Drug Prohibition Discussion

[obi]

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.

Just because we don't have 100% freedom doesn't mean that we should accept a minimization of freedom. And, to cut off an argument that I'm sure someone is inevitably going to use, I'm am saying I want a maximization of freedom. However, this does not mean I want to legalize murder, as that is simply another individual removing someone's freedom, rather than the government. It doesn't matter to you when your dead who killed you, so yes, I favor laws against things like murder.

<correlational data>

Just because you find a correlation between the fact that it's legal there and illegal in America does not mean that the illegality caused the increase in use. Unless you can provide a reason for this cause-and-effect relationship, it's interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.

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.

The actual analogy was that excessive sugar consumption is unhealthy, and a healthier alternative (eating vegetables) exists. Here, excessive sugar consumption is to marijuana what eating vegetables is to not smoking. If we ban marijuana on the grounds that it is bad for you, then other things, which are also bad for you, such as fast food, undercooked meat, and voting Republican should also be made illegal, using the exact same logic of "saving you from yourself". I don't believe it's the government's job to protect people of sufficient mental capabilities (as in not minors or the mentally retarded) from themselves.

 

[CupofLifenoodles]

Pretty much anything in excess is unhealthy. Such a wide generalization on a narrow subject of interest makes no sense. I could replace sugar consumption with buying of AK-47s to ingestion of uranium to, well, hell, to eating vegetables. But the actual quote states as follows:

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."

It in the second line refers to the worse alternative, that is, eating candy. Therefore, she is hinting that even though vegetables are better for you than sugar, you should still be able to have vegetables. Therefore, sugar is to cocaine as vegetables are to weed, as sugar is referring an illegal substance. So, more generally, it is A is to B as an illegal substance is to a legal substance. Abstinence is technically legal, but it doesn’t really fit into the latter under conditions of sound logic (context). So would sugar be to vegetables as marijuana is to having sex with a rubber glove?

Being an occasional smoker myself, I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but harder drugs should always be considered illegal. Arguing that this compromises the safety of users is ridiculous, in my opinion; I’d be happy to sacrifice the life of some beat down drughead in some fucking slum as opposed to, say my immediate family.

I don't believe it's the government's job to protect people of sufficient mental capabilities (as in not minors or the mentally retarded) from themselves.

Men are not historically good adjudicators of what lies within the bounds of good judgment.

 

[CupofLifenoodles]

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.

See my above post. This is not a logical precession in this framework.



You're right, though; I see what you’re saying in regards to the particulates of smoking cigs, weed, and downing alcohol—and I admittedly missed that point in my first post, but like I said, it is an applicable argument to any two drugs, the latter being more severe than the former. Harder drugs require smaller quantities of “consumption” to be fatal, and symptoms of general harm metastasize more rapidly (that is an overdose of heroin is easier to achieve and kills faster than oversmoking or even overdrinking), so yeah. That pretty much addresses the initial point of the reply.

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.

Like I said previously, I don’t know why the fuck they ban weed, but okay. Also, the effects of drinking a bit too much pepsi are far less severe and pretty much never fatal. You are going to get lung cancer if you smoke for any notable length of time. Don’t even try playing the two together. When you consider those odds, what arbitrary line is being drawn, really? I don’t see it.

 

[DM]

Being a true Libertarian, I'm for the legalization of all drugs. I have partaken in marijuana many times in my life, and shrooms twice. I refuse to do any drug (aside from alcohol) that is not a naturally occurring substance. But I feel that if some shitsteak wants to rip lines of cokes and jack heroin into his veins day after day after day until he dies at the ripe old age of 26, then that's his goddamn choice.

 

[metalScyther]

Being a true Libertarian, I'm for the legalization of all drugs. I have partaken in marijuana many times in my life, and shrooms twice. I refuse to do any drug (aside from alcohol) that is not a naturally occurring substance. But I feel that if some shitsteak wants to rip lines of cokes and jack heroin into his veins day after day after day until he dies at the ripe old age of 26, then that's his goddamn choice.

THANK YOU. It is my god damn right as a shitsteak to rip lines of coke and jack heroin into my veins day after day. God bless this place. Oh wai

My biggest problem with the war on drugs is that it creates a need for a black market, which is where almost all of the problems with drugs originate from. There wouldn't be nearly as many ODs on drugs if people knew what they were getting - I read that a ton of people in NYC died because some fucknugget sold them Fentanyl(extremely powerful opiate) and told them it was Heroin - I'm guessing the vast majority of you aren't that familiar with this kind of stuff, but basically Fentanyl is dosed in the ug range, which if you aren't familiar with, means it's basically dosed in micrograms or someshit.

I'm not a doctor nor do I have proof to back this up, but I think that drugs, particularly "dangerous" powders like cocaine and ecstasy, would be MUCH safer if we knew they weren't getting cut with God knows what.

 

[choop]

Drugs have been used since the dawn of manking, and will be used til the end of mankind. There has to be a better way than just illegalizing all of them.

Did I say all? I meant all the good ones. Nicotine, taxed by the government, and highly addictive and destructive. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Basics]

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.

See my above post. This is not a logical precession in this framework.



You're right, though; I see what you’re saying in regards to the particulates of smoking cigs, weed, and downing alcohol—and I admittedly missed that point in my first post, but like I said, it is an applicable argument to any two drugs, the latter being more severe than the former. Harder drugs require smaller quantities of “consumption” to be fatal, and symptoms of general harm metastasize more rapidly (that is an overdose of heroin is easier to achieve and kills faster than oversmoking or even overdrinking), so yeah. That pretty much addresses the initial point of the reply.

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.

Like I said previously, I don’t know why the fuck they ban weed, but okay. Also, the effects of drinking a bit too much pepsi are far less severe and pretty much never fatal. You are going to get lung cancer if you smoke for any notable length of time. Don’t even try playing the two together. When you consider those odds, what arbitrary line is being drawn, really? I don’t see it.

So it's allowed to be bad for you, as long as it's not too bad for you? That is where the arbitrary line is being drawn. How bad is too bad? Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable deaths in North America after smoking; and what kind of nonsense is "You are going to get lung cancer if you smoke for any notable length of time." My grandma has been smoking for like 60 years and does not have lung cancer, my mother 30 years and also no lung cancer. It's a risk, but certainly not everyone ends up dying from smoking.

 

[xcfrisco]

I have a simple argument. Doesn't drug use, or more importantly, drug selling, invite other types of crime? Some would say that this is due to the illegal nature of drugs, and not the drugs themselves. But, I don't see/hear about tax evaders carrying glocks on a regular basis. (That last part was a joke)

 

[Blln]

Well I think drugs like cocaine, herion, pretty much anything highly addictive that really fucks you up, and really quickly, should always be illegal. It's very easy to underestimate the effects of these druges. If herion was made legal, for example, you could go to the store, poorly informed, just intending to try it out once, become seriously addicted, and possibly spiral downward. Now I'm not saying this can't happen with alcohol and to a lesser extent cigarettes, but the difference is that these are less addictive, and take much longer to mess you up, meaning you have time to quit or go to rehab or whatever. With these super addictive and dangerous drugs, you can just get sucked in and often just can't get out

Another quick thing about why highly addictive drugs should be illegal is that some of these drugs are so addictive that you just can't live without them after a while. Being so dependant can make you lose your job, or you might have never had one, but you still need money, because you can't live without the drug, and you need to buy some more That's when you turn to car jacking, or like arms dealing or whatever. Sure this already happens, but I can't help but feel that if all this stuff was legal, the crime rate would really sky rocket

eh, I'm not sure if I really managed to convey my thoughts on that matter, but whatever

I'm all for legalization of weed... It's not particularly bad for you, and it's not addictive, so it's already got cigarettes and alcohol beat, in my book. It doesn't cause you to be violent or anything, which is an argument that people who don't know what they're talking about often use: that it isn't safe to have potheads roaming the streets at night. While this argument may hold strong for heroin or PCP or something (I don't really have any clue...), pot won't make you commit crimes or anything, infact it probably makes you less likely to commit crimes.

so yeah, pro pot, anti everything else

 

[DM]

Well I think drugs like cocaine, herion, pretty much anything highly addictive that really fucks you up, and really quickly, should always be illegal. It's very easy to underestimate the effects of these druges. If herion was made legal, for example, you could go to the store, poorly informed, just intending to try it out once, become seriously addicted, and possibly spiral downward. Now I'm not saying this can't happen with alcohol and to a lesser extent cigarettes, but the difference is that these are less addictive, and take much longer to mess you up, meaning you have time to quit or go to rehab or whatever. With these super addictive and dangerous drugs, you can just get sucked in and often just can't get out

But why should the government have the power to tell us that we can't do that? If I, like in your example, go down to the corner store and buy a bump of heroin, that should be my choice to do so. (Side note: doing any drug one time is not going to get you addicted, nor will addiction happen after 5 times. It takes a long time before your desire for the high is replaced by a need for it.) What I'm saying is that I already control what I eat; nothing enters my body through my mouth without me approving it. The human body has many ways of absorbing and bringing in substances; fuck, if I wanted to let another man put his penis in my anus, THAT is also my choice (well, not if you ask the Christian Right). Why should I have the freedom to decide what enters my body in a myriad of other ways, but just not drugs?

Another quick thing about why highly addictive drugs should be illegal is that some of these drugs are so addictive that you just can't live without them after a while. Being so dependant can make you lose your job, or you might have never had one, but you still need money, because you can't live without the drug, and you need to buy some more That's when you turn to car jacking, or like arms dealing or whatever. Sure this already happens, but I can't help but feel that if all this stuff was legal, the crime rate would really sky rocket

This is seriously the only argument against legalization that I find intelligent. But it can be easily alleviated by tracking the sales of drugs. If someone wants to sell pot from plants that they grow themselves, they have to register with the government and pay a sales tax, just like any other business. People who sell illegally will be punished (but not with prison time, for fuck's sake). By tracing all sales, if someone is getting into trouble they can keep an eye on them and disallow sales to them. How? By requiring ID for purchase, of course! Strange concept, eh?

And yes, dumbasses will get addicted. But there are countries in Europe, namely the Scandinavian ones, who have free clinics where heroin addicts can go and get their daily fix and then go on with their lives. Once someone is addicted to heroin, they are under its influence to the point where they are only actually normal and functioning after they use. Addicts can still be productive and contributing members of society, if we only give them a hand.

 

[Vyacheslav]

everyone wondering why alcohol is legal - its because we can't keep it illegal in the slightest. its just to damn difficult.

 

[Blln]

if someone is getting into trouble they can keep an eye on them and disallow sales to them. How? By requiring ID for purchase, of course! Strange concept, eh?

This is a good point, which I didn't think of before..., so I guess that argument is pretty much null.

With the first argument, all I mean is that with hard drugs so readily available, it could be very easy for people to not really have a full understanding of what theyr'e getting into. They might not realize how dependant they will get, and just keep going till they can't get out.

But, like you said, dumbasses will always get addicted, they do now, they will if hard drugs are legal... I'm just wondering at what point the government is responsible for protecting dumbasses from themselves

and as a side note, I'm not against keeping these drugs illegal on principle, if they were made legal I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over the matter, plently of my friends do cocaine and acid and I have no problem with it, I just think a case can be made for keeping them illegal, just as a case can be made for making them legal.

 

[Wander]

For me it's very simple and I know this short post might frowned upon.

Does the government have the right to say what can and cannot go in your body? To me you have the natural right to be a complete idiot as long you do not physically harm someone else or try and blame someone else for your stupdity. It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves, only from each other. (Such as laws againist murder, selling drugs of all sorts to minors, child pornography, assault and rape.)

 

[choop]

Most drugs are not dangerous when used sparingly, and not abused. Like anything, drugs can be used and abused. If you eat fatty foods every day you will have health problems, and simple as that. Likewise, if you inject heroin everyday, you will also have health problems.

But that is life. Choice and consequence. If I choose to inject heroin into my eyeball, may I live with the consequences! The only thing missing here is with the current government, we are not even given the choice.


IRONIC ENDNOTE: A chemical produced in the brain (Dimethyltryptamine) is Schedule 1 in the US. Has this world gone insane?

 

[DM]

With the first argument, all I mean is that with hard drugs so readily available, it could be very easy for people to not really have a full understanding of what theyr'e getting into. They might not realize how dependant they will get, and just keep going till they can't get out.

Yeah, that's true. But once everything is legalized, we won't need the DEA anymore. Instead, all the millions of dollars wasted fighting these drugs can instead be used to turn the DEA into the Drug Education Administration, whose purpose will be to educate the public on all these drugs that are now so readily available. Being well educated and free to choose for themselves, Darwinism will take over from here.

But, like you said, dumbasses will always get addicted, they do now, they will if hard drugs are legal... I'm just wondering at what point the government is responsible for protecting dumbasses from themselves

That seems to be the question... but like Wander said, the government needs to protect us from each other, and let us do what we want to ourselves.

and as a side note, I'm not against keeping these drugs illegal on principle, if they were made legal I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over the matter, plently of my friends do cocaine and acid and I have no problem with it, I just think a case can be made for keeping them illegal, just as a case can be made for making them legal.

All too true.

 

[Kurgan]

Firstly, I'd like to go ahead and mention that I smoke cigarettes regularly and drink alocohol quite a bit. I've been doing so for nearly 4-5 years. Needless to say, I've seen my fair share of liquor stores and discount cigarette outlets.

Now, out of every single one of these establishments, be it a gas station, wine/liquor store, hell, even a grocery store, there remains one constant:

The lesser the general education equivalent of said establishment's frequenters, the greater of my risk to be scared as fuck.

In other words, these places are shady as hell. And the people that come here have lives that would make a dead toddler feel accomplished. This isn't me being a judgemental asshole, cause I go there for the same stuff that these people do. This is me seeing reality for what it is.

My point being, any drugs, even alcohol and cigarettes, are usually associated with scum bags. Social degenerates. Is this fair? I don't think so. I don't see what separates a man who wants to relax after work with a 40 oz. malt liquor beverage from a man who sips scotch at a yacht club. But society does.

This also plays into the "absolute freedom" approach many people who do illegal things take to America. Well I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to with my body since it's mine. I should also be able to punch my girlfriend in the face if she cheats on me. Sure I can do it, and I may even get away with it. I have that freedom. But I'll be punished to hell if I get busted or fess up to it.

Now I'm not going to argue if doing drugs is morally right or wrong. But obviously hitting any girl, in gerenal, will leave you branded with the guilty shadow of shame for a good long bit of your life. And this is the real issue: Some people think drug use is immoral. Some people don't.

I think adultery should get you a harsher jail sentence then having an eighth of weed on you, but I digress. Since there is a virtual stalemate on the morality of drugs, the laws on drugs have yet to budge. It's become one of those things like human cloning experiments and stem cell research. We (America) want to see what happens with it. We want to knock this shit off the fence with a god damn baseball bat.

Well give it some time is all I really have to say. As far as the "freedom to do what I want with my body when I want to" mantra, that shits for the birds. I've got a better one. How about "every child has the right to two good parents."

Think about that shit. Now THAT would solve some really big problems, including this one.

 

[CupofLifenoodles]

"So it's allowed to be bad for you, as long as it's not too bad for you? That is where the arbitrary line is being drawn. How bad is too bad?"

Okay, glucose is not directly bad for you, per se. That is what I am trying to say. Even in excessive doses, it is not actively destroying your body. Rather, said body is merely storing unused calories in fat reserves. Smoking is an active choice that basically amounts to you injecting yourself with poison.

Well, think of it this way…there’s no way in fuck you can ban glucose when your body requires it. Not to mention that pretty much everything you eat either contains or is broken down into glucose. So what are you going to do, ban all foods?



Those should be reasons enough to draw a very tangible line between the two. They aren’t the same thing at all.

Whether or not the cancer metastasizes is a different story, but as long as you contain one cell with the potential for unregulated growth, you arguably have “cancer”, that is, a cancerous cell in your system. This definition is more along the lines of what I meant; if you smoke, at least some of your cells will mutate, no questions about it, and within those numerous mutations, is it highly likely that at least one is going to express a difference in replication inhibition.

Regardless of whether those cells metastasize or not, your grandmother’s body has already suffered irreparable developmental of functional damage, and that’s just from CO—discounting the hundreds of other potential carcinogens and toxins in cig smoke. And yeah, she will eventually die from smoking related causes, provided all her other facilities are running smoothly.

 

[metalScyther]

I refuse to do any drug (aside from alcohol) that is not a naturally occurring substance.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel this way? How is cocaine or any opiate not a naturally occurring substance? Sure, you probably have to process them, but they are still "naturally occurring" - and really, it's not like you can(or at least, anyone does) smoke weed straight from the plant, you dry and cure the buds, which could be considered a form of processing.

Furthermore, drugs that are synthesized by man can often be just as safe if not safer than some of the "naturally occurring substances" that you speak of.

Also, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or attack your life philosophies, but merely trying to encourage some interesting discussions in this thread.

 

[Deck Knight]

Question for DoomMullet (as you've indicated you're a Libertarian).

My understanding of libertarianism is that it comes from a great dislike of government intrusion into people's private lives. (I also had a Libertarian friend who said if you can get two libertarians to agree on anything, one of them is just being polite)

Let us say all drugs are legalized. The government tracks their sale and distribution, and they establish those addict centers.

What you essentially have is a whole hoard of people addicted to the government for their fix. It's socialism (the antithesis of libertarianism) via drugs. Want the addicted masses to do what you want? Threaten to either raise taxes or raise heroin prices.

Anywhere you have the government in control of a bottleneck that people need (or even percieve to need), corruption is sure to follow. I don't like these "addict centers" one bit, in theory or reality. An addict isn't a normal, functioning human being. Period. They need their fix, and whosoever controls the source controls the people.

Drugs are immoral and idiotic. No one brags to their children about how great a person they are for using pot or smoking cigarettes or even drinking alchohol. It's the refuge of hippies and vagabonds who think because their screwing up their brain chemistry with an illegal substance they've won something against "the establishment."

As for me, I say legalize marijuana already, and only marijuana. It's supposed to be the safe stuff, and its the most popular cause of pot-smoking profs in ivory towers who like to build social theories that they test on others, mostly by voting Democrat and making sure their name has enough letters after it to pass by curriculum hacks. Give them their drug, and hopefully they'll be too high to inflict any more damage on American culture.

You're crazy if you do the other stuff, and as for "all natural," there are berries and mushrooms that can kill you if you consume them in micrograms. Shit is natural but none of the "all natural" nuts get a high off of cow manure.

In summary:

Addict centers are an affront to human dignity and an enabler of socialism. Two reasons why libertarians should oppose them forcefully.

Addicts aren't addicts because they're "weak" and you're the "tough" druggie, they're addicts because the drug itself is addictive and next thing you know you'll be the one ridiculed by the "tough" druggie for being "weak."

Legalize marijuana, give the babies their bottle, and continue prosecuting the hard stuff.

Drugs are still the refuge of lowlives, counter-culture dweebs, and irrelevant relics from the 60's and 70's. The TV series "Intervention" exists because drugs do more harm than good.

 

[Kid A]

I haven't read most of the posts in this topic but I'll give my two cents.

The government only has a right to prohibit what we do when it involves the dangering of other people's lives. This is where the question of drugs comes into play. In my opinion, the fact that marijuana is illegal is complete bollocks, as it is a complete question of free will and self-decision, apart from not being very harmful. Marijuana doesn't endager the lives of others around you in anyway (except maybe high driving, but drunk driving is a lot worse already) whereas some can argue that hard drugs 'cause an environment of harm. Although harder drugs are also a question of self-decision, one can't say the risks of "endangering society" are sufficiently higher when using them than those of marijuana.

Like Deck Knight, although he is still a coober, his logic is ridiculously uninformed and his posts make me puke, I support the legalization of marijuana and the illegalization of the harder stuff.

 

[DM]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel this way? How is cocaine or any opiate not a naturally occurring substance? Sure, you probably have to process them, but they are still "naturally occurring" - and really, it's not like you can(or at least, anyone does) smoke weed straight from the plant, you dry and cure the buds, which could be considered a form of processing.

Furthermore, drugs that are synthesized by man can often be just as safe if not safer than some of the "naturally occurring substances" that you speak of.

Also, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or attack your life philosophies, but merely trying to encourage some interesting discussions in this thread.

lol, I don't take your posts as attacks at all. And I guess the reason I've always stuck to the au naturel drugs in my life is because under the current laws and circumstances, you CAN'T trust any man-made drugs you buy. You think you're snorting coke, but you go to the hospital with a nosebleed from crushed glass. You think one ecstasy pill is enough, but that one had more MDMA in it than you thought and now you're writhing and dying on the dance floor. If everything was legal, you could feel safer buying and using those drugs.

But now that I think about it more (as in I submitted the post and reading this paragraph made me realize), I don't do the harder drugs because I know they'll fuck my body up. Pot? Yeah, I feel a bit dumber sometimes, but I still function normally and have a great job. Shrooms? I did them twice, and I see no reason why I couldn't do them again. Booze? Honestly, this has probably had the worst physical/mental effect on me of all, and it's almost completely legal. But I'll never snort coke, or shoot up, or smoke PCP, because I'm smart enough not to. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the choice whether to do it or not.

Question for DoomMullet (as you've indicated you're a Libertarian).

My understanding of libertarianism is that it comes from a great dislike of government intrusion into people's private lives. (I also had a Libertarian friend who said if you can get two libertarians to agree on anything, one of them is just being polite)

lol, that's pretty funny, and somewhat accurate. The label "libertarian" is a bit of a general one, many people who categorize themselves as democrat or republican all fall into the libertarian category. Basically, libertarianism wants the government to piss off, leave our private lives alone, but we're not dumb enough to ask for anarchy.

Let us say all drugs are legalized. The government tracks their sale and distribution, and they establish those addict centers.

What you essentially have is a whole hoard of people addicted to the government for their fix. It's socialism (the antithesis of libertarianism) via drugs. Want the addicted masses to do what you want? Threaten to either raise taxes or raise heroin prices.

The people of the masses who are addicted to the hard drugs really aren't the people I see making a difference in the world. What I'm giving you, with my legalization ideas, is a way to lower crime, empty our prisons of criminals of victimless crimes, and save the people of America a fuckton of money. Who could ask for more?

Anywhere you have the government in control of a bottleneck that people need (or even percieve to need), corruption is sure to follow. I don't like these "addict centers" one bit, in theory or reality. An addict isn't a normal, functioning human being. Period. They need their fix, and whosoever controls the source controls the people.

But in the end, they had the choice whether to do the drug beforehand. If they chose to do it, and kept doing it enough to get addicted, then fuck them, it's their own fault. If they want to sell their soul to the American government, that's their choice, but as of today in this country, all our souls are already being held hostage.

Drugs are immoral and idiotic. No one brags to their children about how great a person they are for using pot or smoking cigarettes or even drinking alchohol. It's the refuge of hippies and vagabonds who think because their screwing up their brain chemistry with an illegal substance they've won something against "the establishment."

But why? And by whose standards are we measuring morality? Morality, just as someone else mentioned sanity, is a subjective term. I find that a man sitting at home with some buddies and rolling a spliff and sharing it, watching some Rugrats and eating 9 pizzas to be fine. Other's don't think so, but that's where the problem comes in.

The morality on drugs was DECIDED a long time ago with propoganda and other bullshit like Reefer Madness. There are no GOOD reasons why some of the lesser drugs are illegal. Also, making an argument against hippies is irrelevant by about 30 years.

As for me, I say legalize marijuana already, and only marijuana. It's supposed to be the safe stuff, and its the most popular cause of pot-smoking profs in ivory towers who like to build social theories that they test on others, mostly by voting Democrat and making sure their name has enough letters after it to pass by curriculum hacks. Give them their drug, and hopefully they'll be too high to inflict any more damage on American culture.

Um, okay. Don't make this a political thing.

 

[striker64]

I just thought I would offer my two cents...

I fully support free will. If you want to do something to your body, do it. I don't care what it is. You have the freedom to do whatever you'd like, regardless of whether or not the government says it is legal or not. I myself have chosen not to do any sort of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco.

My problem comes in when people do any of these things to an excess. If you're going to drink or get high, fine, go ahead. The second that you get behind the wheel of a car and endanger the lives of someone else completely innocent, that's where my sympathy ends. Also, I don't smoke, and the smell makes me gag. If it's a non-smoking area, could you please take your cigarette elsewhere? Secondhand smoke is just as dangerous as tar, and I've chosen to sit in the non-smoking area to be away from it. This is what pisses me off.

Alcohol is legal and widespread, and there's almost never a day that goes by that you don't hear about someone in an alcohol-related traffic accident that is either violent or fatal. I can be the best driver in the world, but when some dumb fuck staggers out of the bar at 2 AM and is driving in the wrong lane and almost hits me head-on, I've got a huge problem with that, because you're endangering me and my family in the car with me. My problem with legalizing drugs is that the same thing could potentially happen - many more people will want to try it, get high, and do something stupid that endangers the lives of others. Other than that, do what you want, it's not my body, it's yours.

 

[CrystalBlade]

I think you should be damn well able to do whatever you choose, as long as you don't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. This is pretty much a paradox, though. Should you have the freedom to combine alcohol and driving, even though it has proven so many times that it endangers the freedom of others? Would it be taking away freedom if we say "don't combine drinking with driving"?

I would not mind letting drugs become legal, even though I'll never do them myself. But what about those drugs that make people go out of control and completely screw up themselves? And should we have the freedom to commit suicide, whether its from the intake of lethal intoxicants or from jumping off the Empire State Building? I don't really see why not, but I know others would argue otherwise.

It's impossible to grant everyone freedom without redefining what freedom is. Isn't that taking away from our freedom?

I'd make more arguments but I'm sure a couple people will beat down all of my points with things I haven't thought of, and others have already said what I think as well and those points have already been argued. Also, keep in mind that I've never done any drugs or intoxicants and I don't really plan on it, and I'm also not an expert on any of it. ;\

 

[obi]

Accepting a large reduction of freedom to avoid a small one is like shooting someone in the foot to keep them from stepping in the mud.

 

[Basics]

Okay I was all set to make another post in this thread, but I literally can't handle the level of stupidity, and this is coming from me, the guy with the "I could be banned!" custom title, and a 3k posting streak consisting of basically nothing but profanities and incoherent ramblings. "Smoking is like injecting posion into yourself" is actually what made me lose it.