Options

FUCK the DEA!

245678

Posts

  • Options
    ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    KNYTE wrote: »
    Ardor wrote: »
    I can see drugs being legalised so we can tax it to hell and back....

    Unfortunately this wouldn't work. People make the majority of hard drugs in their houses using fairly simple equipment and methods. If drugs were taxed and expensive it would not deter them from making their own stock for use and supply of others, and would likely spur them on even further.

    Cocaine? Heroin? LSD? Ecstasy?

    I think this is more true of just crack (which requires cocaine to produce) and meth (Which is not "fairly simple" -- after all, your house can blow up).

    And I think people might be less inclined to home-brew if they had easy access at a store. People will pay for convenience. That's a fact.

    I wonder if we can put this side by side with some comparison with gambling. I'm under the impression that gambling houses make the majority of their money off people who need the money tpay for rent/mortgage/groceries and not the folks who have a vast amount of money to spare. That being said, if people get highly addicted to these drugs and it comes down to them spending what little they have to get more, do you think this is still a good idea? You can say it's there own fault and choice, but if the drugs happen to be incredibly addictive, even with warnings, you share the responsibilities for legalising the drug.

    In law today, you can put whatever warnings on a product that you want, in the end, if a court deems your product was created where it can be used in a harmful way or your warnings aren't effective enough due to whatever the product is known for (being addictive etc), then you will lose your case and take responsibility for it. You can put a gun for sale out there that comes with a free clip and market it as a center piece for your table and it's not to be used for actual shooting, but if the product can be used for something different, you are liable for what happens in the fallout.

    Are you insinuating that you can somehow obtain data to substantiate that a significant percentage of the population will not have huge adverse effects or will not easily succumb to the addictiveness of these drugs?

    Ardor on
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Shinyo wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Still, legalizing drugs recreationally and medically is different, and legalizing pot and heroin is different.

    Not to some people it seems...

    Honestly, I don't think it's different. While yes, one has more potential for causing problems, that doesn't mean it should be illegal so much as better regulated, more education about its potential effects, etc. We have to accept that freedom in this regard *does* mean some increased risks.

    But shit, clearly Americans are fine with more freedom and more risk, just look at many sentiments on gun control.
    This is about the sanest argument on the matter I have ever heard.

    Sarcasm?

    Because it's two very different things.

    Drugs are made to get you high. If they hurt/kill you, it's an unintended byproduct (though often an unaviodable one, but it's still not why you buy the drugs). Also, it's all self-inflicted.

    Guns are made so that you can easily kill other people.

    Guns != drugs, basically to the same extent that babies != nuclear weapons.

    I disagree.

    Drugs can be two things. A fun experience, simple recreation, useful tools of medicine and other "good" things. Or, they can fuel addiction, drive people to crime to feed their addiction, and potentially kill people directly (I'll ignore their role in bolstering the resources of organized crime since legalization would largely curb that aspect)

    We could, and should, imo accept that sometimes, bad things will happen (while working to prevent them as much as possible) when we all have the freedom that we should regarding drug use.

    The same can easily be said of guns. They can be a fun recreational tool (firing ranges, competitions, skeet shooting, etc), used for hunting, and for legitimate defense purposes. Because we value these things, we accept that despite working hard to make things safe, sometimes people will use guns to commit crime, murder innocent people, etc.

    It seems hypocritical, to me at least, to accept the occasional downside of the "right to bear arms", but not to accept the downside to our right to privacy/autonomy/whatever you wish to call it.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    So. Why should drugs be illegal?

    because it would validate them. If it were legel to get high, people wouldn't think of the consequences as much. also, it means that for a lot of people it would be a lot easier to get a hold of drugs causing a large increase of irresponsible abuse of said drugs.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    WevsWevs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Why's everyone ragging on meth.

    Wevs on
  • Options
    DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    As much as I oppose the legality of cigarettes, I see a substantial difference between something which might make you sick in the short term and take 20 years off your life in the end and say heroin, which might kill you right the fuck now.

    Actually the risk of heroin overdose is directly because of it's prohibition. It's exceptionally hard to die off pure heroin. Conversely, alcohol "might kill you right the fuck now" and I don't see you ragging on that.

    Well then I retract my statements but not my position - namely, judge it based on sane criteria as the FDA does rather then "oh hey, make this legal coz I want it to be".

    This seems to be the rationale for every single high-school/college freshman paper or speech where you have to advocate a position of your choosing. Oh, legalize weed, it would be so good for our economy (but really I just want to smoke it without going to jail).

    Delzhand on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    It's more like "make it legal because it's my fucking body, I'm a fucking adult, and it's my fucking right as a fucking adult to do whatever the fuck I want with my fucking body" (that was fun).

    You're not directly harming others. You're not harming society. Therefore, go for it! Believe me -- I'm all for government interference, but not when it comes to stuff like this, which only really hurts an individual. Sure, I guess society loses potential man-hours to drugs, because people become ineffective/lose their jobs, etc? But prison is in no way a solution to this. It just further exacerbates the monetary loss, and in no way helps people kick the habit. Prison just generally tends to get people more deeply involved in illegal activity, and make it harder for them to re-enter legal society.

    no one using drugs has ever done anything stupid and got someone else hurt

    never ever.

    there are laws against it because people who use them in mass quantities can do incredibly stupid things.

    edit: hell, people who don't use them en mass can still do stupid shit and get themselves hurt

    it's for the same reason you're not allowed to drink and drive or carry alcohol around in public.

    Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    I never said they were.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    KNYTE wrote: »
    You keep touting meth as the only hard drug with negative effects.

    No. I think I've said it's the one that has the most significant likelihood of directly causing people to hurt others. Which I think is pretty indisputable.
    All hard drugs are EXPENSIVE, which means the people who use them need a fairly sizable amount of money to pay for the addiction, which if they are not wealthly means they "need" more money, and with the claws of an addiction it's likely they'll do whatever they have to to get that money.
    Right. But, you know, if drugs were legal, that would mean a drastic increase in supply. And as we've seen in other countries, legalization does not translate into higher demand. People in the Netherlands actually use less marijuana than Americans do (well, at least teens, anyway).

    So. More supply. Legal supply. Basically the same demand. What do you think will happen to the price?
    Whether that be theft, selling their wife's car, putting their house on multiple mortgages, or whatever. The point here is that all hard drugs have negative effects on some level, period. I'm sure you're a gentlemen user of marijuana and other "party" drugs, and assume that because you have some limited control over your addiction that everyone else should be able to, but that is not the case.

    I'd rather you didn't assume anything about me, because it strikes me as a little bit arrogant/condescending.
    People's lives, and the lives of their families and friends, are affected/destroyed by drugs long before jail time is even a concern.

    First of all, that's not necessarily true. It really depends on when you get caught.

    Second of all, you've yet to explain to me how the illegality of drugs in any way helps any of these matters.

    None of you seem to be fucking getting this!

    I'm not saying drugs are all super happy magical fun time pills that have no negative effects! I'm saying that not only does the criminalization of drugs in no way mitigate these effects, but in fact worsens them!

    Don't you get that? Can't you make the leap from "drugs are bad" to "but that doesn't necessarily mean that criminalizing their use and sale helps matters at all"?

    Is that such a fucking mind-blowing leap of logic?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    KNYTEKNYTE Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    KNYTE wrote: »
    I'd be willing to bet a ton of money that the number of people's live's negatively affected/destroyed by drug addiction far outnumbers those of gun accidents or possibly even gun murders by legal gun owners/carriers.

    Not the complete picture, but for a start, illegal drugs killed 17,000 people in 2000, while guns killed 29,000. It should be kept in mind again that many of these deaths would have been avoided had the drugs been legal, clean and regulated.


    But yeah, as Ardor said, it is the crime that should be punished, whether at the hands of a gun or a drug or anything else.

    Without a breakdown of what those gun deaths are the statistic is irrelevant. That likely counts ALL gun deaths including gang related and illegally acquired firearms, and not those involving citizens on the right side of the law.

    KNYTE on
    The best defense is a good offense.

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
    - Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    They occur.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    So. Why should drugs be illegal?

    because it would validate them. If it were legel to get high, people wouldn't think of the consequences as much. also, it means that for a lot of people it would be a lot easier to get a hold of drugs causing a large increase of irresponsible abuse of said drugs.

    Except that you're totally wrong, and that in countries with decriminalized drug use, usage rates are not significantly higher, if at all. For example, the Netherlands.

    So, you know, it's just not true.

    Drugs legal or illegal, those who want drugs, get drugs. Very, very few people are deterred by the criminalization of drugs. This is simply a fact. We saw the very same thing with alcohol and prohibition in the 1920s. People kept drinking whether it was legal or not!

    If we legalize drugs, we get a veritable cornucopia of benefits, both for society and for users.

    If we keep drugs illegal, we just keep sweeping the problem under the rug, never really dealing with it. We don't "validate" drug use, which is cool and all, except that that has no tangible benefits in the real world for anyone. Very noble, but also very fucking retarded.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    [Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    also,

    maybe you wouldn't have killed a guy for money if you weren't on meth?
    maybe you wouldn't need to pay for your habit if you didn't have one?
    maybe you wouldn't be neglegent if you didn't have a habit.

    making drugs legel won't make them less addictive.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    None of you seem to be fucking getting this!

    I'm not saying drugs are all super happy magical fun time pills that have no negative effects! I'm saying that not only does the criminalization of drugs in no way mitigate these effects, but in fact worsens them!

    Don't you get that? Can't you make the leap from "drugs are bad" to "but that doesn't necessarily mean that criminalizing their use and sale helps matters at all"?

    Is that such a fucking mind-blowing leap of logic?

    From my standpoint, we can talk about how you're going about to get approval for funding to get this kinda of data to backup your argument, then we can talk about how it's really going to effect joe pubilc who's never used the drug before but hey, it's legal now.

    Right now, we have opinions. Mine? I don't think everyone wants drugs to be illegal, however, some of the people that do, have the money to keep them out. Second, the FDA has to have data presented to them in order to justify allowing such a product on the market. I'm not sure I've read much about this initiative from the tobacco and alcohol companies, two likely candidates for pushing such an initiative.

    Your opinion? Exactly as you have stated. However, in order to change the current legislation, you'll need something to back it up other than a nice speech.

    Ardor on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    [Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    also,

    maybe you wouldn't have killed a guy for money if you weren't on meth?
    maybe you wouldn't need to pay for your habit if you didn't have one?
    maybe you wouldn't be neglegent if you didn't have a habit.

    making drugs legel won't make them less addictive.

    But it will make it easier for people to get help.

    And it won't make them more addictive either, and it won't make their use more widespread.

    So, what's hte problem, again?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    KNYTE wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    KNYTE wrote: »
    I'd be willing to bet a ton of money that the number of people's live's negatively affected/destroyed by drug addiction far outnumbers those of gun accidents or possibly even gun murders by legal gun owners/carriers.

    Not the complete picture, but for a start, illegal drugs killed 17,000 people in 2000, while guns killed 29,000. It should be kept in mind again that many of these deaths would have been avoided had the drugs been legal, clean and regulated.


    But yeah, as Ardor said, it is the crime that should be punished, whether at the hands of a gun or a drug or anything else.

    Without a breakdown of what those gun deaths are the statistic is irrelevant. That likely counts ALL gun deaths including gang related and illegally acquired firearms, and not those involving citizens on the right side of the law.

    I'm not sure I see your point. Guns are legal, and we clearly accept that despite regulations, jail time for offenders, etc, that gun deaths happen. We accept 29,000 a year as a reasonable price to pay for our freedom to continue to have legal guns.

    When it seems clear the number killed by drugs ever year, were drugs legal and regulated, would be far less, I don't see how you can't agree that legalization and regulation is the right answer.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Ardor wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    None of you seem to be fucking getting this!

    I'm not saying drugs are all super happy magical fun time pills that have no negative effects! I'm saying that not only does the criminalization of drugs in no way mitigate these effects, but in fact worsens them!

    Don't you get that? Can't you make the leap from "drugs are bad" to "but that doesn't necessarily mean that criminalizing their use and sale helps matters at all"?

    Is that such a fucking mind-blowing leap of logic?

    From my standpoint, we can talk about how you're going about to get approval for funding to get this kinda of data to backup your argument, then we can talk about how it's really going to effect joe pubilc who's never used the drug before but hey, it's legal now.

    Right now, we have opinions. Mine? I don't think everyone wants drugs to be illegal, however, some of the people that do, have the money to keep them out. Second, the FDA has to have data presented to them in order to justify allowing such a product on the market. I'm not sure I've read much about this initiative from the tobacco and alcohol companies, two likely candidates for pushing such an initiative.

    Your opinion? Exactly as you have stated. However, in order to change the current legislation, you'll need something to back it up other than a nice speech.

    Granted it won't happen soon, because there's an incredibly bureaucracy built on keeping drugs illegal, and there are huge lobbying groups that lobby to keep them illegal.

    But that doesn't mean we should stop debating it.

    I really hate that argument of "well it won't happen, so give up." I mean, how do you think public opinion changes over time? By people saying "oh, but most people disagree, so I should just go with the flow"?

    Honestly, that argument really pisses me off.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    So. Why should drugs be illegal?

    because it would validate them. If it were legel to get high, people wouldn't think of the consequences as much. also, it means that for a lot of people it would be a lot easier to get a hold of drugs causing a large increase of irresponsible abuse of said drugs.

    Except that you're totally wrong, and that in countries with decriminalized drug use, usage rates are not significantly higher, if at all. For example, the Netherlands.

    So, you know, it's just not true.

    Drugs legal or illegal, those who want drugs, get drugs. Very, very few people are deterred by the criminalization of drugs. This is simply a fact. We saw the very same thing with alcohol and prohibition in the 1920s. People kept drinking whether it was legal or not!

    If we legalize drugs, we get a veritable cornucopia of benefits, both for society and for users.

    If we keep drugs illegal, we just keep sweeping the problem under the rug, never really dealing with it. We don't "validate" drug use, which is cool and all, except that that has no tangible benefits in the real world for anyone. Very noble, but also very fucking retarded.

    So you plan on comparing the US to another country with different laws and regulations, different lifestyles and cultures, and saying we won't be any or much different? That's like me saying the gun control policies in a country like Japan shows that we would have exponentially less armed robberies here if we followed those rules. The comparison is an incredibly difficult one to grasp due to all the different factors that exist between the countries.

    For your next point, so people get drugs. We get it, in fact, we pay for those very few who are bad representatives of that type in our jail systems, along with some of the medical bills they need for certain types of dental care for example. However, someone stepped up with supporting data and sold the idea of legalising those items to either those in politcal authority, the country or both. I haven't seen anyone take that step yet for thse drugs.

    Ardor on
  • Options
    Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    KNYTE wrote: »
    Without a breakdown of what those gun deaths are the statistic is irrelevant. That likely counts ALL gun deaths including gang related and illegally acquired firearms, and not those involving citizens on the right side of the law.

    Oh right sorry well then the drug deaths likely count ALL the stupid cunts and not the sensible people.

    Are you insinuating that you can somehow obtain data to substantiate that a significant percentage of the population will not have huge adverse effects or will not easily succumb to the addictiveness of these drugs?

    27% of high school seniors can access heroin "very easily" or "fairly easily"; 0.8% had taken it in the previous year. 84.9% can access cannabis very or fairly easily; 31.5% had taken it in the previous year. People are choosing not to take the hard drugs dispite availbility. Legalisation doesn't equal legitimisation. I know if I wanted to take heroin, I would. I'm not scared of the law. Sure, a few are, but most people who choose not to speed while driving do so because they think it's dangerous, not because they're afraid of a fucking fine.
    Why's everyone ragging on meth.

    Because unlike even heroin, it has significant short-term mental effects that more often than not include extreme recklessness and aggression. Along with crack, its effects are the most dangerous posed by any drug, anywhere, ever. Yet I still don't see why it should be pushed underground and thus rendered even more harmful to society (if we were to gauge harm in bodybags).


    Edit: I've noticed a bizarre preconception that legalising drugs is the equivilent of encouraging their use. It isn't. It is stopping the tradition of treating law-abiding citizens as criminals.

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    [Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    also,

    maybe you wouldn't have killed a guy for money if you weren't on meth?
    maybe you wouldn't need to pay for your habit if you didn't have one?
    maybe you wouldn't be neglegent if you didn't have a habit.

    making drugs legel won't make them less addictive.

    But it will make it easier for people to get help.

    And it won't make them more addictive either, and it won't make their use more widespread.

    So, what's hte problem, again?

    how wouldn't it make them more widespread? If it were legal they could be sold wherever.

    you don't seem to understand that people shouldn't need help because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    ah fuck it. I've seen too many people get completely fucked by coke, meth, and etc. to even accept what you're saying. I hope you'll never see people the way I've seen them.

    and you know what since I'm done here I'm going to give out a big fuck you to everyone out there saying legelizelol. Until you've seen someone throwing up blood all over themselves hunched over in a shower or seen the look on two little girls faces after their father was killed (you know fucking dead) or seen someone that you care about dragged off to a hospital or seen a person you love weigh 90 pounds because all they had money for was coke you won't know what the fuck I'm talking about. In fact you probably won't give a shit until something happens to you or someone you care about.

    If you think that making it legal will fix jack shit then I'm willing to say that you haven't seen a thing

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    some good reading on the subject:

    linky (Swiss program for prescription heroin)
    So Needle Park wasn't the solution, but the heroin-prescription program might be. In it, 340 addicts receive a legal supply of heroin each day from one of the nine prescribing programs in eight different cities. In addition, 11 receive morphine, and 33 receive injectable methadone. The programs accept only "hard-core" junkies--people who have been injecting for years and who have attempted and failed to quit. Participants are not allowed to take the drug home with them. They have to inject on site and pay 15 francs at approximately $13 per day for their dose.

    In late 1994, the Social Welfare Department in Zurich held a press conference to issue its preliminary findings: 1) Heroin prescription is feasible, and has produced no black market in diverted heroin. 2) The health of the addicts in the program has clearly improved. 3) Heroin prescription alone cannot solve the problems that led to the heroin addiction in the first place. 4) Heroin prescription is less a medical program than a social-psychological approach to a complex personal and social problem. 5) Heroin per se causes very few, if any, problems when it is used in a controlled fashion and administered in hygienic conditions. Program administrators also found little support for the widespread belief that addicts' cravings for heroin are insatiable. When offered practically unlimited amounts of heroin (up to 300 milligrams three times a day), addicts soon realized that the maximum doses provided less of a "flash" than lower doses, and cut back their dosage levels accordingly.

    linky2
    Since the mid '90s, Switzerland has provided pure heroin to a small group of addicted prisoners and hundreds of other addicts who have been unable to kick their habits through more common forms of treatment. Though controversial even in Switzerland, the heroin prescription program has helped reduce drug-related crime, improve addicts' health and slow the spread of AIDS and hepatitis.

    "We don't waste our energies on drug wars and things we can't change," says Anita Marxer, who runs the injection center in Bern.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    WevsWevs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    It is stopping the tradition of treating law-abiding citizens as criminals.

    How does that make sense. It's still a law even if people think it's unjust.

    Wevs on
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    [Name me a single one of these "stupid things" that isn't a crime whether or not you're on drugs.

    you do meth and kill someone: manslaughter
    you do herion and rob a liquor store to pay for your habit: armed robbery
    you're a shitty neglectful parent because of your drug habit: neglect and child abuse

    now explain to me how these offesnes are somehow worse for society than thier sober counterparts

    also,

    maybe you wouldn't have killed a guy for money if you weren't on meth?
    maybe you wouldn't need to pay for your habit if you didn't have one?
    maybe you wouldn't be neglegent if you didn't have a habit.

    making drugs legel won't make them less addictive.

    But it will make it easier for people to get help.

    And it won't make them more addictive either, and it won't make their use more widespread.

    So, what's hte problem, again?

    how wouldn't it make them more widespread? If it were legal they could be sold wherever.

    you don't seem to understand that people shouldn't need help because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    ah fuck it. I've seen too many people get completely fucked by coke, meth, and etc. to even accept what you're saying. I hope you'll never see people the way I've seen them.

    and you know what since I'm done here I'm going to give out a big fuck you to everyone out there saying legelizelol. Until you've seen someone throwing up blood all over themselves hunched over in a shower or seen the look on two little girls faces after their father was killed (you know fucking dead) or seen someone that you care about dragged off to a hospital or seen a person you love weigh 90 pounds because all they had money for was coke you won't know what the fuck I'm talking about. In fact you probably won't give a shit until something happens to you or someone you care about.

    If you think that making it legal will fix jack shit then I'm willing to say that you haven't seen a thing

    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    And it won't make them more addictive either, and it won't make their use more widespread.

    The latter claim, I think, is the one that needs more substantiation. Is there actually good data on this? The Swiss data seems to indicate that for heroin, at least, some form of legalization is not only possible, but advantageous. However, that involved a prescription program, not just giving it out like candy.

    I think you've been a little fast and loose about that. Do you support actually giving it out like candy? I think that there are probably a lot of people who support some forms of legalization and decriminalization, but are wary of pie-in-the-sky libertarians who think that people will magically be smart and responsible about drug use.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    how wouldn't it make them more widespread? If it were legal they could be sold wherever.

    Right. Have you seen the Netherlands? They're not drowning in drugs. And let's not forget prohibition in the '20s. People kept drinking! Shock! Gasp!

    People don't care if it's illegal or not, and fact is, usage in countries where drugs are legal is not higher -- sometimes it's actually lower.
    you don't seem to understand that people shouldn't need help because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
    Oh, right! I get it now! Dealing with reality is messy, so we should only debate about fantasies of should and shouldn't, despite whatever teh real world effects may be! Hah! It's so simple!
    ah fuck it. I've seen too many people get completely fucked by coke, meth, and etc. to even accept what you're saying. I hope you'll never see people the way I've seen them.
    I've seen crack addicts. I've seen people who use coke. It's not a good thing. But criminalization does not make the problem any better whatsoever.
    and you know what since I'm done here I'm going to give out a big fuck you to everyone out there saying legelizelol. Until you've seen someone throwing up blood all over themselves hunched over in a shower or seen the look on two little girls faces after their father was killed (you know fucking dead) or seen someone that you care about dragged off to a hospital or seen a person you love weigh 90 pounds because all they had money for was coke you won't know what the fuck I'm talking about. In fact you probably won't give a shit until something happens to you or someone you care about.

    And, tragic though that all is, none of it invalidates the points I've made, since I basically said that legalizing drugs will result in less of this kind of shit happening. Not because that's my intuition, or "common sense," or because that's what I "just believe." But because that's how it is in other countries, and that's how it was in analogous situations in the past.

    And alcoholism is pretty shitty too, and I've seen plenty of that.
    If you think that making it legal will fix jack shit then I'm willing to say that you haven't seen a thing
    That makes no sense.

    Your argument amounts to "Drugs are really, really horrible. Therefore, they shouldn't be legal."

    We've been over why this is wrong in a million different ways.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    It's not exactly controversial that people with extreme habits often destroy their health and personal relationships. I don't see a reason to suppose that dealing with a meth-head would be any more fun than dealing with an alcoholic, an alcoholics are famous for ruining their lives and the lives of those around them. And furthermore, while alcoholism as a phenomenon hasn't convinced most people to ban booze, due to both the social patterns of use and the physiological properties of the drug, meth produces more meth-heads than alcohol produces alcoholics.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    And it won't make them more addictive either, and it won't make their use more widespread.

    The latter claim, I think, is the one that needs more substantiation. Is there actually good data on this? The Swiss data seems to indicate that for herion, at least, some form of legalization is not only possible, but advantageous. However, that involved a prescription program, not just giving it out like candy.

    I think you've been a little fast and loose about that. Do you support actually giving it out like candy? I think that there are probably a lot of people who support some forms of legalization and decriminalization, but are wary of pie-in-the-sky libertarians who think that people will magically be smart and responsible about drug use.

    The best way to make people smart and responsible is education. And not D.A.R.E-style bullshit education, but real honest education.

    Fuck, they just make erowid.org required reading in high school health class.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I know when the Dutch legalized drugs they had a a small spike in usage followed by a gradual tapering off. People would probably be more likely to try a drug if ti were legal but not too many will continue using it for the long term.

    Anyway my point from before was that punishng drug use for this you may do while on drugs is equal to preemptive prosecution. You can't arrest a poor person becasue they're more likely to steal from smeone can you? why are drugs different?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    sure, just ignore my post
    Since the mid '90s, Switzerland has provided pure heroin to a small group of addicted prisoners and hundreds of other addicts who have been unable to kick their habits through more common forms of treatment. Though controversial even in Switzerland, the heroin prescription program has helped reduce drug-related crime, improve addicts' health and slow the spread of AIDS and hepatitis.
    "We don't waste our energies on drug wars and things we can't change," says Anita Marxer, who runs the injection center in Bern.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Wevs wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    It is stopping the tradition of treating law-abiding citizens as criminals.

    How does that make sense. It's still a law even if people think it's unjust.

    Sorry Pretentio, I should have said "otherwise law-abiding". You'd have Thoreau turning in his grave.
    If it were legal they could be sold wherever.

    Really? Have you really just made this point? Have you really just come in here and made the point that governments cannot limit the premises through which substances and products are and are not allowed to be sold even if they are 'legal'? Have you really just done that? Because I can forget about it if you can.
    you don't seem to understand that people shouldn't need help because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    Why?
    I've seen too many people get completely fucked by coke, meth, and etc. to even accept what you're saying. I hope you'll never see people the way I've seen them.

    We're all very aware of the hard drug poster children. The fact is the majority of coke and heroin users are not addicts. And for those who are addicts, and would be regardless of the legality of the drug because you and your band of anti-drug clowns will never have the competency to effectively keep drugs out of society even if you treat them and punish them worse than murders and rapists (which, by the way, you do), we should be making every effort to make these drugs as safe as possible for them and to minimise the crime associated with them. Unless you wish to argue that there are no such thing as alcohol and tobacco addicts. Because there are. How much alcohol-addiciton related crime can you find for me?

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    WevsWevs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Is there an illegal drug that people use more than alcohol.

    Wevs on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen

    why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I know when the Dutch legalized drugs they had a a small spike in usage followed by a gradual tapering off. People would probably be more likely to try a drug if ti were legal but not too many will continue using it for the long term.

    From what I understand, the Dutch never legalized hard drugs.

    Edit: the Swiss study Locks brought up is the closest thing to that, and it involved a tightly-monitered prescription program for habitual addicts, not an unregulated public supply.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen

    why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!

    See: my post, locks' post, other peoples' posts.

    Basically, in them, we point out that while drugs are very bad, legalization does in fact curb crime, death, addiction, and not increase usage.

    Drugs are very bad. But making criminals out of users is worse.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Switzerland's lead is being followed by a small but growing number of countries disillusioned with "zero-tolerance" U.S. drug polices. That has put the Swiss at odds with the U.S. government, which criticizes the Swiss approach and maintains that "drug use is widespread" among the country's 7.1-million people.

    However, the United States' own figures belie that claim. According to the State Department's latest report on global drug trends, marijuana is by far the most commonly used drug here yet is smoked by less than 8 percent of all Swiss -- a rate not out of line with other Western European countries and the United States.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen

    why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!

    Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.

    Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.

    The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.

    There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.

    So yeah, try again.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    I know when the Dutch legalized drugs they had a a small spike in usage followed by a gradual tapering off. People would probably be more likely to try a drug if ti were legal but not too many will continue using it for the long term.

    From what I understand, the Dutch never legalized hard drugs.

    Edit: the Swiss study Locks brought up is the closest thing to that, and it involved a tightly-monitered prescription program for habitual addicts, not an unregulated public supply.

    so there is a middle ground to be had here

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    From what I understand, the Dutch never legalized hard drugs.

    They're decriminalized. You cannot be busted for buying/possession in any way, unless you have excessive amounts of the stuff on you.

    Techincally, they're illegal, except in certain amounts. It's a weird sort of compromise, but the end result is basically decriminalization.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen

    why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!

    Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.

    Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.

    The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.

    There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.

    So yeah, try again.

    drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    We're forgetting the real reason drugs are illegal. Police leverage. most organized crime is built around drug trade. You follow the drugs you tap into any number of criminal networks. Drug charges are an easy effective way to leverage suspects for other things too.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?

    just curious.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    KNYTEKNYTE Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.

    hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen

    why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!

    See: my post, locks' post, other peoples' posts.

    Basically, in them, we point out that while drugs are very bad, legalization does in fact curb crime, death, addiction, and not increase usage.

    Drugs are very bad. But making criminals out of users is worse.

    No, pseudo-legalization as SLIGHTLY lessened drug related crime in OTHER COUNTRIES. There is not evidence to support the theory, nor do you have any way of knowing for sure, that that would apply to the United States.
    We're forgetting the real reason drugs are illegal. Police leverage. most organized crime is built around drug trade. You follow the drugs you tap into any number of criminal networks. Drug charges are an easy effective way to leverage suspects for other things too.

    lozl conspiracie rite?

    KNYTE on
    The best defense is a good offense.

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
    - Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Sign In or Register to comment.