

besides, even if something already legal was "better" than something not legal, that doesnt mean we shouldnt be able to still do it. "vegetables are better than candy, so lets never eat candy and outright make it illegal." (and dont tell me thats a bad analogy either, in reality sugar is like a drug with addictive and dangerous body-altering properties. its actually kinda scary considering we eat so much of it all the time.)
 
It was kind of hard to see what I was implying, what I was going for was basically the content of orangekows' post - if we've already legalized tobacco and alcohol, why should we illegalize something that's not even as bad as that?
 
I don't really support the banning of anything, but at the same time, I can't really argue with it in good conscience if the government wants to stop people from using things like heroin. Pot is another story.
 
I wouldn't think that these drugs are banned just to prevent the user from harm. I would say it's to protect others from harm. I've never gotten high, so I can't really speak accurately, but from what I've heard, you don't have a lot of control over what you're doing. Other people can get hurt, not just you, which is why I say drugs that get you high should stay banned.
 
Weed should be legalized, it's no more dangerous than booze or plain ol' smokes and the government would make a killing off of taxes with it, enough to easily get rid of what I call the super faggy homo tax (Federal income tax!) that is constitutionally illegal. I live an hour's drive away from the meth capital of the world though, there is just some shit that needs to be kept illegal. I'm not saying only weed should be taken off the ban list, but it definately needs to be a case by case thing, naturally on anything more hardcore than weed you should have to go to a pharmacy and sign a waiver to purchase it so we don't get the whole "my baby bought acid from 7-11 and died give me money!" lawsuit bullshit started.

But I'd have a different way of dealing with it. Useage would not be punished, however sale of illicit drugs would be punished by death, not punishable, punished. We obviously can't have a zero tolerance policy against users, that's far too many people. People selling illegal drugs are effectively running the risk of destroying lives worse than any murderer, send a message to them. This would in effect, cause dealers to qualify for combat pay from higher ups in the drug cartels, massively inflating prices as dealers demand higher and higher pay therefore putting a stranglehold on the client base with quickly inflating prices. It wouldn't kill the illegal drug industry, but it would get such a tight chokehold on it that they'd eventually be unable to turn a real profit and go into more profitable venues such as arms smuggling. Combined with heavily increased border security, which we need anyways. For some reason I don't like the fact that over 10,000,000 people are living here illegally, many of them taking welfare and social security money to send back to Mexico as well as not paying taxes.

Yeah, call me a nutjob, but there's a lot of stuff that needs to get done in this country, and at the current rate it's not gonna happen. Vote Ron Paul '08 kthnx.
 
In the UK there is a motion to move Cannabis from a Class C drug to a Class B due to recent evidence of a 40% increased risk of schizophrenia among heavy users. However, I still haven't seen any actual statistics here. What counts as a 'heavy user'? Is it a correlational study - perhaps people susceptible to schizophrenia are just more likely to enjoy smoking weed?

My personal opinion is that smoking weed isn't any more harmful than a multitude of other things we do in our lives to gain pleasure, and should be legalised. I have no experience of other drugs, so I won't comment.
 
The issue that first jumps to my mind is the state in loco parentis (I think that's the term) - it's the state, rather than the individual, deciding what is good for the individual. In my view, when the state starts deciding what is good for you, then that is a precursor to more authoritarian and totalitarian styles of government, owing to the fact that once you give a state power, you can never take it away, and if you give a state the power to control what you do with your body, then you give the state the potential to abuse that ability.

Now, if we're talking about issues that affect groups of people, that's a different matter, but the issue is "what am I putting into MY body?"

Some have argued that crime "associated" with drugs would increase - this is of course an ignorant argument as it is the illegality of the activity that gets racketeering and such involved.
 
I'm far from being an authority on this matter, so some things I say here might not be as accurate as I'd want them to be.

Basically, it's been proven that making certain things off-limits to others only increases their desire for reaching it. It's actually a part of human nature (curiosity). For instance, you can ban junk food from home so your kids don't get fat. However, this doesn't entirely stop them from eating it in other places in a lot more quantity than at home if you allowed it due to outside influences. This same principle applies to drugs and that's why I support the introduction of such things to children at an age where they'd try it on their own.

Personally, I've never tried any sort of drugs except for alcohol, which I barely drink anyway. I don't care wether people are adicts or not as long as it doesn't affect my personal health. Like many people have stated here, it's your own body: do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.
 
besides, even if something already legal was "better" than something not legal, that doesnt mean we shouldnt be able to still do it. "vegetables are better than candy, so lets never eat candy and outright make it illegal." (and dont tell me thats a bad analogy either, in reality sugar is like a drug with addictive and dangerous body-altering properties. its actually kinda scary considering we eat so much of it all the time.)

That’s a bad analogy.

Are you seriously trying to compare hyperisulinemia to the addictive effects of nicotine? Because that is fucking ridiculous. Being overweight is shits and giggles compared to meth’d cancer in like, fifty different parts of your body. Also carb addiction is a chemical imbalance that does not exclusively target glucose. Therefore, it is more akin to a pre-existing condition. Nicotine is far more addictive, screws with your body’s wiring while inside, and it is obviously a conscious choice to puff up, not a pre-existing medical “ailment”, if you will. You have even less of a case with more “dangerous” (and by dangerous, I mean drugs which require smaller doses to be fatal, and symptoms materialize quickly, as opposed to the long, drawn out incubation periods for lung cancer or whatever) drugs, which just kill you. Glucose is a necessary poly-chain in many important metabolic activities. PCP just kills you. Being fat and being dead are different okay.
 
You don't seem to understand the point of an analogy. The analogy is used to display inconsistencies in people's logic. You examine the reasons for a decision, and then apply these same reasons to something similar. The most common method of using an analogy is to change the degree, but keeping the argument of the same kind. If there are differences in kind, but not degree, it generally follows that the reasoning should be the same, except with a result that is, as well, different in degree. If you could only use analogies in situations in which ever detail is the same, you could never use analogies. "Eating sugar is like eating sugar!" is what you seem to require us to limit our analogies to.

Let me begin by saying I have never smoked a cigarette, ingested marijuana, or knowingly drunken alcohol, or done any harder drug like cocaine or ecstasy. I find it incredibly stupid to do the harder drugs, and only mildly stupid to do the less dangerous drugs, and as such, I do not plan to ever do any of them. That being said, I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. In the end, people need to have personal responsibility. Drugs should be sold with adequate warning labels; so as long as people are properly informed of the risks of doing these drugs, it's their own fault.

I still favor tough penalties for selling drugs to minors, however.
 
What is freedom anyway? I'm sure nobody here is free, since we're forced to go to poop every now and then, whether we like it or not, and whether we want it or not. Surely that's a breach to our freedom, right?

Since nobody has freedom to do what he or she wants even on something as trivial as visiting the toilet, it's no wonder that people don't have the freedom to use drugs.
 
I live in holland, weed is legal. Heroine isn't legal, I think they should keep it that way. There are a lot less people in holland that tried weed or drugs than in Amerika. If cocaine etc. will be legal the street wouldn't be as save, more addicts, worse economy etc.

In holland people know they shouldn't use weed. People will not use it because this is legal, if it is illegal there would be alot more addicts. Just some statistics,
People that have tried drugs:
Netherlands, 6%!
Amerika, about 20%
Australia, 46%!

Well, I think that sin't just random.

Alcohol is the same story as weed, it isn't as addictive as cocaine and you don't get addicted as quick.

Well those are my oppinions, comment.
 
You don't seem to understand the point of an analogy. The analogy is used to display inconsistencies in people's logic. You examine the reasons for a decision, and then apply these same reasons to something similar. The most common method of using an analogy is to change the degree, but keeping the argument of the same kind. If there are differences in kind, but not degree, it generally follows that the reasoning should be the same, except with a result that is, as well, different in degree. If you could only use analogies in situations in which ever detail is the same, you could never use analogies. "Eating sugar is like eating sugar!" is what you seem to require us to limit our analogies to.

No an analogy is an observed relationship from one [set, perhaps] thing to another. A is to B as C is to D. Fine, if you want to particularize--but the argument is still wrong. Carb addiction is not to PCP as vegetable ingestion is to smoking. Alternatively, carb addiction is not to vegetable ingestion as PCP is to smoking--in context. Sure, technically, you could argue on the grounds of severity of condition, but is carb addiction viewed as a intrinsically more severe than eating a carrot? No, not in context. Maybe in some Indian tribe where eating a lollipop is a felony.

Context is everything. On a dime, I could spin your position the other way and say that if analogies were not based in circumstance, then anything could be somehow justified to be related to something else as A is related to B. Which is bullshit, of course. Therefore it is a shitty analogy and a shitty argument.





What is freedom anyway? I'm sure nobody here is free, since we're forced to go to poop every now and then, whether we like it or not, and whether we want it or not. Surely that's a breach to our freedom, right?

Since nobody has freedom to do what he or she wants even on something as trivial as visiting the toilet, it's no wonder that people don't have the freedom to use drugs.

Exactly. The end.
 
CupofLifenoodles, re: your post.
Okay.

Re: What Obi said.
You're missing the point of the analogy.

The aside on the addictive property of sugar was completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. He is saying you should not ban X because there are healthier alternatives to X. If you ban smoking marijuana because not smoking marijuana is healthier, then you should also be banning, well, I don't even need to use an analogy here; you can use your imagination. ;) If you ban smoking for being unhealthy, and do not ban Pepsi, then the law is just being arbitrary.
 
My views on this are similar to Pax and Obi. I have never used any drugs and have no desire to do so, so I have nothing to gain or lose from decriminalization. It's not something I would actively advocate for or against. Having said that, I don't agree with the principle behind the state restricting anything on the basis that it can cause self harm. For example, let's say someone intentionally puts their hand on a hot stove. It's a ridiculous action with no apparent motivation that is obviously harmful. I would never do it, but I don't think touching hot stoves should be illegal either. It's only a matter of contention if that person was never accurately informed of the effects of touching a hot stove. There are possibilities that drug use could result in actions that harm someone other than the user, but criminalization doesn't entirely eliminate those possibilities, and I can't see an argument being put forth on that point one way or another without being extremely vague.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top