Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

legalize it! ALL OF IT, apparently.

245678

Posts

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Kaputa wrote: »
    If heroin was legal, "less than 20%" wouldn't be an acceptable amount of people using it. While it's true that legalizing a substance takes away a lot of the danger associated with it, things like heroin and especially cocaine are inherently dangerous or harmful.

    Your claims about cocaine don't really square with my own observations of people who use it regularly. Heroin I'm not as familiar with. What are you basing this on?

  • archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Kaputa wrote: »
    If heroin was legal, "less than 20%" wouldn't be an acceptable amount of people using it. While it's true that legalizing a substance takes away a lot of the danger associated with it, things like heroin and especially cocaine are inherently dangerous or harmful.

    The difference between heroin and cigarettes is that less than 20% of people can use nicotine in a non-habitual manner, while a much greater % of heroin users are casual with it. There is a reason that a lot of people consider it harder to quit smoking than quitting heroin usage. AFAIK, the real danger from heroin usage comes from ODing, further complicated by impurities, rather than the substance itself which doesn't cause permanent damage in small quantities.

    The question of whether usage rates would dramatically increase is the important one. Are there any developed nations which have legal cocaine or heroin, for comparison's sake? My first guess is no, but I'd be happy to be incorrect here.
    I personally won't do heroin because I don't want to associate with heroin dealers and because I don't trust bags of substances which are difficult to identify with certainty. But if it was legal I'd at least try the stuff.

    If it were legal, it wouldn't be full of uncertain stuff, as it would probably be distributed by someone who wasn't working out of a dirty basement. I wouldn't ever use the stuff, even if it was from a legal distributor, though that's pretty much my stance on most drugs.

    873342-1.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Kaputa wrote: »
    If heroin was legal, "less than 20%" wouldn't be an acceptable amount of people using it. While it's true that legalizing a substance takes away a lot of the danger associated with it, things like heroin and especially cocaine are inherently dangerous or harmful.

    Answer the question and substantiate your claims.
    Okay. The reason >80% of the population chooses not to smoke cigarettes is that, for some reason or another, they don't desire to. Health reasons are probably the biggest reason by far. Reasons like simply disliking the feeling of inhaling smoke or the smell/taste of it or what have you also factor into it.

    Health reasons apply to heroin and cocaine as well, of course. So you're right in implying that, even if I could walk into a liquor store and buy some heroin, the vast majority of the population would choose not to. But right now, there are another couple of reasons preventing people from doing heroin and coke. Fear of prosecution, aversion to associating with heroin dealers and their crowd, and the fear that you don't know what your drugs were cut with all prevent people from doing hard drugs (that last reason is why I don't). If you legalize these drugs, you take away all but the health reasons, so usage would almost certainly increase.

    So, again, the important question is "How much would legalization increase usage?" If it's not a significant amount, then legalization might be worth it to get rid of the problems caused by prohibition. If it is a significant amount, the choice is a bit harder.

  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    things shouldn't be illegal because you can hurt yourself doing them, even assuming what you're saying is right.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal for anyone over 18 years of age, yet less than 20% of people do it. Why?

    I'm not sure that comparing cigarettes to some of the harder drugs is really fair. Not singling you out, others have made this comparison before, yours was just the first I saw in this thread.

    Cigarettes don't impede or affect judgment in any discernable way. They don't increase violent tendencies. There isn't a risk of suffering an immediate and fatal heart attack from smoking a cigarette. They aren't so rampantly addictive that one might throw away all rational thought or worse die, in the pursuit of getting a fix. One does not have violent withdrawal when they kick smoking. Hell, one cigarette a day might be healthier than one beer a day.

    I just don't think cigarettes and drugs like cocaine or heroin are even remotely comparable. It's like comparing aspirin to IV antibiotics; they're just not even close.

    Not even...

    No. Just no. You're mismatching expected doses, ignoring actual use patterns... just no.

    Cigarettes are worse for the average cigarette smoker in pretty much every single way than any other drug is for the average user of that drug except level of inebriation and decision making. Pretty much every medical source not paid for by the tobacco companies or the government will list nicotine as the most addicting drug on the planet.

    Interestingly, alcohol is the only drug which create withdrawal effects that can actually kill the user.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    things shouldn't be illegal because you can hurt yourself doing them, even assuming what you're saying is right.

    First, I would tend to disagree, in principle if not in practice. If something is exceedingly dangerous and making it illegal would curb the instances of it happening, then making it illegal could be justified.

    And second, even if I were to agree in principle, that ignores things like social costs, externalities, and the like. In which case you wouldn't be so much banning it because you can hurt yourself, but more because it fucks over everyone else.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    things shouldn't be illegal because you can hurt yourself doing them, even assuming what you're saying is right.

    First, I would tend to disagree, in principle if not in practice. If something is exceedingly dangerous and making it illegal would curb the instances of it happening, then making it illegal could be justified.

    And second, even if I were to agree in principle, that ignores things like social costs, externalities, and the like. In which case you wouldn't be so much banning it because you can hurt yourself, but more because it fucks over everyone else.

    I didn't mean nothing dangerous for a person could ever be fairly made illegal, I just think that something shouldn't be made illegal for the sole reason that a person could hurt themselves doing it. so I don't disagree with your second point at all and didn't mean to frame it that way.

    as for the first point... I would need an example of what you mean. I can't think of anything dangerous enough to an individual that it's fair to not let that person do it. I'm not saying it's not out there, perhaps I'm not thinking hard enough.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »

    Interestingly, alcohol is the only drug which create withdrawal effects that can actually kill the user.


    This.

    Alcohol is at least as dangerous in terms of physiological effects as heroin. How often do you see another 21-shot fatality in the papers?

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I've always firmly held the stance that punishing drug use, of any drug, is absolutely indefensibly retarded. If someone is a junkie we should treat them as being sick, since putting them in prison isn't going to end their addiction or make their lives better.

    Unless someone harms someone else while under the influence, how does punishing them help anything? We should be helping them, because they are sick.


    It's alright like this in many places right? You can't get thrown in prison just for using?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The people who want to do heroin are pretty much already doing it.

    I will also say I've known far more functioning heroin addicts in my life, than I have functioning alcoholics.

    Edit: Before you say "thats totally different" go watch someone detox from booze, Delirium Tremens are fucking horrific.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    I don't have any problem with moving weed, cocaine, and heroin to the same category as alcohol and tobacco. In all likelihod it wouldn't increase usage, and it would stop, or nearly stop, a lot of the baggage that's associated with drugs, mainly the people being murdered and thrown in prison.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • jjbuck05jjbuck05 Registered User
    edited March 2009
    As much as I hate to link a book that you can't read without purchasing...

    Read it. Don't be afraid just because he quotes the loony Ann Coulter in there.


    More required reading: The Fix by Michael Massing


    A summary of the thesis: Legalization is unrealistic and carries serious public health concerns, but decriminalization (i.e. no prison time, just fines) combined with a renewed focus on detox and rehab will reduce the nasty side effects of drugs, specifically violence, broken families, and public health problems.

    Also, he likes Nixon. A lot.



    Personally, I say we legalize but regulate and tax the shite out of everything, and put the money into 1) Rehab, 2) Prevention, and 3) Education, in that order.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    First, I would tend to disagree, in principle if not in practice. If something is exceedingly dangerous and making it illegal would curb the instances of it happening, then making it illegal could be justified.

    I basically agree with you, until the point when the prohibition becomes more harmful than the "dangerous something".

    Now, as far as money goes:

    Just taking a quick gander at the drug war, we're talking about spending billions of dollars militarizing police, nonviolent and victimless crimes given mandatory minimums (it costs money to keep people in jail) and huge propaganda spending which misleads the public (and I've known people who really started up the drug habit when they found out what the government told them was basically lies). I could go on.

    Or we could redirect the cash that we're spending on all of these things into better and more expansive rehab, a government agency that dispenses accurate information instead of fearmongering and another to keep tabs on the taxes that the substance earns the government.

    It probably won't happen in my lifetime, though. It would mean a scaling back of police force, several prisons closing their doors and the dissolving of the DEA. Our government is too addicted to the drug war for it to happen naturally.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    jjbuck05 wrote: »
    Also, he likes Nixon. A lot.

    And here I was worried about a Coulter quote in the book I suggested. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User
    edited March 2009
    I think our perception of drugs is so skewed by who is using it that it's pretty apparent our problem lays not with drugs, but with drug addicts.

    Cocaine is obvious. When celebrities do it and businessmen do it, it's okay. They don't cause too much trouble. They're just enjoying themselves. I don't know anyone who avoids movies because the lead actor is rumored to have done drugs. Cocaine is only evil when poor inner-city minorities use it. Easy example is punishment sentences. Cocaine gets you 1-5 years. Dissolve it in water, you have crack, and the same amount will now place you in jail for 10-15 years. Oh, did I mention 90% of cocaine arrests are for white people, and 90% of crack arrests are for minorities? Nah, that has nothing to do with it. I'm not insinuating racism, just a clear bias against the user not the substance.

    LSD? Shrooms? Evil when the guy in the alleyway is selling it. Totally awesome when the Beatles use it and write songs about it.

    Weed is the easiest example, because there's no demographic left for 'pot smoker', it's too prevalent. At this point, if you're... anyone productive, it's culturally okay. Businessman smokes after work? Sure. Band smokes after a performance? Sure. Restaurant owner smokes while closing up? Sure. The line of where it becomes immoral is so clear -- when you become useless. Zomg high school drop-out smoking weed!Unemployed dude smoking weed!

    Your dumbass kid flunked out of high school because of the evil WoW? I mean television, shit, I mean weed. Right. It was the weed, and if there wasn't weed he definitely wouldn't have turned out that way.
    That woman on the corner working as a prostitute to buy cocaine? Tsk tsk, cocaine is evil. Because naturally if there was no cocaine she would be a bright member of society, not addicted to something else.

    News flash! Drugs aren't the problem, they're just one of the many tools that failures in society like to succumb to. Making drugs illegal won't get rid of them. Making drugs legal won't get rid of them. Bums and failures are here to stay,

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    as for the first point... I would need an example of what you mean. I can't think of anything dangerous enough to an individual that it's fair to not let that person do it. I'm not saying it's not out there, perhaps I'm not thinking hard enough.

    Well, for example, take a drug in which a single hit might kill you. (I think crack might fight this description, but I'm not sure.) Maybe not definitely, but ~1% chance. So basically, 1% of all the people who use this drug, which you can walk into a store and buy off the shelf, just flat-out die. That would strike me as dangerous enough to justify flat-out banning it just for that reason. Basically, any drug for which there is no "safe dosage" or "responsible use".

    There are probably non-drug examples, but we're in a drug thread, so...

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    alright, if that's accurate then I'd be fine. no safe dosage.

    edit - hah, I'd be fine with it being illegal. that would make sense to me.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    jjbuck05 wrote: »
    As much as I hate to link a book that you can't read without purchasing...

    Read it. Don't be afraid just because he quotes the loony Ann Coulter in there.


    More required reading: The Fix by Michael Massing


    A summary of the thesis: Legalization is unrealistic and carries serious public health concerns, but decriminalization (i.e. no prison time, just fines) combined with a renewed focus on detox and rehab will reduce the nasty side effects of drugs, specifically violence, broken families, and public health problems.

    Also, he likes Nixon. A lot.



    Personally, I say we legalize but regulate and tax the shite out of everything, and put the money into 1) Rehab, 2) Prevention, and 3) Education, in that order.

    It's probably more interesting, and a lot easier to just read up what happened to Portugal following decriminalisation.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The key is whether a reasonable dose under reasonable circumstances carries a high social cost. Weed, coke, alcohol, probably heroin, all no. This hypothetical drug with a 1% chance of death falls outside that category, because the social cost of one in every hundred users dropping dead on their first try is pretty high.

    I think the distinction between decriminalization and legalization is interesting; I'll look into reading the Massing book. Are the social costs he cites just the result of assuming legalization would lead to increased use, or something else?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • either,oreither,or Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    HadjiQuest wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »

    Interestingly, alcohol is the only drug which create withdrawal effects that can actually kill the user.


    This.

    Alcohol is at least as dangerous in terms of physiological effects as heroin. How often do you see another 21-shot fatality in the papers?

    Barbituate withdrawal is another (and the only other) one that can kill you, and they are apparently both pretty similar. Even with heroin, the only way the withdrawal could kill you is if you have an underlying medical condition exacerbated by the increased pressure on your body because of the symptoms.
    I would be completely in favour of the type of legalisation discussed in this thread if we spent a considerable amount of the money gained from taxing them on educating people about drugs. I don't have any problem with people making their own informed choices about drugs, especially if they know how to minmise the chance of abuse. But the education around for alcohol at the moment is pretty poor, at least in the UK. Alcohol can be tremendously dangerous, but a lot people aren't really aware of just how dangerous it is. I'd guess that most people don't know that alcohol can create withdrawal effects that can kill the user. I'm sure they'd step it up a bit for drugs though, rightly or wrongly.

    steam_sig.png
    3DS friend code: 4811-7214-5053
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Kaputa wrote: »
    If heroin was legal, "less than 20%" wouldn't be an acceptable amount of people using it. While it's true that legalizing a substance takes away a lot of the danger associated with it, things like heroin and especially cocaine are inherently dangerous or harmful.

    The same people who would go crazy for heroin or cocaine if it were indeed legalized are those who are probably already in an alcoholic stupor to begin with.

    So basically the healthy people in any given population aren't the people who are succumbing to these drugs, it would be the people already using them illegally AND/OR the people who are already abusing legal drugs like alcohol.

    Granted you can argue the dangers of Heroic and Cocaine used in large quantities are probably greater than that of Alcohol and Pot. But in terms of availability, if restricted, I see little reason it should be banned outright, especially from the viewpoint that is concerned that society as a whole would become less productive.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think proper honest education about drugs should be a first priority, since lying about them and exaggerating their effects does nobody good.

    I guess it's harder to keep pot illegal if you know it's safer than cigarettes and cocaine illegal if people know that doing it once probably won't kill you or turn you into an addict.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I would do heroine and cocaine if they were legal. I figure everyone who wouldn't is saying so, so I might as well be honest.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • PelPel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The key is whether a reasonable dose under reasonable circumstances carries a high social cost. Weed, coke, alcohol, probably heroin, all no. This hypothetical drug with a 1% chance of death falls outside that category, because the social cost of one in every hundred users dropping dead on their first try is pretty high.

    I think an important distinction is this: Is the social cost of a reasonable dose under reasonable circumstances higher than the net social cost of the results of prohibition? This test is even easier to meet, and the answer is fairly obvious to me, especially when you consider that supply (the presence of drugs in the country, legally), does not create demand (the market for drugs), but rather the reverse. Demand for drugs is what creates the illegal market. The situation is somewhat complicated by the substances addictive nature, but our current law does not differentiate consistently between addictive and non addictive substances so IMO the point is moot from a legal basis. If that were a major factor, we'd all be playing WoW in a seedy apartment with no windows and a mattress on the floor.

    No one has mentioned the social cost of the illegality of drugs either; the concept of being a "criminal" is a powerful psychological force, and I don't see any reason to force anyone into that mold without a very good reason.

  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    I would do heroine and cocaine if they were legal. I figure everyone who wouldn't is saying so, so I might as well be honest.

    I don't really see a problem with that so long as it doesn't devolve into abuse.

    Me? I wouldn't. But then again the hardest thing I put into my body is caffeine free diet coke.

  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I would do heroine and cocaine if they were legal. I figure everyone who wouldn't is saying so, so I might as well be honest.

    I don't really see a problem with that so long as it doesn't devolve into abuse.

    Me? I wouldn't. But then again the hardest thing I put into my body is caffeine free diet coke.

    I didn't think anyone would honestly, I just felt like I should say it since I have to admit it definitely affects my opinions.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I probably wouldn't do coke or heroin if they were legal.

    Cocaine is a shitty high and I hate needles.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    I would do heroine and cocaine if they were legal. I figure everyone who wouldn't is saying so, so I might as well be honest.

    Not cocaine

    Heroin, shrooms, and LSD for me

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal for anyone over 18 years of age, yet less than 20% of people do it. Why?

    I'm not sure that comparing cigarettes to some of the harder drugs is really fair. Not singling you out, others have made this comparison before, yours was just the first I saw in this thread.

    Cigarettes don't impede or affect judgment in any discernable way. They don't increase violent tendencies. There isn't a risk of suffering an immediate and fatal heart attack from smoking a cigarette. They aren't so rampantly addictive that one might throw away all rational thought or worse die, in the pursuit of getting a fix. One does not have violent withdrawal when they kick smoking. Hell, one cigarette a day might be healthier than one beer a day.

    I just don't think cigarettes and drugs like cocaine or heroin are even remotely comparable. It's like comparing aspirin to IV antibiotics; they're just not even close.

    So since cigarettes are a lot less bad for you than heroin, obviously more people would use heroin if it was legal than smoke cigarettes. I see.

    No, that's not what I was talking about at all, and I think you know that. There are good reasons for these drugs to be illegal, and good reasons for them to stay illegal. Whether or not all people would engage in their use is irrelevant. The laws are in place to protect those who don't use these drugs.

    Though I will admit that I'm curious how alcohol (as hard a drug as it is) came to be legally and socially acceptable when these other drugs are not. I mean, Prohibition didn't work in the 20s because there was a time before that when alcohol was legal. Presumably, drugs like heroin (which have been around in some form or other forever) were not always illegal. So who pushed that through, and how were they able to marginalize the drug and its users from the rest of society? I don't know the answers, but it's interesting to think about.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)

    Drugs ruin society. They make white men associate with chinese immigrants, as well as black men rape white women. And then society really went crazy - crazy enough to pass the 18th amendment which made illegal distribution of banned substances the violent money-maker that it is today.

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    AUGMENTOS - Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    I'm curious about LSD. Well I'm curious about everything but I'm more scared of the possibility of addiction.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Pel wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The key is whether a reasonable dose under reasonable circumstances carries a high social cost. Weed, coke, alcohol, probably heroin, all no. This hypothetical drug with a 1% chance of death falls outside that category, because the social cost of one in every hundred users dropping dead on their first try is pretty high.

    I think an important distinction is this: Is the social cost of a reasonable dose under reasonable circumstances higher than the net social cost of the results of prohibition? This test is even easier to meet, and the answer is fairly obvious to me, especially when you consider that supply (the presence of drugs in the country, legally), does not create demand (the market for drugs), but rather the reverse. Demand for drugs is what creates the illegal market. The situation is somewhat complicated by the substances addictive nature, but our current law does not differentiate consistently between addictive and non addictive substances so IMO the point is moot from a legal basis. If that were a major factor, we'd all be playing WoW in a seedy apartment with no windows and a mattress on the floor.

    No one has mentioned the social cost of the illegality of drugs either; the concept of being a "criminal" is a powerful psychological force, and I don't see any reason to force anyone into that mold without a very good reason.

    Well, yeah, that's sort of the point. Our hypothetical 1% drug would probably still be illegal even if there were a massive black market for it for some reason.

    The trend toward criminalizing drugs basically begins at the start of the 20th century; prior to that, you actually could for the most part buy "hard drugs" over the counter (patent medicine.) The reason drugs have stayed illegal while alcohol hasn't is mostly a social/class thing: people of all classes pretty much drank alcohol and thought it was okay, while conspicuous drug use has been the province of the lower classes.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • PelPel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Yea, I was agreeing with you but only pointing out that the bar is even LOWER than the one you set.

  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited March 2009
    I dunno, it seems unlikely that all the damage our current "drug war" has done which is so throughly entrenched is just going to go away if we legalize it all.

    I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I doubt it'd be a cure all. I mean, the stuff is still addictive in a way other legal products aren't so I wouldn't be surprised to see people still going to extremes to get it.

    xet8c.gif
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    so, i like drugs. not all of them, though. in fact, a lot of them are really really bad. but this dude from harvard says we should make them 'all' legal (well, coke and heroin with weed).
    so, uh, WHAT? i just don't follow. his words sound smart, but COKE and HEROIN are BAD.
    thoughts?
    The problem is that categorizing them as "really really bad" is an oversimplification, and it's also useless and irrelevant. Economists are looking at it from their perspective, but they bring up a pretty important fact: the drug market exists, legitimate or no, and it will continue to exist. Prohibition doesn't work, so even if you think drugs are bad (mmkay), you have to acknowledge that ignoring and marginalizing drugs isn't going to have any positive effects. It's a solution that doesn't work to a problem that may or may not even exist.

    In an attempt to abreviate my argument- which I could probably discuss ad nauseum- I'll just say that heroin is like skydiving. Is it potentially harmful or fatal? Yes. Is it fun? Yes. One is legitimate and one isn't, so what are the differences?

    Control, restraint and education. You don't skydive every day, that's stupid. You learn everything you can about it first, talk to people who have done it, make yourself aware of all the risks. Finally, you do it with an instuctor and among peers.

    We need to be discussing how to make it safer, and more socially and economically viable. We won't be able to prevent addiction, but we can reduce it. We can educate people, work on the social stigma. Imagine leaving your wife and kids one weekend a month to go to a retreat where you and your friends take turns doing lines from each others' taints.

    This will not happen with the stroke of a pen. It's a transition that I doubt I'll live to see to completion. But if we don't head in this direction, we're destined for a lengthy, costly and idealogically unsound "war on drugs."

    BTW I don't really want to address the "illegal cuz it's bad 4 u" arguments fully, but I'll just toss this in, might be able to find the paper later: in European countries that made pot legal, there was an initial spike in use before a fairly rapid decline to around half its original popularity. The notion that legalization gives it a safer image is valid, but understand that being unsafe is part of the appeal of many substances.

    Also, a lot of people die while they're using [cars]. Therefore, [cars] should be illegal. M I DOIN IT RITE

    Let's all google the harm principle and try to elevate this debate rather than going through the motions. Legalization is not going to be easy or pretty. But the reasons for keeping drugs illegal simply don't hold up to scrutiny, and prohibition inhabits a hypothetical realm that looks pretty but isn't relevant. There are benefits to avoiding drugs, and I fully endorse that way of life, if that's your thing. But jumping from that to DRUGS ARE BAD doesn't make any sense.

    But no, maybe you guys are right. Maybe those safe injection clinics are a dumb idea, those dope fiends deserve to die because of their chemical dependence as a result of one terrible decision- because good people never make bad decisions. Maybe we should punish them by throwing them in jail where it's easier to get dope, so they can stay on dope and in jail until they die out of sight and out of mind.

    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    as for the first point... I would need an example of what you mean. I can't think of anything dangerous enough to an individual that it's fair to not let that person do it. I'm not saying it's not out there, perhaps I'm not thinking hard enough.

    Well, for example, take a drug in which a single hit might kill you. (I think crack might fight this description, but I'm not sure.) Maybe not definitely, but ~1% chance. So basically, 1% of all the people who use this drug, which you can walk into a store and buy off the shelf, just flat-out die. That would strike me as dangerous enough to justify flat-out banning it just for that reason. Basically, any drug for which there is no "safe dosage" or "responsible use".

    There are probably non-drug examples, but we're in a drug thread, so...

    This is probably veering into non-terminal euthanasia territory, but I wouldn't even have a problem with that if it were appropriately regulated. Something like having to have a clean bill of mental health, along with a release form clearly indicating the dangers of the drug and a tax equivalent to 1/100th the cost of burial and expected medical treatment, probably some other things I am forgetting too. Granted that tax alone would probably push it to the black market anyhow, but I don't really see the virtue in preventing reasonably rational people from risking themselves. Of course the scenario becomes different if it directly effects the autonomy of others (IE the drug causes a 1% chance to explode in a fireball), but if the effects are limited to self I'm inclined to allow it.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    They don't deserve to die. They deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison where they have no opportunity to contribute to society or the economy ever again and produce a significant drain on both instead.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    They don't deserve to die. They deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison where they have no opportunity to contribute to society or the economy ever again and produce a significant drain on both instead.

    The chemist means that, ironically, it's cheaper for the criminal to spend the rest of their life in prison than get the chair.

    steam_sig.png
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Oh, and I forgot to mention idiotic weed tests as a condition for employment. If alcohol prohibition was still in effect (and marijuana is arguably less harmful), this would be like a potential job turning me down if I have had a drink in the past few months.

    Fucking retarded.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Res wrote: »
    I'm curious about LSD. Well I'm curious about everything but I'm more scared of the possibility of addiction.

    LSD isn't physically addictive. Neither are mushrooms... sort of like pot.

  • HadjiQuestHadjiQuest Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Oh, and I forgot to mention idiotic weed tests as a condition for employment. If alcohol prohibition was still in effect (and marijuana is arguably less harmful), this would be like a potential job turning me down if I have had a drink in the past few months.

    Fucking retarded.

    Once again, this.

    Silly, silly bullshit.

    Edit: And I don't even smoke.

Sign In or Register to comment.