Legalize it. ALL of it.

[ivar]

Unless you think there is some magical protection extended over people who aren't holding the cigarette, I don't see how second-hand smoke isn't dangerous. The smoke coming out of the cigarette is the same, regardless of whether you're holding it or whether it's the person standing next to you.

What I meant by overblown is that I just don't understand why someone freaks out at me for smoking a cigarette when I'm at a safe distance away from them AND outside. It's not as though they're directly inhaling the smoke, nor is it the case that they're breathing it in, considering the distance. Maybe it pollutes the air a bit (which, I guess, would mean that they are technically breathing it in, but in minimal doses), but damn I don't see people walking over to cars on a red light, then getting angry at the driver for polluting breathing air. I often find that people take second hand smoke studies to such paranoid extremes; I always seclude myself, but sometimes I STILL get people getting angry at me for smoking, citing second hand smoke studies postulating that even from a distance second hand smoke can be harmful (which, from what I've heard, is an unwarranted conclusion) as justification! I don't understand how me being several feet away and outside will affect anyone in some terribly harmful manner.

And the smoke may be the same, but inhalation is far more potent than a whiff.

 

[Caelum]

What I meant by overblown is that I just don't understand why someone freaks out at me for smoking a cigarette when I'm at a safe distance away from them AND outside. It's not as though they're directly inhaling the smoke, nor is it the case that they're breathing it in, considering the distance. Maybe it pollutes the air a bit (which, I guess, would mean that they are technically breathing it in, but in minimal doses), but damn I don't see people walking over to cars on a red light, then getting angry at the driver for polluting breathing air. I often find that people take second hand smoke studies to such paranoid extremes; I always seclude myself, but sometimes I STILL get people getting angry at me for smoking, citing second hand smoke studies postulating that even from a distance second hand smoke can be harmful (which, from what I've heard, is an unwarranted conclusion) as justification! I don't understand how me being several feet away and outside will affect anyone in some terribly harmful manner.

And the smoke may be the same, but inhalation is far more potent than a whiff.

There have been studies done (the most notable being done by the University of Hong Kong) that if they were exposed to passive second-hand smoke on just a semi-regular level (i.e. walking by co-workers in a designated smoke area etc.) were more likely to experience health problems that have a known correlation with smoking. I'll try to find the study and edit the link in, but it pretty clearly states that even casual exposure to second-hand smoke can have health ramifications.

 

[ivar]

There have been studies done (the most notable being done by the University of Hong Kong) that if they were exposed to passive second-hand smoke on just a semi-regular level (i.e. walking by co-workers in a designated smoke area etc.) were more likely to experience health problems that have a known correlation with smoking. I'll try to find the study and edit the link in, but it pretty clearly states that even casual exposure to second-hand smoke can have health ramifications.

Perhaps the word "whiff" confused you; it's not that I even walk by people while smoking, but instead I'm standing a few meters away, isolated and in an outdoor area, only to have someone voice their displeasure with my pollution of breathing air (while they likely drive a car!). I take every precaution, but I still get flak. At that point it's just the act of smoking that offends them (even if it is ultimately harmless to them), and the dangers of second-hand smoke become an excuse to belittle me.

And to be honest, please show me that study, because I'm a bit skeptical about the harm of occasionally walking by someone while smoking (my own mother was exposed to my grandparents' smoking, and she shows no ill effects; I do understand one instance does not make the case, but it is worth noting). To what degree is "more likely"? How conclusive is the study? It would also have to be the study itself; articles citing a study often present distortions of the truth, such as "recent studies have shown that even walking by somebody who is smoking a single instance can give you cancer!" or "you might get stuck in the escalator and die (this is a real story, btw) according to several studies!" I see that sort of sensationalist media all the time. Even an article talking about the study in close detail would not be convincing enough for me; only the study itself (or some other study with similar conclusions).

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not ruling it out either; I would just like to judge for myself, according to a standard independent of "word of mouth" and according to my own reasoning capabilities (our according to the reasoning capabilities of other smogoners).

 

[Luduan]

I found that study by the RAND corporation that I vaguely mentioned earlier.

The results show that treatment is overwhelmingly the most cost-effective way of reducing cocaine consumption and its resulting social costs. In brief, the RAND study shows that treatment is 7 times more cost effective than domestic law enforcement method, 10 times more effective than interdiction, and 23 times more effective than the "source control" method.
​

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/doitwork.html
​

 

[DM]

One more for Team Legalize:

Heroin cheaper than beer, and for minors MUCH easier to get.

And this cheap heroin is deadlier than ever, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center. Unlike a generation ago, when the street drug was less than 10 percent pure — today’s version can be upwards of 70 percent pure. Teenagers are snorting it, smoking it in joints, and getting hooked faster, and overdosing more.

“Try heroin once, and you may not have the opportunity to try it again,” Gilbride says.

 

[Son of Disaster]

wow mom wow

You can't say because cars kill people they should be banned. They have far more positive effects than the unfortunate side effects. Drugs have no positive side effects besides the extremely rare benefits mentioned. I'm sure the man smoking pot for his tumors could get the same benefits by isolating the actual benficiary ingredient in the weed. In fact drugs are outlawed because they inhibit the freedom and judgement of an individual. Therefore danger to those around you becomes prevalent. Where is the government going to get there drugs from as well?

There is no way behavior can be excused because of drug influence. It impairs your judgement yes but that doesn't excuse the fact that maybe you killed someone. There is no way around this.

I fail to see gangs becoming a thing of the past. The repealing of prohibition didn't eradicate mobsters and organized crime at all did it? Gangs will keep supplying or move to different crimes.

As for taxes i'm a fan of a flat tax. Morality taxes are just a way of claiming to do something about a problem when in fact doing nothing. I've also heard that there is a lot of money lost to poor production from drug users. I'll try and find the study.

McDonalds is unhealthy if you are using in excess and not exercising. You can od on heroine first time. As for meth you can't just exercise away the side effects. When McDonalds starts giving meth sores maybe i'll consider that argument. and i agree that smoking and alcohol should both be illegal. Those who said they aren't because the government makes good money off of them are right. that's exactly why. That doesn't make it right though.

Alcohol is a huge problem. Perhaps comsumption is huge because it's legal? I have a friend addicted to cocaine who tried to kill herself. The only time she doesn't do cocaine is when she can't find it. Making access to cocaine legal is not going to help her at all. Intensive treatment is her only hope and she refuses any help.

As to watching your friend kill themselves that sounds pretty messed up. I don't think i could ever just let someone close to me kill themselves for no reason other than not seeing a point in life. To me that's an unhappy life your living and one full of hopelesness.

The government becoming the vendor leaves plenty of room for corruption not to mention the taxpayers expenses to fund sales of drugs that many don't even take part in. It sounds like a lot of waste which government is good at.

The war on drugs is continuing because of the principle. It's the same as the war on terrorism. There will never be sucess but legalizing it is going to do nothing but make things worse. availability and legality are obvious influences to push more people to use.

 

[obi]

I don't support the government being a dealer of drugs any more than I support the government being a dealer of cars or watches or potatoes. Legalizing it doesn't mean selling it. Once legalized, 100% of the sales should come from the private sector.

As for flat taxes, they are highly regressive. As I mentioned earlier, I'm also opposed to sales tax and "sin tax", but that's an issue for another thread (that I would be happy to discuss if you make the thread).

 

[Relictivity]

I don't support the government being a dealer of drugs any more than I support the government being a dealer of cars or watches or potatoes.

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.

There is always an acception, where someone needs so and so drug in order to cure his condition, but for all the people who don't, why are we inslaving them in this addiction? You might say we don't have responsiblity over them, but we do. It's our job to be responsible. We can't keep saying it's not our buisness, because people are effected by this.

In other words, by supporting freedom to use drugs, you are putting much heavier chains on those who chose to.

Whether it comes from the private sector does not make a difference. We don't have "clean hands" unless we deal with it properly. If you chose to legalize drugs, than your choosing to promote slavery to substance.

Sorry if I phrased that harshly :/.

 

[Zach]

I'm for the legalization of marijuana; otherwise, eh

 

[akuchi]

Ban smoking and alcohol? How addicted to sobriety are you?
Sobriety sucks. Hard. The real world sucks, and I reserve my right to pump as much shit in my body as possible to escape it on as regular a basis as possible.

 

[Relictivity]

Ban smoking and alcohol? How addicted to sobriety are you?
Sobriety sucks. Hard. The real world sucks, and I reserve my right to pump as much shit in my body as possible to escape it on as regular a basis as possible.

You also give up the right to make free choices, and to think clearly all of the time.

 

[ivar]

You also give up the right to make free choices, and to think clearly all of the time.

How does she give up the right to make free choices? I'm sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this world you speak of, where prohibition equates to free choice.

I know what you meant though (that drug-induced choices are distortions of clear and normal choices), but that does not make them any less free. In fact, when one makes the free choice to take a drug, they are well aware of the mind altering experience and are well aware that their decisions will subsequently be different.

 

[Thugchan x)]

Well, as long as I'm not around it at all since I'm sort of allergic to cigarette smoke, I don't really care. I do think it's disgusting though, to be honest. I don't want to have gross-looking teeth or anything like that, thanks.

Note I'm only really talking about cigarette smoking. :\

 

[Relictivity]

That is the thing though - they aren't able to think clearly, and therefore give up the right to think clearly by taking the drug. It's like this everyday in life - you give up choices to have other ones, it's just this one is so much more dangerous, because the right to think clearly effects are right to choose altogether. So once you make that choice, it is much more difficult to reverse that choice, in other words, an addiction.

The problem is, even if you are aware that you are under a drug, you are not fully aware of how it has changed your decision making process. And that is the problem, because if you get to choose whether or not to take drugs (you know what I mean, the really bad ones), you lose the ability to choose on other things.

Let's look at drunk driving for an example. Would the person have hit somebody else if he had not been drunk? No, he would have known better, and likely been disgusted by it. Yet he did, while he was drunk. Drugs change how a person evaluates risk, and how much they pay attention to certain events. As you can, see, drugs change your thinking, and prevent you from doing things you would normally consider "wrong". So how do you have a choice if you are under the influence of drugs?

 

[akuchi]

You also give up the right to make free choices, and to think clearly all of the time.

Um. So what? I don't want a clear mind all the time, in fact I want it very, very little of the time.
Drunk driving is a crap analogy because alcohol is a crap drug. Why not put people on mild stimulants before they drive in that case so they have increased reflexes? Or make sure people aren't tired, or on their phones, or..

In all honesty, I've not a clue what you're on about. I shouldn't take drugs because they might impair my ability to think cogently? That, my dear, is sort of the point.

 

[Relictivity]

Um. So what? I don't want a clear mind all the time, in fact I want it very, very little of the time.
Drunk driving is a crap analogy because alcohol is a crap drug. Why not put people on mild stimulants before they drive in that case so they have increased reflexes? Or make sure people aren't tired, or on their phones, or..

In all honesty, I've not a clue what you're on about. I shouldn't take drugs because they might impair my ability to think cogently? That, my dear, is sort of the point.

Please explain why you don't want to think coherently, I just don't get it. There's something called sleep where your brain relaxes, so if that's what you want... but I don't think that's it...

 

[DM]

You can't say because cars kill people they should be banned. They have far more positive effects than the unfortunate side effects. Drugs have no positive side effects besides the extremely rare benefits mentioned. I'm sure the man smoking pot for his tumors could get the same benefits by isolating the actual benficiary ingredient in the weed. In fact drugs are outlawed because they inhibit the freedom and judgement of an individual. Therefore danger to those around you becomes prevalent. Where is the government going to get there drugs from as well?

Saying drugs don't have any positive side effects shows that your experience with them is severely limited, and I question your ability to debate this topic thoughtfully. Are you also saying penicillin has no positive side effect? Morphine?

There is no way behavior can be excused because of drug influence. It impairs your judgement yes but that doesn't excuse the fact that maybe you killed someone. There is no way around this.

Who said I am condoning the behavior of the select few who cannot control themselves under the influence? Nowhere has any pro-legalization person said this.

I fail to see gangs becoming a thing of the past. The repealing of prohibition didn't eradicate mobsters and organized crime at all did it? Gangs will keep supplying or move to different crimes.

Really? Are you referring to the way organized crime turned to ILLEGAL DRUGS after they lifted Prohibition? Weird.

McDonalds is unhealthy if you are using in excess and not exercising. You can od on heroine first time. As for meth you can't just exercise away the side effects. When McDonalds starts giving meth sores maybe i'll consider that argument. and i agree that smoking and alcohol should both be illegal. Those who said they aren't because the government makes good money off of them are right. that's exactly why. That doesn't make it right though.

Illegalizing tobacco and booze??? Zig heil.

Alcohol is a huge problem. Perhaps comsumption is huge because it's legal? I have a friend addicted to cocaine who tried to kill herself. The only time she doesn't do cocaine is when she can't find it. Making access to cocaine legal is not going to help her at all. Intensive treatment is her only hope and she refuses any help.

That's her fucking choice, man. You can't force people to change, they have to do it of their own accord. And alcohol isn't consumed because it's legal, it's consumed because it's delicious and leads to awesome fucking nights.

As to watching your friend kill themselves that sounds pretty messed up. I don't think i could ever just let someone close to me kill themselves for no reason other than not seeing a point in life. To me that's an unhappy life your living and one full of hopelesness.

I wouldn't do nothing, but I have been in instances where I tried to help and was pushed away. I didn't belabor the point with that person, because that will only strain our relationship further and, almost undoubtedly, push them deeper into whatever chasm they've fallen into. People don't need to be told what to do with their lives, told they're living it wrong; they need to realize it for themselves, and only then will they make positive changes.

The government becoming the vendor leaves plenty of room for corruption not to mention the taxpayers expenses to fund sales of drugs that many don't even take part in. It sounds like a lot of waste which government is good at.

Like Obi said, I would never support a system where our government is the only vendor of a product. That's like saying UPS and Fedex shouldn't exist, essentially giving the government a monopoly and allowing them to set prices wherever they want. FUCK that.

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.

There is absolutely no proof in the world for this statement.

There is always an acception, where someone needs so and so drug in order to cure his condition, but for all the people who don't, why are we inslaving them in this addiction? You might say we don't have responsiblity over them, but we do. It's our job to be responsible. We can't keep saying it's not our buisness, because people are effected by this.

No, it's your job to keep your nose out of my kitchen/bedroom/mailbox/life.

In other words, by supporting freedom to use drugs, you are putting much heavier chains on those who chose to.

Whether it comes from the private sector does not make a difference. We don't have "clean hands" unless we deal with it properly. If you chose to legalize drugs, than your choosing to promote slavery to substance.

Sorry if I phrased that harshly :/.

How is holding current drug addicts criminally liable for their addictions "responsible" or "clean?"

The problem is, even if you are aware that you are under a drug, you are not fully aware of how it has changed your decision making process. And that is the problem, because if you get to choose whether or not to take drugs (you know what I mean, the really bad ones), you lose the ability to choose on other things.

Ah, so you agree with me... we need to spend more money educating people on the effects of drugs! Finally, a breakthrough.

Let's look at drunk driving for an example. Would the person have hit somebody else if he had not been drunk? No, he would have known better, and likely been disgusted by it. Yet he did, while he was drunk. Drugs change how a person evaluates risk, and how much they pay attention to certain events. As you can, see, drugs change your thinking, and prevent you from doing things you would normally consider "wrong". So how do you have a choice if you are under the influence of drugs?

There is absolutely no way you can say with certainty "if he didn't do X, Y wouldn't have happened." You can't use hypothetical situations as infallible arguments. Just wondering offhand, where are you from?

 

[akuchi]

Please explain why you don't want to think coherently, I just don't get it. There's something called sleep where your brain relaxes, so if that's what you want... but I don't think that's it...

That is none of your damn business.

 

[Son of Disaster]

katsu

I am obviously talking about outlawed substances not controlled ones. Morphine and penicillin are controlled not illegal. Abuse can still occur but i'm talking about something illegal now that you wish to legalize. Such as coke.

Anyway claiming that some pepole can't and others can handle drugs is silly. They obviously disrupt your judgement and cognizant processes regardless of who you are. At that point one is not thinking coherently and becomes a danger not only to themselves but those around them. It is no way debatable that one does not make actions they normally would. Therein lies the problem because Inhibitions are released.

As for stimulants you don't know when the crash after will come. Sure you'll get good reflexes and periods of intense awareness but what happens when those drivers stimulants wear off and their bodies are even more tired than they would have been without the stimulant. Once again their judgement and will be worn down and their reflexes will be even worse.

I really am sorry for you akuchi. You sound like you've had some messed up stuff happen to you and around you. I wish you could see the real world as something you can change and a place that could be good. Escaping gets you nowhere. constantly doing it is something that you should never do.

I'm lost as to where the prohibition thing went. I was saying crime will always find another venue. I don't see why illegal drugs are a better alternative to alcohol? I am stating that alcohol use is so widespread because it's legal....which is what will happen if you legalize illegal drugs. As for the alcohol scenario if the driver had not had impaired judgement as a result of drugs use of course he would have registered the red light and wouldn't have ran it. You can definitely say that because he used alcohol he killed a person.

yeah it is her choice but her decision making is now impaired because she's addicted. You see what i'm getting at? Supposed freedom of choice turns into chains.

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.

And your drug use becomes my business when people around me and myself become affected by it. Not all stoners are just people harmlessly toking or shooting up in their basement.

I still am trying to figure out where the drugs are gonna be supplied from? You are telling me that noone is going to buy from cartels anymore?

 

[Relictivity]

Saying drugs don't have any positive side effects shows that your experience with them is severely limited, and I question your ability to debate this topic thoughtfully. Are you also saying penicillin has no positive side effect? Morphine?

Of course, I mentioned those few exceptions that need to use the drug for medical reasons. I'm meaning that if you have absolutely no need to take them except for pleasure, they are harming you more than they are doing good.

Illegalizing tobacco and booze??? Zig heil.

Because people are addicted to them.

That's her fucking choice, man. You can't force people to change, they have to do it of their own accord. And alcohol isn't consumed because it's legal, it's consumed because it's delicious and leads to awesome fucking nights.

She has a right to give up her rights. Just don't blame the government for not protecting those rights like they should.

I wouldn't do nothing, but I have been in instances where I tried to help and was pushed away. I didn't belabor the point with that person, because that will only strain our relationship further and, almost undoubtedly, push them deeper into whatever chasm they've fallen into. People don't need to be told what to do with their lives, told they're living it wrong; they need to realize it for themselves, and only then will they make positive changes.

When a person is far enough gone, they have to calm down and get out of the influence they are under (whether it be anger, alcohol, or drugs) before we are 100% sure they will make a decision they want in the long run. You can't think straitght when you have your mind focused on vengence can you? You can't think straight when you have your mind enslaved by drugs.

There is absolutely no proof in the world for this statement.

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

No, it's your job to keep your nose out of my kitchen/bedroom/mailbox/life.

And it's your job to keep your nose out if a drunk person stabs someone and they die.

How is holding current drug addicts criminally liable for their addictions "responsible" or "clean?"

If we did not have alchohol, or drugs, we would not have this problem, at least not to that much of an extent.

Ah, so you agree with me... we need to spend more money educating people on the effects of drugs! Finally, a breakthrough.

I've always agreed with you on this. The battle will be fought in people's minds. However, many of us are having money problems right now...

There is absolutely no way you can say with certainty "if he didn't do X, Y wouldn't have happened." You can't use hypothetical situations as infallible arguments. Just wondering offhand, where are you from?

No, but what is certain is that Y did happen if X happened, so I'd rather take the chance that Y did not happen, by making X not happening. A chance is better than nothing.

Akuchi - you say I don't understand - try me, it's necessary!

 

[DM]

I am obviously talking about outlawed substances not controlled ones. Morphine and penicillin are controlled not illegal. Abuse can still occur but i'm talking about something illegal now that you wish to legalize. Such as coke.

Okay... you do know that morphine is basically just controlled heroin, right? How is one morally acceptable to you, whereas the other is demonized? Therein lies the hypocrisy inherent in this ridiculous "War on Drugs."

Anyway claiming that some pepole can't and others can handle drugs is silly.

Fuck you, you don't know shit. I smoked pot heavily for 4 years and I'm starting law school this August. My group of friends is 80% potheads (who also use acid and other harder drugs on occasion) and they're all successful young professionals. Don't say stupid things.

They obviously disrupt your judgement and cognizant processes regardless of who you are. At that point one is not thinking coherently and becomes a danger not only to themselves but those around them. It is no way debatable that one does not make actions they normally would. Therein lies the problem because Inhibitions are released.

You do realize that the majority of druggies just stay in one place after doing their drug, right? They don't all get behind a wheel and go out on the town. As for those that do, they must be dealt with according to the law, just like drunk drivers. No mercy for any jerkoff who puts other people's lives in danger.

As for stimulants you don't know when the crash after will come. Sure you'll get good reflexes and periods of intense awareness but what happens when those drivers stimulants wear off and their bodies are even more tired than they would have been without the stimulant. Once again their judgement and will be worn down and their reflexes will be even worse.

You're right! Ban Red Bull and Five Hour Energy and coffee and Coke/Pepsi!!!

I really am sorry for you akuchi. You sound like you've had some messed up stuff happen to you and around you. I wish you could see the real world as something you can change and a place that could be good. Escaping gets you nowhere. constantly doing it is something that you should never do.

I don't disagree with you about the escapism, but don't you think that should be her fucking choice to make? It's her life, it's her body.

I'm lost as to where the prohibition thing went. I was saying crime will always find another venue. I don't see why illegal drugs are a better alternative to alcohol?

I never said that. The point I'm trying to hammer home is that prohibition CREATES crime. If you don't realize that now, I don't think you ever will.

Let me explain it this way: drug dealers kill each other over turf. Selling drugs is their livelihood, and they have no other way to fight back against competition other than violence. What are they going to do, take the other drug dealer to small claims court? No, they shoot them. Now pretend the drug is legalized... who is getting shot anymore? Do you have ANY idea what percentage of inner city murders are linked to the drug trade? Good god, legalize these drugs and in one generation our prisons would be EMPTY.

I am stating that alcohol use is so widespread because it's legal....which is what will happen if you legalize illegal drugs.

Once again, this is entirely unprovable.

As for the alcohol scenario if the driver had not had impaired judgement as a result of drugs use of course he would have registered the red light and wouldn't have ran it. You can definitely say that because he used alcohol he killed a person.

NO, YOU CANNOT. How do you know he would've even MADE it to that red light? Maybe if he was sober instead of high he had decided to get on his cellphone and wrapped himself around a telephone pole. Taking back one action results in a completely different reality, one which you have absolutely no ability to predict.

yeah it is her choice but her decision making is now impaired because she's addicted. You see what i'm getting at? Supposed freedom of choice turns into chains.

Addiction is not the end. Millions of people have overcome addictions before, if she wants to she can too. Be supportive of her, but don't push her in the direction you think she should go.

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.

"Logic" is based on "fact." Until you present some facts, your assumption is flawed.

And your drug use becomes my business when people around me and myself become affected by it. Not all stoners are just people harmlessly toking or shooting up in their basement.

I never meant to give that impression. What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of users ARE harmless, and if you legalize their drug and decriminalize their actions, they will have little to no reason to go to such lengths as committing other crimes to obtain drugs.

I still am trying to figure out where the drugs are gonna be supplied from? You are telling me that noone is going to buy from cartels anymore?

Why buy from a cartel when I can grow my own in my basement/backyard? This effectively robs gangs and cartels of all their power.

Of course, I mentioned those few exceptions that need to use the drug for medical reasons. I'm meaning that if you have absolutely no need to take them except for pleasure, they are harming you more than they are doing good.

Don't even get me started on prescription drugs, that's a whole other thread in itself. I think this country is entirely overmedicated. But there is no difference between what you're given in a hospital/by a doctor and what you put in yourself illegally. They both alter your mind and body and cause reactions to make you feel better, and to say "this kind is better than that kind" is the silliest argument of all. And there is not one single case of death by marijuana, so you can't say that does more harm than good.

Because people are addicted to them.

People are addicted to television. Should we shut down the airwaves? People are addicted to porn, to the internet, to food. Should we take those away as well? "Addiction" is a word used in reference to drugs to instill fear and panic, but drugs are far from the only addicting substances in this world.

She has a right to give up her rights. Just don't blame the government for not protecting those rights like they should.

Why not? They haven't protected any of my other rights recently. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... remember those?

When a person is far enough gone, they have to calm down and get out of the influence they are under (whether it be anger, alcohol, or drugs) before we are 100% sure they will make a decision they want in the long run. You can't think straitght when you have your mind focused on vengence can you? You can't think straight when you have your mind enslaved by drugs.

Then how have so many millions of people already broken the chain of addiction? You make it sound like once you're addicted it's over, there's no turning back without intervention.

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

It doesn't matter how sound it seems, it can't be backed up.

And it's your job to keep your nose out if a drunk person stabs someone and they die.

How the fuck is this relevant to anything?

If we did not have alchohol, or drugs, we would not have this problem, at least not to that much of an extent.

Drugs will never disappear from this world. Ever. PERIOD. Once more people realize this fact they can start down the road to approaching the problem more empirically.

I've always agreed with you on this. The battle will be fought in people's minds. However, many of us are having money problems right now...

Eliminating the waste of $80 billion a year on this war opens up a whole ton of new resources.

 

[Headpunch]

I'm not naming names, but I would really like to see less of the absolutist predictions of the future. Any equation involving humans has no sure outcome; therefore, we can only offer reasonable guesses as to what could happen based on history, and arguments should be worded accordingly.

That being said, I am for legalization of those drugs that are currently illegal and pose little threat when used properly.

My case for legalization:

• $. Already mentioned is the fact that money could be saved by no longer requiring enforcement of drug laws, but adding a new sector to the drug industry would also actually generate income.

• Many debates are based on security vs. freedom. In my honest opinion, the security benefits of the drug bans are small indeed. In fact, anecdotal evidence shows that illegal drug deals are often linked with violent crime and police deaths. Additionally, legalized alcohol carries the same complaints that illegal drugs get as far as domestic violence is concerned. In the end, I am more afraid of the alcoholic who thinks he can handle a midnight drive than the dude tripping in the privacy of his home.

• As a moderate with conservative leanings, I am for less government whenever possible. Government was intended to provide for basics such as conduction of wars, overseeing of defenses, management of major economic affairs, and justice. I view the illegalization of certain relatively harmless substances as a case of government giving in and inflicting the values of the uninformed majority. When the arguments against legalization contain statements such as "it's just wrong," and "it's self-destructive" while providing little to no compelling evidence demonstrating specific security risks to the population at large, I can't help but think those people fail to realize how much they're working against the ends of liberty. If the drugs in question (used responsibly, of course) affects no one but the user, then they should be free to exercise that choice whether or not you agree with it.

• I personally believe that government regs of the newly expanded drug industry created by legalization will plausibly have a greater positive effect on any of the aforementioned potential dangers than many of its opponents are willing to admit. (See: Alcohol laws). ex: age requirements, availability of health information, manufacturing standards, etc.

• It's worth at least experimenting with. It's a sign of intelligence to keep an open mind, to question what's accepted as "the way things are done" and try to find a better one.

 

[Relictivity]

Okay... you do know that morphine is basically just controlled heroin, right? How is one morally acceptable to you, whereas the other is demonized? Therein lies the hypocrisy inherent in this ridiculous "War on Drugs."

It is only released when the person absolutely needs it. It's the exception. Things that aren't the exception should not be legal.

Fuck you, you don't know shit. I smoked pot heavily for 4 years and I'm starting law school this August. My group of friends is 80% potheads (who also use acid and other harder drugs on occasion) and they're all successful young professionals. Don't say stupid things.

Did you study for your tests when you were not high? And why did you quit? Did it help you focus? You need to explain more before refuting his answer.

You do realize that the majority of druggies just stay in one place after doing their drug, right? They don't all get behind a wheel and go out on the town. As for those that do, they must be dealt with according to the law, just like drunk drivers. No mercy for any jerkoff who puts other people's lives in danger.

Exactly, but we are paying with human lives. Would you rather have a person dead, and another in jail, or 2 people alive? And drinking is so widespread (and drinking can be considered drug use) that it's going to be common anyways. So just because "only a few do bad things" doesn't matter. There is very little more valuable than a human life.

You're right! Ban Red Bull and Five Hour Energy and coffee and Coke/Pepsi!!!

I'm assuming that's sarcasm. I ask why not? Why not prevent people from overdosing? Why not prevent people from being addicted? In the least, take the caffeine out, it's not that hard, and people will still like the drink.

I don't disagree with you about the escapism, but don't you think that should be her fucking choice to make? It's her life, it's her body.

Can't we find a better way to deal with it then drugs? Can't we find a way that effects others less? Can't we finds something less - risky.

I never said that. The point I'm trying to hammer home is that prohibition CREATES crime. If you don't realize that now, I don't think you ever will.

Prohibibtion may create crime, but legalization leads to addiction and the loss of self-control.

Let me explain it this way: drug dealers kill each other over turf. Selling drugs is their livelihood, and they have no other way to fight back against competition other than violence. What are they going to do, take the other drug dealer to small claims court? No, they shoot them. Now pretend the drug is legalized... who is getting shot anymore? Do you have ANY idea what percentage of inner city murders are linked to the drug trade? Good god, legalize these drugs and in one generation our prisons would be EMPTY.

Yes, and just as many murders come from drunk driving, or those under the influences of drugs, commiting bad things, and then trying to cover up.

Once again, this is entirely unprovable.

Well then tell me how legalizing drugs and doing nothing else will lead to less drug users. It won't.

NO, YOU CANNOT. How do you know he would've even MADE it to that red light? Maybe if he was sober instead of high he had decided to get on his cellphone and wrapped himself around a telephone pole. Taking back one action results in a completely different reality, one which you have absolutely no ability to predict.

You have no way to predict what will happen, but surely, that is better than a guaranteed death.

Addiction is not the end. Millions of people have overcome addictions before, if she wants to she can too. Be supportive of her, but don't push her in the direction you think she should go.

Yes, addiction is not the end. We're trying to make it so less people have to suffer through it. I'm sorry if I sound harsh in my criticism of addiction, it's not aimed at addicts, it's aimed at getting rid of the addictive substance.

"Logic" is based on "fact." Until you present some facts, your assumption is flawed.

Logic is also based on common-sense. And since were not dealing with quantum mechanics (which tends to go against common sense), common-sense is almost always correct in life situations.

I never meant to give that impression. What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of users ARE harmless, and if you legalize their drug and decriminalize their actions, they will have little to no reason to go to such lengths as committing other crimes to obtain drugs.

Your saying that they go get the drugs because they are illegal? Do they want to break the law or something? That does not sound right.

Why buy from a cartel when I can grow my own in my basement/backyard? This effectively robs gangs and cartels of all their power.

Of course it does. And then you still lose the power to judge as you would if you had not taken the drug. Which is just as bad a side effect.

Don't even get me started on prescription drugs, that's a whole other thread in itself. I think this country is entirely overmedicated. But there is no difference between what you're given in a hospital/by a doctor and what you put in yourself illegally. They both alter your mind and body and cause reactions to make you feel better, and to say "this kind is better than that kind" is the silliest argument of all. And there is not one single case of death by marijuana, so you can't say that does more harm than good.

The idea is to minimize it. In cases where a person might die, it would be justifiable to let that person have addicting drug A, else they would die, right?

Now, there's another person, who takes drugs when he could be out exercising, being with family, even playing video games, and can live without it? Why does he take it? He is an unnecessary loss - he cannot judge in the same way as before.

In other words, for these cases, the results outdo the means. But the purpose trumps them all.

People are addicted to television. Should we shut down the airwaves? People are addicted to porn, to the internet, to food. Should we take those away as well? "Addiction" is a word used in reference to drugs to instill fear and panic, but drugs are far from the only addicting substances in this world.

I dunno. Whatever is safer for people. Whatever is best. Whatever will eliminate bad judgement calls made by them in effect to others. IMO though, it is really hard to kill someone by watching TV, unless you are doing it in the car (front driver seats usually don't have this) or get encourage by some dangerous show (why do we encourage breaking the law?).

Why not? They haven't protected any of my other rights recently. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... remember those?

Have they done it to the fullest extent of their power considering how many other people they have to provide service to?

Then how have so many millions of people already broken the chain of addiction? You make it sound like once you're addicted it's over, there's no turning back without intervention.

No, YOU sound like it's just too simple to get off an addiction. It's not unfortunately. And not all people who try will succeed either. Why risk it?

How the fuck is this relevant to anything?

It matters because it is OUR job to stop the deaths that occur from addictive substances. Because not enough other people will.

Drugs will never disappear from this world. Ever. PERIOD. Once more people realize this fact they can start down the road to approaching the problem more empirically.

Oh they will... eventually. Or at least the desire to use them will.

Renember how you mentioned using ads and stuff against them. Maybe that will help. The problem, is it's not guaranteed.

Eliminating the waste of $80 billion a year on this war opens up a whole ton of new resources.

Which war? You mean Iraq? Cool, we can start the process WITHOUT legalizing.

This issue is one with two sides, neither perfect. No matter which you choose, you will be restricting freedom. I would rather leave true freedome of choice available, then the disguised lie of a choice of taking drugs (no offense though, please).

@Headpunch

Money could be saved at the cost of freedom? That is no choice.

Freedom is preserved by having a drug ban, people under drug influence aren't truly free, it's an unfortunate thing. They may be free to the law, but they are not free of mind, something that is thousands of times more important. Drugs would be doing the same things as dictators - only letting certain things go to your head - only letting you think a certain way. I will never submit to that.

 

[umbarsc]

Relictivity, your argument can be summed up to: addiction is bad. Therefore, drugs should be illegal.

The naturalistic fallacy is very clear here. The only way to conclude "addictive drugs should be illegal" from "drug addiction is bad for the user" is if you hold the value "laws should protect people from themselves", which is not true. In a free country, people should have the right to do whatever they want to themselves without some person who doesn't even know them determining that they know what's bad for them better than they do.

And even if they're legal, we'll still be able to help addicts who reach out for help. We're not going to say "There's no need to fight your addiction, it's legal now!" In fact, legalization will make more people reach out because they no longer have to fear jailtime if they come clean.

The only plausible argument is "addicts have impaired judgement and are therefore a threat to people around them", which is a blanket statement that can't possibly be proven.

 

[Son of Disaster]

As much as you want to fornicate with me DM i'll have to respectfully decline. I'm sad to hear the standards for law school have gone down as well...

You keep saying that you can't predict the future but then you make the statement that drugs are never going to go away ever. Where did you get the facts for this as you say an argument must have? Where are the studies? Or did you just use common sense and logic to discover that drugs will never be gone? If the last then i agree drugs will never be gone but legalizing them will continue their life.

I think a much more efficient way to stop prohibition created drug crime is a tougher border policy. Don't you think that would work? Many people earlier said they were too lazy to grow their own drugs. Would you really grow your own? And cartels, in my opinon, will continue to sell quite effectively in the USA. It's kinda ridiculous to think that the main source of drugs will just be destroyed because drugs are legalized.

As to the alcohol comment it was exactly because he was drinking alcohol that he killed someone. Sure many perfect factors contributed to it but at the moment he could have hit the brakes he was too drunk to. That is the problem. Had he been sober and put in that same circumstance he could have stopped his car or swerved or something.

And the government does protect your rights. yeah maybe it is riddled with incompetence and excessive spending but it pretty much protects me. When's the last time we had a tyrant in office? Can you remember the last time the government took someone you knew and held them without a trial? Don't be so ridiculous as to say the government doesn't protect your basic liberties.

And sure it's her body. I'm not controllng that. What i want to control is the amount of crud that she can access to put into her body. Addiction is pretty serious. And i don't agree with pornography in any way. It does nothing but destroy. But that's another matter. Illegal drugs are banned because they are so addicting. A person taking enough drugs will eventually become hooked. Fact. The harm from drugs is too much too excuse.

I didn't know questioning was a sign of intelligence. It has it's place but so does why change what works. I could question the fact that the sky is blue but does it really make me intelligent?