Legalize it. ALL of it.

[Aero Oasis]

One problem I think no one has mentioned yet is that by legalizing these drugs, especially Marijuana, we would be encouraging and promoting people who break the rules and break the laws.

So a bunch people get together and decide to smoke pot. Sure, its against the laws, but everyone needs a joint every now and then, right? Well, we all know its illegal, even when we decided to smoke it, but we do it anyways. End result? You got away with it.

This result is certainly not too good. A person/people got away with breaking the law. Every other person has to abide by the rules, and when you break them, is it really fair? No. Whats to stop the person from doing it again? Nothing, there was no punishment. But that is not the major impact.

While people getting away with breaking the law is one thing, legalizing it AFTER enough people decide to break it is a completely different, worse thing.

So we have these people who broke the law by smoking pot. More and more people do it everyday, and soon its like a fad. We have an underground market that so many people are involved in, and the government can sense it.

So the government decides to legalize it.

All of these people who have been smoking pot are now able to do it legally. No repercussions, nothing.

At this point, we have a number of negative impacts.

The drugee(s) realize that the law was changed because enough people decided not to follow it. So what next law do they decide they don't enjoy? Ok, stealing. I don't like not being able to steal, so me and thousands of other people are just going to ignore the law and steal anyway. Its ok though, because the government will just legalize it, right? Like the way they legalized pot, right?

Or what about killing. I dont want to follow that law, so lets just kill anyone and everyone. Yay, genocide! Should the government just legalize that? Well, why not?

See, legalizing the drugs would just lead to the delegitamization of government and law enforcement as a whole, that can lead to disobiediance and a landslide of immoral acts.

But this action is not simply an action against society, it is an action against those who decide that they like to follow the rules, too.

If I'm following the laws, being a productive member of society, while everyone around me is not, would I really continue to be bound to the laws while no one else has to be? Why should I be held back by rules that no one else has to follow?

This is another way how legalizing and promoting the use and legalization of illigal drugs is unbenefitial to society. It simply promotes people breaking the laws that bind a society, and delegitimizes the government, making it easier for more people to break the laws, to the point where laws simply dont exist in a society (or at least no one follows them).

John Locke explains the importance of laws in society:

And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

Legitament enforcement of laws in any and every society is necesarry to maintain social order and minamize violations of rights.

This functions as a turn to the rest of the arguements that say things like "Drugs will always exist", "We just can't stop it", "It dosent really matter either way".

This, when combined with all the above arguements, gives us a significant reason why we can NOT afford to legalize illigal substances.

 

[Surgo]

Aero_Oasis, your point (which seems to boil down to "all laws must remain forever because giving amnesty to former lawbreakers is bad") is the worst idea imaginable. Let's say that we had a law against interracial sex. Clearly, this concept is retarded. But we have some interracial sex. It's illegal! The people are lawbreakers! And now, according to you, we shouldn't change this retarded law. After all, we would be "encouraging and promoting people who break the rules and break the laws." And we couldn't have that, could we?

Now all those people who had been having interracial sex are now able to do it legally. No repercussions, nothing. So now, blah blah blah, slippery slope, should murder be legal?

Does this sound ridiculous to you? It should. It's also exactly what you were arguing (using your words, even). The idea that stupid laws should never be repealed is, well, stupid, and if you're promoting that then you are the one who is contributing to the downfall of all social order or whatever completely ridiculous claim you were making. Just imagine where we'd be in terms of organized crime of prohibition was still around... (Oh, wait, we already know, because we have similar laws against other substances.)

 

[Headpunch]

Relictivity, stop pretending that this is "freedom vs. slavery of the mind a.k.a. addiction." What you set forth as freedom is nothing more than the extreme end of security in "security vs. freedom." Also, I would like to see you respond to more of my case than just the first bullet.

More recently, your argument has been based on perceived negative effects on the individual's mind. What you don't seem to realize is that neither you, nor I, nor the government should prevent people from hurting themselves by taking away their choices, one by one. People with addictive personalities will find an addiction, regardless.

You have yet to provide compelling evidence that justifies the exorbitant amount we spend on suspending liberty in the name of security. (See my second point.)

Aero Oasis, iirc Locke was arguing about when the law of men (read: government or any civil society) should prevail over natural law (I like how you started mid-sentence btw). He made a good point, too, saying that enforcement of the law of man is so that we "may be restrained from invading others rights." Now, how does you getting high in your basement invade my rights? How about reversing that? How does me not letting you get high in your basement invade your rights? Additionally, I believe you are missing something when you think repealing of bans encourages lawbreakers in the way you describe. (See: repeal of the 18th Amendment)

Son of Disaster, where did I say "Question everything you see?" I said it's good to question the way things are done to see if something else would work better. Read first, post later.

 

[Invective]

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.

the proof of this is where?

I dunno. Whatever is safer for people. Whatever is best. Whatever will eliminate bad judgement calls made by them in effect to others.

tl;dr version, you're living your life the wrong way and you dont know it but i do and it is up to me to fix you.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR SOMEONE?
you know what will eliminate bad judgement calls? eliminating relationships. do you know how many people have gone on killing sprees cuz of a breakup?
also, we shouldnt ever let anybody out of jail because they might just commit another crime again and endanger other people.
also, mentally unstable people dont know whats best for them, we shouldnt let them out of asylums, just keep them there so they dont endanger anyone else.
this way, we are keeping people safe because we know whats best for them.

most drugs dont endanger anyone else besides the user, and if the user is smart enough to have a watcher, then they are in almost no danger at all.
why is everyone assuming that people are going to be smoking/snorting/shooting up and then going to drive their car around?

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

he meant the war on drugs, cool your jets.

edit: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1
take a look at the chart, its quite interesting.

 

[DM]

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

Addicts don't need their fix?

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.

I smoked for fun, not necessity. It didn't get in the way of my studies because I have enough self-control and common sense not to let it.

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.

People will drive drunk, people will drive high. That's just the truth. I am all for more stringent penalties for those caught breaking these laws, because once someone's drug use affects others in a negative manner they should face consequences.

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.

This goes back to something I said very early in this thread... should you stop me from eating raw steak every day until I have a heart attack? Should you stop me from eating the leaves off a tree until I die of malnourishment? What I put in my own body is my business, not yours.

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.

People are dying worldwide from drugs everyday by the thousands. This "War" isn't working, there needs to be a new strategy.

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

PROVE IT

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.

This sounds like something you pulled out of your ass, honestly.

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

Good god, how many times do I have to repeat myself? USE THE MONEY YOU SAVE TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE. Use the money you save on prisons to help the hopeless addicts rehabilitate. That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

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

I have driven drunk more times than I'd like to count, and I'm still alive. Not every drunk driver dies/kills someone.

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.

And this is where we differ, because you don't believe in the people's choice to make their own decisions on drugs.

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.

Is it? I find this to be yet another statement with no basis in truth. If this were true we'd have no drug addicts.

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.

No, that's what Son of Disaster is implying. I'm saying that because they are ARRESTED for simply using the drug they cannot freely seek the help they need to rid themselves of their addiction.

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.

Says you. This is a matter of opinion; I've never made any decisions high that I've regretted later.

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.

Good for that guy! He made the decision to live his life as a loner, a loser, and that's his fucking choice. I don't care what he does, as long as it doesn't affect me negatively.

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?).

What about that guy in Taiwan who died from playing video games for 70+ hours straight? You're on a ridiculously slippery slope and you don't even realize it, you actually seem to be okay with it.

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

Nope.

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?

I agree completely. That's why I don't do drugs.

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

We'll never see eye to eye here. It is not my job to stop people from killing themselves, just like it's not your job to run AIG or play professional basketball. I worry about me and mine.

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.

Honestly, I do hope for this. This world would be a lot more peaceful and easier to live in without them. But no one is that naive.

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

Hell no, I mean the War on Drugs. (Iraq isn't even a real war.)

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).

None taken at all, but I don't get what you mean. How is doing a drug not a choice of freedom? By doing that drug I accept all the consequences of doing so, understanding that my body and mind will be affected.

 

[Relictivity]

you're living your life the wrong way and you dont know it but i do and it is up to me to fix you.

ok, explain.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR SOMEONE?

Yes, but who am I to let people die to drunk drivers. Who am I to make people suffer when I don't do something about drugs? Who am I?

you know what will eliminate bad judgement calls? eliminating relationships. do you know how many people have gone on killing sprees cuz of a breakup?
also, we shouldnt ever let anybody out of jail because they might just commit another crime again and endanger other people.
also, mentally unstable people dont know whats best for them, we shouldnt let them out of asylums, just keep them there so they dont endanger anyone else.
this way, we are keeping people safe because we know whats best for them.

First one: They are under the effects of rage, of course this prevents their thinking. But can we do anything about it, or IS IT NECESSARY???

Second one: Rage doesn't last forever, obviously. The problem is with addictions, they have a tendency to grow worse. Rage can grow worse, but that's harder, because a person has a harder time hating when they have calmed down. When a person loses their high after taking drugs, all they want to do is take more. So a person in jail can be removed if he truly wishes he did not do what he did, as he obligates to himself never to do it again.

Third one: Mentally Insane People are under mental illness for no fault of their own, therefore, this does not work as a comparison.

Drugs on the other hand, are voluntary, and cause an addiction that could have been avoided. Mairrage is essential. Rage ends more commonly. Mental Illness is non voluntary. That's the difference.

most drugs dont endanger anyone else besides the user, and if the user is smart enough to have a watcher, then they are in almost no danger at all.
why is everyone assuming that people are going to be smoking/snorting/shooting up and then going to drive their car around?

If someone's mind is disturbed, you can't really say what they will be doing one moment, and then the next. They are utterly unpredictable.

he meant the war on drugs, cool your jets.

Did I sound angry? If so, sorry ^_^

edit: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#item1
take a look at the chart, its quite interesting.

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

@Headpunch

I'm not pretending. That's what it is.

Sure, security is some of it, but look at it from their perspective. If they were not under the influence, would they have wanted to kill sombody? So it's for their own sake too. Drugs are mental effectors.

Now, if there wasn't any strong addictions, people would have a much harder time getting addicted, right?

That is my point, I'm sorry if I can't argue this in another form, it's just this is the only thing that makes since to me. :/

@Umbarsc

Addictions are a needless risk for those people. The law should only protect people from things if they are needless. Kind of how the law attempts to protect us from crime, and whatnot. Not perfect, but it exists.

I'm not sure that was a good reference, but I'll see if I can come up with a better one.

Do look at vanguards website, and you will see how the blanket statement is provable.

I think the point Aero was trying to get across was that we can't assume that how minutely bad drugs are compared to murder, is that they are related, and if it goes to far, it eventually will go there. Of course, I think we would stop it before then, but it's food for thought.

 

[DM]

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...

Nice try, but you're still worthless.

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.

Hmmm, let me think... I vaguely remember that back in the 1920s America banned alcohol... and it THRIVED and sold MORE despite the ban. But you're right, I'm fabricating all my arguments.

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.

I agree that our borders are shit, but I think you're missing the point. No, I would not grow my own, but I have plenty of friends who would (some already do). Cartels would continue to sell in the US, but the prices of their product would be reduced dramatically and they would no longer be killing their competition in inner-city shootouts and drive-bys. When was the last time you saw a Wal-Mart employee shoot up a Target? It's the same thing in principle.

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.

I'm done arguing this point with you, as you obviously have no idea what I'm saying when I say IF YOU NEGATE X, Y ISN'T A GUARANTEED PART OF THE NEW REALITY. Jesus christ man. This isn't as simple as mathematics, this is fucking real life.

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.

We live under a tyrant right now, and have been since the 1930s. Minus Carter, because he couldn't accomplish jackshit.

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.

NO, that is NOT fact. Not every user becomes addicted, I have personally known plenty of users of multiple drugs who never got hooked. A poster who used to frequent Smogon named LazarusLong used heroin for over a year and quit it in 2 days, no problem. Not everyone is a train wreck waiting to happen. According to your standard, I was addicted to pot. That's fucking ridiculous.

One problem I think no one has mentioned yet is that by legalizing these drugs, especially Marijuana, we would be encouraging and promoting people who break the rules and break the laws.

Actually, that's been brought up a million times and easily refuted just as many, so please try again with something new.

EDIT: Wow, I'm really drunk right now. Sorry if anything in these last two posts doesn't make any sense, but I'M CRAZY ON DRUGS AND I CAN'T CONTROL MY ACTIONS.

 

[Relictivity]

I think I've been writing all these defensive threads, so now for a reverse.

To take away somebody's rights by giving someone rights is an oximoron. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THINK CLEARLY. So why are we taking advantage of their inability to think clearly by legalizing drugs, thus to eliminate the cost for government.

Why do we allow companies to put addicting substances in their drinks? Their making people drink more. Shouldn't there be a label saying "This substance will likely be addictive, so drink moderately."?

Solving this addiction problem is quite easy, so justify me the ways addiction does not cause problems in terms of mental awareness over time. Justify why we want people to think unclearly.

Justify me why we take away people's right to uneffected thought.

 

[Surgo]

I didn't really think that "thinking clearly" was an inalienable right, but I'll bite.

I give your entire post a: "Huh?" People still have the right to think clearly if drugs are legalized. It's their choice to take them, they aren't being forced to take them. No one's right to think clearly is being trampled on by legalized drugs, because nobody has to take legalized drugs if they don't want to.

Your argument would certainly work if everyone was forced to take drugs at gunpoint, but nobody is saying they want that.

 

[billymills]

I'm interested as to how this relates on a global scale (most of what I've read has been centered on the US). If a country legalizes everything would people who want to use drugs go to that country, or would it become so easy to smuggle/obtain drugs that it all other countries are worse off (assuming they do not legalize everything)?

Would one country legalizing everything force either far stricter borders, or a chain reaction?

I'm assuming these are difficult questions, but since this whole thread is mainly speculation I didn't think it'd be out of place.

 

[Invective]

Yes, but who am I to let people die to drunk drivers. Who am I to make people suffer when I don't do something about drugs? Who am I?

youre generalizing with these statements. youre saying that everyone who does drugs is making other people suffer. this is false. tell me, who is suffering if i am in my own home smoking/shooting up? no one. if people are the safety of their own homes, then who is suffering? not everyone out there is a crack junkie who is living day to day stealing to feed their addiction.

First one: They are under the effects of rage, of course this prevents their thinking. But can we do anything about it, or IS IT NECESSARY?
well,

Second one: Rage doesn't last forever, obviously. The problem is with addictions, they have a tendency to grow worse. Rage can grow worse, but that's harder, because a person has a harder time hating when they have calmed down. When a person loses their high after taking drugs, all they want to do is take more.

could you please back up this claim? cuz i know for a fact that all of my friends who smoke and shit dont "all they want to do is take more".
again, you are generalizing what you have seen on television (i assume) to being real life.

Third one: Mentally Insane People are under mental illness for no fault of their own, therefore, this does not work as a comparison.

I suppose you don't realize how much of a slave an addiction makes you. Were supposed to have life, liberty, and hapiness, right? And addiction restricts you from even considering opposite choice.

Yeah. You're going to sit there when a person who cannot control their own actions slowly kills him/herself. Because that is what an addiction is. They have no choice once they start. Or so little choice it is inconsequential. They are in no condition to be making choices about killing themselves when they can't think properly.

so, from these statements, i glean that people who are addicted have no choice in their addiction, its not their fault that theyre addicted.


Drugs on the other hand, are voluntary, and cause an addiction that could have been avoided. Mairrage is essential. Rage ends more commonly. Mental Illness is non voluntary. That's the difference.

Did I sound angry? If so, sorry ^_^

sorry, thats prolly my fault. i just glanced at it and saw caps and assumed yelling, my bad.

.
Do look at vanguards website, and you will see how the blanket statement is provable.

the point of that link was to show the fact that all illicit drug use, direct and indirect, leads only to 28723 deaths (includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs.)

being out of shape and eating badly led to 365000 deaths.
thats 12 times more people who die because of being out of shape.

interpret that as you will.

 

[Relictivity]

youre generalizing with these statements. youre saying that everyone who does drugs is making other people suffer. this is false. tell me, who is suffering if i am in my own home smoking/shooting up? no one. if people are the safety of their own homes, then who is suffering? not everyone out there is a crack junkie who is living day to day stealing to feed their addiction.

No, not everyone. But I don't have control over where people do things - or should we control that instead?

could you please back up this claim? cuz i know for a fact that all of my friends who smoke and shit dont "all they want to do is take more".
again, you are generalizing what you have seen on television (i assume) to being real life.

That's the definition of an addiction. Excuse me if I said want, I meant "all they can do". That is the real problem - the drugs leave them leaning twoard more drugs rather than less. It's not impossible not to resist it, but it's probably more likely than not (this is an assumption, but I think it's ok, u tell me), if a person is addicted, they will get more.

so, from these statements, i glean that people who are addicted have no choice in their addiction, its not their fault that theyre addicted.

Not quite. Usually when someone takes drugs, they are under some other emotional stress of some kind. Yet they choose to take the drugs instead of do something else. So partial choice.

Drugs on the other hand, are voluntary, and cause an addiction that could have been avoided. Mairrage is essential. Rage ends more commonly. Mental Illness is non voluntary. That's the difference.

the point of that link was to show the fact that all illicit drug use, direct and indirect, leads only to 28723 deaths (includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs.)

The tobacco and alcohol use are also considered "drug related" so, it ends up being more people die from drugs. :/.

 

[ivar]

To take away somebody's rights by giving someone rights is an oximoron. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THINK CLEARLY.

You're totally missing the point of all the criticism directed towards this claim, considering you are consistently reiterating it, while it has been de facto proven to make absolutely no sense. Yes, arguably (if you believe that people have rights, anyways) freedom of clarity is a right, but so is freedom of choice. People choose to do drugs--well aware of the subsequent loss of clarity (according to conventional wisdom of the constitution of clarity) and sometimes BECAUSE THEY WANT THE LOSS OF CLARITY. To say "you cannot do drugs because your mind will lose your freedom to think clearly" is an ass backwards statement, since you would be taking away said person's FREEDOM TO MAKE DECISIONS. Saying "well, I know what's good for you and you're wrong" is akin to the worst kind of social republicanism. Ultimately, your claim is INCONSISTENT; to say that the criminalization of drugs (THE LOSS OF A FREEDOM THAT DOES NOT DIRECTLY EFFECT OTHERS) is done for the purpose of providing freedom does not make any sense. In fact, it's not much of a freedom if it's an enforced freedom. Remember, everyone has the right to WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS (in this case, waiving the right to think clearly).

And honestly, thinking clearly is so subjective; who is to say sobreity achieves any sort of clarity. If we really thought clearly naturally, then we should experience all known dimensions of existence, but we are limited to 4. We can never think clearly, thus we do not know what clarity of thought even is! Perhaps drugs allow us to experience existence in true clarity (for our stimuli is excitable when intoxicated and does not filter out sensory perception to the same capacity as our sober brain does, perhaps allowing us to see what is really there), and it is sobreity that ultimately confuses us. Really, all that can be said about sobriety is that it allows us to think according to the world we have made for ourselves.

Also, I apologize if the caps may be somewhat off putting; they are not there to belittle you, but instead emphasize certain concepts that you have been clearly overlooking while presenting your arguments.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

there are so many strawmen in this thread it's a goddamn fire hazard.

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

no, he means the war on drugs. are you even serious with this? you need to gain some very basic awareness of your subject before you argue about it.

 

[Manafii101]

What people don't realize is that many ARE forced to take drugs. They live in horrible conditions then a 'nice' person comes and gives them something to take the pain away. Then they're addicted, and forced into prostitution just to pay for the addiction. Their lives are ruined through no fault of their own.

 

[Myriad]

Well, first I'd ike to say that I've been with people that have driven high before, and whether this was one individual case or not but they were probably safer on the roads then when they were sober. Also, less often have people who smoked weed been with me and just decided to go drive then people who got drunk. Most of the high people I've been with stay in one place to be honest, but hey, it's obviously a massive road hazard yeah?

I support the legalization of all drugs for reasons that, the majority of which, have already been mentioned, but I'll do a nice neat bullet list.

• It will generate huge amounts of money - the government can tax the production of the drugs that are sold much like they tax alcohol and tobacco. This will bring in money that can be used on health care, rehabilitation, education and into the police force even to stop people abusing drugs.
• The drugs are rarely the problem, most drugs originally had medical purposes (weed, heroin, benzo etc.) and did not cause a problem until they were abused. Would you tell someone suffering intense pain to not take morphine or some other incredibly strong painkiller to help ease the pain. These are often as addictive as heroin. But would you tell them they couldn't take it because it's addictive?
  
  (Also, before you say it's a different scenario because it's for medical purposes, they are JUST as likely to get addicted from medical purpose use as if they use it recreationally in the same dosage.)
• The drug cuts can be moderated - ever heard of people cutting their drugs with rat poison and all that stuff? The biggest cause of overdose is from either people getting a much stronger batch then usual (I know 7 people died in my city when a new batch of speed that was around 70% pure came when most people were used to stuff that was 10%-15% pure and went way over their limits). If drugs are legalized, the equipment used to make produce drugs would be clean, rat poison and whatever else wouldn't be mixed in, and you can trust most of what you buy. There would (hopefully) be health checks at the factories much like in food factories so people would know what they're buying. They wouldn't have to gamble with some shady guy in a back alley who would probably kill you for $200 and whatever cutting tools he had in his basement.
• People in trouble wouldn't be afraid to get help - Everyone anti-drugs in this thread has stressed how horrid addiction is. It is, I had a friend who suffered from really bad addictions. He couldn't last more then half a day without a fix. But he didn't have anywhere to go for help because he was terrified of being arrested. He got through it because he had a very tight knit circle of friends who had been around drugs and knew how to help him. But not everyone has that. More people would be ready to come out and tell government agencies they need help if they weren't afraid of being arrested.
• People would be less likely to put others in danger - OK, I have two parts to this. Firstly, as it is legalized, even if there was a 400% tax on drugs or something ridiculous like that, it would probably be cheaper then buying it from people who are risking their freedom to sell drugs and can overcharge as much as they want (as many people know only one or two dealers). As it is cheaper, the people who are stealing for money (because, let us be honest here it happens. Whether they are legal or not, it happens.) will be stealing less to get the same amount. This would reduce stealing/robberies etc. not increase it. Also, dealers would not have turf wars over clients, there would be less shootings over drugs.
  
  Secondly, penalties would be enforced for people who put others at risk by using the drug. Driving high, disturbing the peace and the like, would be given high penalties. Since people are getting in trouble for what they re doing while drugs are illegal anyway, they take more risks with what they do. If you tell people they can shoot up, smoke crack and get high as much as they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, they probably won't hurt people as much. I am not naive enough to say they would not hurt people at all, but they would likely not take the risk of getting arrested as much.
  
  No matter what anyone who has never taken drugs say, you still retain some judgement while under the effects of drugs. It impairs it, sure, but you wouldn't just go stab yourself for the sake of it. You have judgement to say that is a bad idea. You don't take one drag and suddenly you are fucking crazy and will do anything.
• People are going to do drugs whether they're legal or not - But not everyone will. All of the people in this thread who are saying that drug use will increase by a huge amount because everyone will want to do drugs cause they're legal now, I have a question. You would never do drugs while they're illegal right? If heroin became legal tomorrow, would YOU do it?
  
  If the answer is no, that is what most people who wouldn't do drugs would say. People don't do things because they're legal. They do things because they WANT to, whether it's legal or not.
• They're really not that bad - mostly it's just harmless fun. Honest. [edit] not talking about hard drugs here. I wouldn't do hard drugs, but I think people should be allowed to if they want as long as they don't hurt people.

Alright, I'm going to pick and choose some things to reply to because there's too much to reply to it all obviously.

And for the record I think that alcohol is far more harmful than marijuana. There are certainly a lot more deaths caused by drunk driving than by stoned driving, methinks.

Agreed.

Secondly, at least the law gives people (especially impressionable youths) something to argue with, against peer pressure. Otherwise, it can be very difficult to say no; even if one understands the risk involved and would prefer not to try drugs. Such coercion takes decision making out of an individual's hands.

This is one of the anti all-legalized arguments I agree with. It makes it easier to say no if you have a reason other then "I'm scared" or "I don't want to" because honestly, a lot of people don't want to say that to their friends.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what DM meant by "slippery slope". If so, he wouldn't mind the slipperiness of the slope since he ultimately wants all drugs to be legalized (including the harder drugs); this is clearly not the case though, as DM implied that the "slippery slope" was counter-intuitive. What he likely meant was that when deciding which drugs should be legal and which should not be legal, it is difficult to judge according to an objective standard. What is the objective standard? What should make one drug legal and another illegal? Hence the "slippery slope" and hence why all drugs should either be legal or illegal.

I think this makes a very good point not only about what is the "standard" (I still don't understand how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, as the latter is a lot less dangerous from experience) but that the government should decide what we should and should not do to ourselves. I don't believe in any law that outlaws something that only effects ourselves.

I might reply to some more things later.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

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...

Ok, I instantly stopped reading your post here. Are you implying that because DM smokes pot, the only way he could get into law school is if they lower their standards? You've got to be kidding me, when was the last time you stepped out into the real world? Almost half of all Americans have smoked pot in their lifetime, so obviously it is not this stupefying drug that instantly destroys minds like you seem to think it is.

More relevant to the topic at hand:
(http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html)

The Netherlands, with its permissive marijuana laws, may be known as the cannabis capital of the world. But a survey published this month in PLoS Medicine, a journal of the Public Library of Science, suggests that the Dutch don't actually experiment with pot as much as one would expect. Despite tougher drug policies in the U.S., Americans were twice as likely to have tried marijuana than the Dutch, according to the survey. In fact, Americans were more likely to have tried marijuana or cocaine than people in any of the 16 other countries, including France, Spain, South Africa, Mexico and Colombia, that the survey covered.

Researchers found that 42% of people surveyed in the U.S. had tried marijuana at least once, and 16% had tried cocaine. About 20% of residents surveyed in the Netherlands, by contrast, reported having tried pot; in Asian countries, such as Japan and China, marijuana use was virtually "non-existent," the study found. New Zealand was the only other country to claim roughly the same percentage of pot smokers as the U.S., but no other nation came close to the proportion of Americans who reported trying cocaine.

No matter what your opinion on using drugs is, it is quite obvious that prohibition of drugs is not working. More people are in prison in the United States now than in any nation at any point in the world's history, yet drugs are STILL on the increase. I don't know if I could advocate a gung-ho complete legalization of every drug, but *something* definitely needs to change. It would make sense that legalizing marijuana would be the first logical step.

And about the "weed fuels gang violence in mexico" argument- most of that violence can actually be directly attributed to Texas' current gun policy that makes buying and distributing assault weapons etc extremely easy. Drugs are not really the only problem there, which makes it tough for me to believe that if we legalized cannabis then Mexico's cartels would just disappear.

 

[Trax]

People are still repeating this drugs don't harm anyone but the user garbage ad nauseam.

"The most frequent users of cannabis have twice the risk of non-users of developing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions."

Tell me, do you think that hallucinations and delusions always effect only the user? I don't think so, the user has actions during these periods of time.


The same article also points out that 14% of psychotic problems among young adults in the UK are estimated to be caused by cannabis use.

Psychotic problems.. even if it just means they munch a few anti-xyz pills doesn't mean it doesn't harm anyone else - depending on how your country operates with regard to government covering health care it could technically be considered as harming all of us by raising taxes.

Of course you're going to say that we shouldn't be paying for this, and I agree, but I'd rather be covering that than having people with mental issues walking around the streets - 2 members of my family have already had altercations with people looking to steal money for drugs in the past 10 years, and while it's anecdotal evidence, the bottom line is that it should be zero members of anyone's family.


Singapore doesn't have a drug related crime problem outside of its airports.

 

[Truhls]

People are still repeating this drugs don't harm anyone but the user garbage ad nauseam.

"The most frequent users of cannabis have twice the risk of non-users of developing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions."

Tell me, do you think that hallucinations and delusions always effect only the user? I don't think so, the user has actions during these periods of time.


The same article also points out that 14% of psychotic problems among young adults in the UK are estimated to be caused by cannabis use.

Psychotic problems.. even if it just means they munch a few anti-xyz pills doesn't mean it doesn't harm anyone else - depending on how your country operates with regard to government covering health care it could technically be considered as harming all of us by raising taxes.

Of course you're going to say that we shouldn't be paying for this, and I agree, but I'd rather be covering that than having people with mental issues walking around the streets - 2 members of my family have already had altercations with people looking to steal money for drugs in the past 10 years, and while it's anecdotal evidence, the bottom line is that it should be zero members of anyone's family.


Singapore doesn't have a drug related crime problem outside of its airports.

After reading the article and most of this thread, i think i agree with your post most and the others who have stated the same thing. I Don't really care what people think, the fact is people taking hard drugs hurt other people more frequently then people who don't do any drugs.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Actually Trax, the article you linked to clearly states that it is 40% more likely, not twice the risk like you claimed. I don't know if you purposely distorted the numbers when you made the link hoping that nobody would actually read it, but that is quite the difference.

And in the article is a very important quote that would basically debunk your claims:

Their prediction... is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years - Professor Leslie Iverson, University of Oxford

Here is another piece from the article you linked to that indicates your evidence isn't as strong as your opinion:

Study author, Professor Glyn Lewis, professor of psychiatric epidemiology, said: "It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness.

Basically, your great study didn't actually prove anything.

Cannabis has driven the levels of "mental illnesses" so high that its....still not even noticeable! Wow! Those numbers definitely justify banning cannabis while leaving cigarettes and alcohol unbanned! Since, you know, I would rather have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year than a slight increase in patients with mental illness.

Also, its not the drugs fault that people rob other people. Would it have been better if they were robbing your family for money to buy a vacuum cleaner? The drugs aren't the problem in that case, it is clearly the person's willingness to steal...

After reading the article and most of this thread, i think i agree with your post most and the others who have stated the same thing. I Don't really care what people think, the fact is people taking hard drugs hurt other people more frequently then people who don't do any drugs.

And the fact remains that in the hands of even a moderately responsible person, even the hardest of drugs can be nothing more than a hobby. People who take drugs do not hurt people simply because they are on drugs, just like people who drink and drive dont hurt people simply because they drank. You are missing a huge step in the process, the abuse is what causes bad things to happen, not the drugs themselves. Also, I know for a fact that people who own guns are far more likely to fatally injure someone compared to people who dont have any guns. Should we ban guns? That analogy basically sums up why I disagree with you.

 

[Trax]

Actually Trax, the article you linked to clearly states that it is 40% more likely, not twice the risk like you claimed. I don't know if you purposely distorted the numbers when you made the link hoping that nobody would actually read it, but that is quite the difference.

The quote is directly from the 5th paragraph of the article.

Your selective reading is amazing.

P.s. we already did ban guns over here, and we have a hugely lower incidence of gun related crime than the US does.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

The quote is directly from the 5th paragraph of the article.

Your selective reading is amazing.

Doesn't change the fact that the article you linked to literally proves nothing for your argument. I missed the quote, I'm sorry, but I was referring to the first bolded statistic that was actually kind of scary.

P.s. we already did ban guns over here, and we have a hugely lower incidence of gun related crime than the US does.

Still doesn't change the fact that the guns themselves aren't hurting people. The abusers of guns are. Just like with drugs, having them around is not threatening until someone abuses them.

Unlike banning guns, which tends to cut down on gun-related crime, banning drugs has increased drug-related crimes. This makes it pretty hard to believe that banning drugs is the solution like it is with guns. You completely illustrated my point for me...

 

[Invective]

and now to back up jrrrrrrr with a pic i just found.
notice when the murder rates are highest?

that cant be coincidence.

 

[Polis4rule]

Singapore doesn't have a drug related crime problem outside of its airports.

Singapore also has the death penalty reserved for people who break said strict drug laws.

 

[Trax]

Doesn't change the fact that the article you linked to literally proves nothing for your argument. I missed the quote, I'm sorry, but I was referring to the first bolded statistic that was actually kind of scary.

Psychotic symptoms are not confined to Schizophrenia, nor does the development of a symptom of Schizophrenia mean that someone is a full blown Schizophrenic. So no, the quote from Professor Leslie Iverson doesn't hold any water; it's an irrelevant point altogether.

Still doesn't change the fact that the guns themselves aren't hurting people. The abusers of guns are. Just like with drugs, having them around is not threatening until someone abuses them.

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

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

The USA is a top 25 Nation when it comes to homicides, the only other reasonably developed nations in that top 25 are Poland (which is fairly borderline) and Russia (and you can attribute the problems in Russia to a number of issues including poverty, and various racial tensions).


As for drug related crime going up; drug related crime always goes up when you're prosecuting people for carrying the stuff.