I think when I speak on that issue I'm talking specifically about someone that you are in a romantic relationship with, someone you can slip and fall again and again and they'll still be there for you. I put friends and family in a totally different category, and totally think having them there is a great thing.
It's really, really hard for a romantic partner to give the appropriate mix of "I love you honey and I want to help you through this" and "But my patience is finite and if you act like an abusive jackass again I will put you down."
Most err too much on one side or the other, or vacillate wildly between the two.
Which is why partners of addicts should also obtain their own, individual mental health support independent of the addicted partner.
(Wow, I sound like a shill for Psychologists, Inc.)
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think when I speak on that issue I'm talking specifically about someone that you are in a romantic relationship with, someone you can slip and fall again and again and they'll still be there for you. I put friends and family in a totally different category, and totally think having them there is a great thing.
It's really, really hard for a romantic partner to give the appropriate mix of "I love you honey and I want to help you through this" and "But my patience is finite and if you act like an abusive jackass again I will put you down."
Most err too much on one side or the other, or vacillate wildly between the two.
Yeah. thus why I was saying it was easier if you know, you just get dumped. and hey - if you love her then you might have something good at the end of that road besides sobriety.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
Actually this is the easy part. Existing legal-vice companies can kill the fuck out of organized crime on price. It's possible that some criminal organizations would turn their operations legit to be able to compete, but historically most will just find something else that's illegal and sell that because the risk-surcharge attached to contraband is the only thing that's making their business viable.
regulation to get rid of black markets already has a case study with cigarettes. here's a link about whats happened over the years in new york. starts out good and fine, but the more the local government used regulations and taxes as a source of revenue the more the market was pushed into less legal means. not to mention lowered revenue through the legitimate channels, sparking more taxes...
basically we're just moving the violence from the US border to somewhere local. maybe theres an overall reduction but it's not like crime is going to disappear.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
Actually this is the easy part. Existing legal-vice companies can kill the fuck out of organized crime on price. It's possible that some criminal organizations would turn their operations legit to be able to compete, but historically most will just find something else that's illegal and sell that because the risk-surcharge attached to contraband is the only thing that's making their business viable.
regulation to get rid of black markets already has a case study with cigarettes. here's a link about whats happened over the years in new york. starts out good and fine, but the more the local government used regulations and taxes as a source of revenue the more the market was pushed into less legal means. not to mention lowered revenue through the legitimate channels, sparking more taxes...
basically we're just moving the violence from the US border to somewhere local. maybe theres an overall reduction but it's not like crime is going to disappear.
If you legalize something to eliminate the black market and then make it more expensive than it was when it was contraband then yes you have fucked up and are a retarded legislator.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
Actually this is the easy part. Existing legal-vice companies can kill the fuck out of organized crime on price. It's possible that some criminal organizations would turn their operations legit to be able to compete, but historically most will just find something else that's illegal and sell that because the risk-surcharge attached to contraband is the only thing that's making their business viable.
regulation to get rid of black markets already has a case study with cigarettes. here's a link about whats happened over the years in new york. starts out good and fine, but the more the local government used regulations and taxes as a source of revenue the more the market was pushed into less legal means. not to mention lowered revenue through the legitimate channels, sparking more taxes...
basically we're just moving the violence from the US border to somewhere local. maybe theres an overall reduction but it's not like crime is going to disappear.
If you legalize something to eliminate the black market and then make it more expensive than it was when it was contraband then yes you have fucked up and are a retarded legislator.
Yeah the whole process hinges on the legit market outcompeting the black one. For example, the black market for alcohol isn't a big deal because it's pretty cheap, as long as you don't live in Ontario (*grumble*).
Someone will have to tell me how mind-altering drugs like heroine/coke are, because I have no personal experience, but I would posit that those who only like a 'small buzz' are probably not going to go for the harder drugs, and that legalizing such substances, if they are as bad as one is led to believe, would be incredibly irresponsible. If a mind-altering drug is powerful enough to significantly alter your perception of right and wrong, even in medium doses, it's not something I want people to just be able to walk into a store and buy.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
How much heroine/coke would have to be done for someone to reach the same 'danger level' as if they were seriously inebriated? How easy is it to misjudge? What are the consequences for too much consumption?
By my guess (I am just a layman who has not done serious reading on this subject), the reality leans heavily toward heroine being significantly more powerful, easier to misjudge/OD, with potentially more dire ramifications.
Personal aside:
This is why I always laugh at the argument that "It's our bodies, we can do what we want." Yes, it's your body, but your rights to it only extend in so far as it affects other people. In my opinion, you are perfectly welcome to do what you want so long as the consequences are truly only confined to yourself. But in practice, things are very seldom so clean and easy.
Ask the family member of someone who was run down by a drunk driver whether people have the right to do 'whatever they want' with their bodies and whether it's a good idea to legalize more and significantly more dangerous psychotropic drugs.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
It does?
I think you're conflating a big giant area between "Unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgement" which is a level you can get to with one decently made L.I.T. at a bar, and "liable to go into a bloody homicidal rage and kill people", which is fairly unlikely with any drug at all aside from maybe PCP or huge doses of steroids over a long period of time.
Someone will have to tell me how mind-altering drugs like heroine/coke are, because I have no personal experience, but I would posit that those who only like a 'small buzz' are probably not going to go for the harder drugs, and that legalizing such substances, if they are as bad as one is led to believe, would be incredibly irresponsible. If a mind-altering drug is powerful enough to significantly alter your perception of right and wrong, even in medium doses, it's not something I want people to just be able to walk into a store and buy.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
How much heroine/coke would have to be done for someone to reach the same 'danger level' as if they were seriously inebriated? How easy is it to misjudge? What are the consequences for too much consumption?
By my guess (I am just a layman who has not done serious reading on this subject), the reality leans heavily toward heroine being significantly more powerful, easier to misjudge/OD, with potentially more dire ramifications.
Personal aside:
This is why I always laugh at the argument that "It's our bodies, we can do what we want." Yes, it's your body, but your rights to it only extend in so far as it affects other people. In my opinion, you are perfectly welcome to do what you want so long as the consequences are truly only confined to yourself. But in practice, things are very seldom so clean and easy.
Ask the family member of someone who was run down by a drunk driver whether people have the right to do 'whatever they want' with their bodies and whether it's a good idea to legalize more and significantly more dangerous psychotropic drugs.
The thing to understand is that we're talking about different highs, not just different intensities. Heroin is not likely to cause you to punch a dude in the face (unless he has your heroin), because you'll be on a couch experiencing a four-hour full-body orgasm.
Coke, on the other hand, has a relatively high likelihood of causing you to punch a dude in the face. But statistically, alcohol is much more likely to cause this. Meth, at the end of the spectrum, is scary as shit. But all things considered, violence is not a frequent consequence of drug use.
That said, the harm of others is a relevant argument to bring up...but I would counter by saying that it's a question of personal responsibility. Just like when you get into a car or get drunk, you are taking that risk. Sometimes you lose control.
The fact is that, however unfortunate, this can't be handled by legislation. If it was, alcohol would have been banned in Britain decades ago.
Just keep in mind that legalization is not necessarily going to mean higher rates of use, or even more public use (which would probably still be punishable, much like public drunkenness/DUI). I agree that they can be dangerous to other people...I'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things, danger can only be factored into the legislation process to a certain extent. We value freedom, and it does have a dark side.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
It does?
I think you're conflating a big giant area between "Unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgement" which is a level you can get to with one decently made L.I.T. at a bar, and "liable to go into a bloody homicidal rage and kill people", which is fairly unlikely with any drug at all aside from maybe PCP or huge doses of steroids over a long period of time.
But the way you say it makes it seem like the only violence that comes out of drinking is vehicular. I know that's not what you're going for, but 'unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgment' doesn't begin to cover the range of shit that gets started because people got a little too excitable with a little too much drink - shit that probably would not have happened had the participants been in full command of their faculties.
But as long as we're touching on psychotropics and vehicular manslaughter/accidents, what is the pro-legalization camp's response to their argument on regulation when you point out that alcohol is regulated, and drunk driving laws are enforced, but the number of accidents due to drunk driving is still staggeringly high?
edit: @Torso - Thanks for the clarifications. Didn't know that.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
It does?
I think you're conflating a big giant area between "Unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgement" which is a level you can get to with one decently made L.I.T. at a bar, and "liable to go into a bloody homicidal rage and kill people", which is fairly unlikely with any drug at all aside from maybe PCP or huge doses of steroids over a long period of time.
But the way you say it makes it seem like the only violence that comes out of drinking is vehicular. I know that's not what you're going for, but 'unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgment' doesn't begin to cover the range of shit that gets started because people got a little too excitable with a little too much drink - shit that probably would not have happened had the participants been in full command of their faculties.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
As someone with pretty high alcohol tolerance, I'm going to have to point out that this is impressively false. Mental state is significantly altered after two drinks in a short period of time. I think the mis-step here is that mental states can be altered significantly without becoming dangerous. It takes something in the double-digit numbers of drinks before I'm likely to do things like faceplant on the walk home or black out, but after a couple shots or even one shot of something particularly strong I'm already more outgoing and less willing to get angry about things. The "little buzz" of which you speak is a significant alteration of mental state, one which can't really be achieved without directly altering cognitive function by an external means. And it would be pretty easy to OD on alcohol if Bacardi 151 was typically served by the pint.
This is why I always laugh at the argument that "It's our bodies, we can do what we want." Yes, it's your body, but your rights to it only extend in so far as it affects other people. In my opinion, you are perfectly welcome to do what you want so long as the consequences are truly only confined to yourself. But in practice, things are very seldom so clean and easy.
Ask the family member of someone who was run down by a drunk driver whether people have the right to do 'whatever they want' with their bodies and whether it's a good idea to legalize more and significantly more dangerous psychotropic drugs.
Yes, asking someone with a significant bias rooted in personal trauma is the best way to find the most rational approach to minimizing potential risk.
But as long as we're touching on psychotropics and vehicular manslaughter/accidents, what is the pro-legalization camp's response to their argument on regulation when you point out that alcohol is regulated, and drunk driving laws are enforced, but the number of accidents due to drunk driving is still staggeringly high?
People make bad choices.
Seriously, what the hell kind of answer are you looking for?
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
It does?
I think you're conflating a big giant area between "Unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgement" which is a level you can get to with one decently made L.I.T. at a bar, and "liable to go into a bloody homicidal rage and kill people", which is fairly unlikely with any drug at all aside from maybe PCP or huge doses of steroids over a long period of time.
But the way you say it makes it seem like the only violence that comes out of drinking is vehicular. I know that's not what you're going for, but 'unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgment' doesn't begin to cover the range of shit that gets started because people got a little too excitable with a little too much drink - shit that probably would not have happened had the participants been in full command of their faculties.
But as long as we're touching on psychotropics and vehicular manslaughter/accidents, what is the pro-legalization camp's response to their argument on regulation when you point out that alcohol is regulated, and drunk driving laws are enforced, but the number of accidents due to drunk driving is still staggeringly high?
edit: @Torso - Thanks for the clarifications. Didn't know that.
So are you at this point arguing that instead of legalizing things, we should be trying to ban things that are already legal? I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.
As someone with pretty high alcohol tolerance, I'm going to have to point out that this is impressively false. Mental state is significantly altered after two drinks in a short period of time. I think the mis-step here is that mental states can be altered significantly without becoming dangerous. It takes something in the double-digit numbers of drinks before I'm likely to do things like faceplant on the walk home or black out, but after a couple shots or even one shot of something particularly strong I'm already more outgoing and less willing to get angry about things. The "little buzz" of which you speak is a significant alteration of mental state, one which can't really be achieved without directly altering cognitive function by an external means. And it would be pretty easy to OD on alcohol if Bacardi 151 was typically served by the pint.
Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. Virtually any alcohol consumption represents an altered mental state. Most people could probably drink themselves into a coma without becoming dangerous to others, some people have impaired judgment and dangerous, whether though becoming more potentially violent or doing activities which put others at risk, after minimal consumption. It's not as simple as "after 5 drinks you become a danger to yourself and others and so no one should ever drink more than that", if it was then no one would ever get into trouble.
But as long as we're touching on psychotropics and vehicular manslaughter/accidents, what is the pro-legalization camp's response to their argument on regulation when you point out that alcohol is regulated, and drunk driving laws are enforced, but the number of accidents due to drunk driving is still staggeringly high?
There is little evidence that if alcohol were banned again, drunk driving rates would plummet. And the money raised from the taxes surrounding alcohol can help pay for the enforcement of said drunk driving laws. People are already doing stupid shit on drugs. We already tried, and failed, to stop that.
Also, while I doubt there is any empirical evidence to support this, I'd imagine that meth rates would drop post-legalization. Why would you do meth when a better, but still dangerous alternative is available in cocaine. Right now a lot of meth use seems to be bound up in the fact that it can be cooked at home whereas cocaine requires a foreign distribution channel. Legalisation for all intents and purposes would eliminate this. There would also be incentives to make the side effects less severe (possibly not withdrawal effects since companies would have an interest in maintaining addiction as perverse as that is). If I have the choice between Cocaine and Cocaine++ With Less Side Effects, I will probably choose the latter at a decent price premium.
As an aside, since overdosing has come up, I just want to throw a tidbit in here.
Some overdoses are what they sound like- too much, all at once.
But there's another kind of OD that is a bit scarier, but also important to know about.
So: you're addicted to heroin. You've been using for a few months, every day after school, say in your basement after dinner. The heroin acts like endorphins, so your brain reduces endorphins production gradually, because the new outside source is providing them. In addition, your brain adapts to your routine: when you go down the stairs after dinner, it anticipates the heroin, so it drops your endorphins even more, just to make way for the rush. You shoot up, get happy and high.
One day your friend says, hey, let's go out behind the school and shoot up. You love smack, so you say, sure. Your levels of endorphins remain the same, because your brain isn't anticipating use. You shoot up, and suddenly, between the dope and the real endorphins, your brain has more neurotransmitters than it can handle (in simplistic terms). You go into shock.
You didn't take more than usual, you just broke the routine.
So sometimes, an OD has nothing to do with an excessive dose. I don't think it's entirely relevant, but hey, the more you know.
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
Soma sounds to me like strong weed without the munchies.
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
You realize of course that those who created and distributed Soma were supposed to be the bad guys right?
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
You realize of course that those who created and distributed Soma were supposed to be the bad guys right?
Yes, but if we're going with utilitarianism, IMHO they rock.
The May issue of the American Journal of Public Health has the (apparently) first study of the effect of legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam on consumption versus a comparable US city, San Francisco. No increase due to legalization, with the US city actually somewhat worse on all the metrics.
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
Soma sounds to me like strong weed without the munchies.
The munchies are like the best part of weed!
Indica1 on
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
The May issue of the American Journal of Public Health has the (apparently) first study of the effect of legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam on consumption versus a comparable US city, San Francisco. No increase due to legalization, with the US city actually somewhat worse on all the metrics.
I like that study...but...
• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
Mmmm, why are people who have not used at all grouped with people who've used less than once per week? Or would 50/50 and 90/10 ratio somehow be insignificant?
Also, for the thread title, I have no problem with full drug legalization, but writing the law for it would be a feat worthy of a novel.
I still think the only option with hints of success is complete declassification coupled with a massive funding of rehabilitation programs and proper education.
The May issue of the American Journal of Public Health has the (apparently) first study of the effect of legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam on consumption versus a comparable US city, San Francisco. No increase due to legalization, with the US city actually somewhat worse on all the metrics.
I like that study...but...
• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
Mmmm, why are people who have not used at all grouped with people who've used less than once per week? Or would 50/50 and 90/10 ratio somehow be insignificant?
Does use less than once per week have any significant consequences over not using ever?
The May issue of the American Journal of Public Health has the (apparently) first study of the effect of legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam on consumption versus a comparable US city, San Francisco. No increase due to legalization, with the US city actually somewhat worse on all the metrics.
I like that study...but...
• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
Mmmm, why are people who have not used at all grouped with people who've used less than once per week? Or would 50/50 and 90/10 ratio somehow be insignificant?
Does use less than once per week have any significant consequences over not using ever?
As far as health or harm to society goes, I'd think not, I didn't realize those are the angles they are covering and thought they are also interested in prohibition as a deterrent to using in general.
Perhaps it's just difficult to find people in either city who have never used. I guess the utility of that question to the question of deterring use is dubious, though if we ask about abuse it's useful.
Their methodology involved only people who used 25+ times tho, so I'd have thought it interesting to see if there is an actual difference in the percentages.
I agree that it's somehow a moot point. It's probably even in the original study, but the article choose to present it that way.
Their methodology involved only people who used 25+ times tho, so I'd have thought it interesting to see if there is an actual difference in the percentages.
I agree that it's somehow a moot point. It's probably even in the original study, but the article choose to present it that way.
Yeah, this is the problem with articles that reference studies instead of actual studies. Sometimes they tell you enough to know what the study actually shoes, other times they end up not telling you shit.
On a different note, I've always been fascinated by the Brave New World approach to solving the drug problem.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
You realize of course that those who created and distributed Soma were supposed to be the bad guys right?
I think that they were ultimately the bad guys. However, one can reasonably argue that they produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
Obama notes that one of the most popular questions posed online was "whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation."
"I don't know what that says about the online audience," the president says with chuckle.
"The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."
Obama bows to entrenched interests ITT.
Plus he didn't answer the question anyhow. Legalisation could do almost nothing but grow the non-government sectors of the economy. Right now interdiction and incarceration is a pure resource sink, much of which is being spent outside our borders anyhow.
Obama notes that one of the most popular questions posed online was "whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation."
"I don't know what that says about the online audience," the president says with chuckle.
"The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."
If only pot smokers weren't too busy[html] <strike>sitting on the couch and eating dorritos</strike>[/html] having productive jobs and being normal citizens, they could push the issue a bit more. Also, I give up on trying to get html to work.
Posts
It's really, really hard for a romantic partner to give the appropriate mix of "I love you honey and I want to help you through this" and "But my patience is finite and if you act like an abusive jackass again I will put you down."
Most err too much on one side or the other, or vacillate wildly between the two.
Which is why partners of addicts should also obtain their own, individual mental health support independent of the addicted partner.
(Wow, I sound like a shill for Psychologists, Inc.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah. thus why I was saying it was easier if you know, you just get dumped. and hey - if you love her then you might have something good at the end of that road besides sobriety.
regulation to get rid of black markets already has a case study with cigarettes. here's a link about whats happened over the years in new york. starts out good and fine, but the more the local government used regulations and taxes as a source of revenue the more the market was pushed into less legal means. not to mention lowered revenue through the legitimate channels, sparking more taxes...
basically we're just moving the violence from the US border to somewhere local. maybe theres an overall reduction but it's not like crime is going to disappear.
If you legalize something to eliminate the black market and then make it more expensive than it was when it was contraband then yes you have fucked up and are a retarded legislator.
Yes, it's true that alcohol is a psychotropic drug, but it takes a comparatively large consumption from legal sources to achieve a significantly altered state, (always allowing for differences in constitution, body type, and % of alcohol in drink.) The reason why it's regulated is because people become a danger to themselves and others when they've ingested too much.
How much heroine/coke would have to be done for someone to reach the same 'danger level' as if they were seriously inebriated? How easy is it to misjudge? What are the consequences for too much consumption?
By my guess (I am just a layman who has not done serious reading on this subject), the reality leans heavily toward heroine being significantly more powerful, easier to misjudge/OD, with potentially more dire ramifications.
Personal aside:
Ask the family member of someone who was run down by a drunk driver whether people have the right to do 'whatever they want' with their bodies and whether it's a good idea to legalize more and significantly more dangerous psychotropic drugs.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
It does?
I think you're conflating a big giant area between "Unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgement" which is a level you can get to with one decently made L.I.T. at a bar, and "liable to go into a bloody homicidal rage and kill people", which is fairly unlikely with any drug at all aside from maybe PCP or huge doses of steroids over a long period of time.
Coke, on the other hand, has a relatively high likelihood of causing you to punch a dude in the face. But statistically, alcohol is much more likely to cause this. Meth, at the end of the spectrum, is scary as shit. But all things considered, violence is not a frequent consequence of drug use.
That said, the harm of others is a relevant argument to bring up...but I would counter by saying that it's a question of personal responsibility. Just like when you get into a car or get drunk, you are taking that risk. Sometimes you lose control.
The fact is that, however unfortunate, this can't be handled by legislation. If it was, alcohol would have been banned in Britain decades ago.
Just keep in mind that legalization is not necessarily going to mean higher rates of use, or even more public use (which would probably still be punishable, much like public drunkenness/DUI). I agree that they can be dangerous to other people...I'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things, danger can only be factored into the legislation process to a certain extent. We value freedom, and it does have a dark side.
But the way you say it makes it seem like the only violence that comes out of drinking is vehicular. I know that's not what you're going for, but 'unsafe to drive a car and somewhat impaired judgment' doesn't begin to cover the range of shit that gets started because people got a little too excitable with a little too much drink - shit that probably would not have happened had the participants been in full command of their faculties.
But as long as we're touching on psychotropics and vehicular manslaughter/accidents, what is the pro-legalization camp's response to their argument on regulation when you point out that alcohol is regulated, and drunk driving laws are enforced, but the number of accidents due to drunk driving is still staggeringly high?
edit: @Torso - Thanks for the clarifications. Didn't know that.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Read what I said again.
As someone with pretty high alcohol tolerance, I'm going to have to point out that this is impressively false. Mental state is significantly altered after two drinks in a short period of time. I think the mis-step here is that mental states can be altered significantly without becoming dangerous. It takes something in the double-digit numbers of drinks before I'm likely to do things like faceplant on the walk home or black out, but after a couple shots or even one shot of something particularly strong I'm already more outgoing and less willing to get angry about things. The "little buzz" of which you speak is a significant alteration of mental state, one which can't really be achieved without directly altering cognitive function by an external means. And it would be pretty easy to OD on alcohol if Bacardi 151 was typically served by the pint.
Yes, asking someone with a significant bias rooted in personal trauma is the best way to find the most rational approach to minimizing potential risk.
People make bad choices.
Seriously, what the hell kind of answer are you looking for?
So are you at this point arguing that instead of legalizing things, we should be trying to ban things that are already legal? I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.
Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. Virtually any alcohol consumption represents an altered mental state. Most people could probably drink themselves into a coma without becoming dangerous to others, some people have impaired judgment and dangerous, whether though becoming more potentially violent or doing activities which put others at risk, after minimal consumption. It's not as simple as "after 5 drinks you become a danger to yourself and others and so no one should ever drink more than that", if it was then no one would ever get into trouble.
There is little evidence that if alcohol were banned again, drunk driving rates would plummet. And the money raised from the taxes surrounding alcohol can help pay for the enforcement of said drunk driving laws. People are already doing stupid shit on drugs. We already tried, and failed, to stop that.
Also, while I doubt there is any empirical evidence to support this, I'd imagine that meth rates would drop post-legalization. Why would you do meth when a better, but still dangerous alternative is available in cocaine. Right now a lot of meth use seems to be bound up in the fact that it can be cooked at home whereas cocaine requires a foreign distribution channel. Legalisation for all intents and purposes would eliminate this. There would also be incentives to make the side effects less severe (possibly not withdrawal effects since companies would have an interest in maintaining addiction as perverse as that is). If I have the choice between Cocaine and Cocaine++ With Less Side Effects, I will probably choose the latter at a decent price premium.
Some overdoses are what they sound like- too much, all at once.
But there's another kind of OD that is a bit scarier, but also important to know about.
So: you're addicted to heroin. You've been using for a few months, every day after school, say in your basement after dinner. The heroin acts like endorphins, so your brain reduces endorphins production gradually, because the new outside source is providing them. In addition, your brain adapts to your routine: when you go down the stairs after dinner, it anticipates the heroin, so it drops your endorphins even more, just to make way for the rush. You shoot up, get happy and high.
One day your friend says, hey, let's go out behind the school and shoot up. You love smack, so you say, sure. Your levels of endorphins remain the same, because your brain isn't anticipating use. You shoot up, and suddenly, between the dope and the real endorphins, your brain has more neurotransmitters than it can handle (in simplistic terms). You go into shock.
You didn't take more than usual, you just broke the routine.
So sometimes, an OD has nothing to do with an excessive dose. I don't think it's entirely relevant, but hey, the more you know.
Not for meth, but there is evidence in support of this for pot.
What if we let big pharma develop government-sanctioned drugs that are so fucking awesome, no one would want the street stuff anymore? Is this possible? Has it been seriously tried?
Soma sounds to me like strong weed without the munchies.
You realize of course that those who created and distributed Soma were supposed to be the bad guys right?
Yes, but if we're going with utilitarianism, IMHO they rock.
The May issue of the American Journal of Public Health has the (apparently) first study of the effect of legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam on consumption versus a comparable US city, San Francisco. No increase due to legalization, with the US city actually somewhat worse on all the metrics.
The munchies are like the best part of weed!
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
I like that study...but...
Mmmm, why are people who have not used at all grouped with people who've used less than once per week? Or would 50/50 and 90/10 ratio somehow be insignificant?
Also, for the thread title, I have no problem with full drug legalization, but writing the law for it would be a feat worthy of a novel.
Then it was made illegal.
Then heroin became a huge issue.
Now, obviously, correlation isn't causation, but still... Politicians = idiots.
Does use less than once per week have any significant consequences over not using ever?
As far as health or harm to society goes, I'd think not, I didn't realize those are the angles they are covering and thought they are also interested in prohibition as a deterrent to using in general.
I agree that it's somehow a moot point. It's probably even in the original study, but the article choose to present it that way.
Yeah, this is the problem with articles that reference studies instead of actual studies. Sometimes they tell you enough to know what the study actually shoes, other times they end up not telling you shit.
I think that they were ultimately the bad guys. However, one can reasonably argue that they produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
Either way, it doesn't make it a bad idea.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions/
Click on the economy section and read the top questions.
Lots and lots of legalization questions.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Ah man! Why did he pass up the green collar joke?
Obama bows to entrenched interests ITT.
Plus he didn't answer the question anyhow. Legalisation could do almost nothing but grow the non-government sectors of the economy. Right now interdiction and incarceration is a pure resource sink, much of which is being spent outside our borders anyhow.
At least talk about why he thinks it wouldn't work.
This is disappointing.
Legalization is going to be a state issue for a long time before it can be seriously discussed federally.
I am still rather disappointed that it can't be discussed. They aren't even willing to talk about it.
For... what reason? It's too dangerous, politically?
If only pot smokers weren't too busy[html] <strike>sitting on the couch and eating dorritos</strike>[/html] having productive jobs and being normal citizens, they could push the issue a bit more. Also, I give up on trying to get html to work.