Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Drug Law
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Drug Law

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Poll Question: What is your position on drug legislation??
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [13.79%]
11 [37.93%]
14 [48.28%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3319
Post Options Post Options   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Drug Law
    Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:07
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 
Et In Arcadia Ego
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3684
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Pessimist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by dr wu23

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 


I agree with the vagueness of the first issue you mentioned, but a psychedelic would be more likely to harm a child due to it activating certain parts of the developing brain prematurely. If we consider an adult to be someone who's brain and body are fully developed then we are talking 21/22 years of age. Mind altering substances generally have negative effects on the brain, which are magnified when a brain is developing.

Dean, I agree with you, perhaps my statement was a tad careless and ambiguous... I meant to really ask what your views were on penalizing possession?
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3319
Post Options Post Options   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 10:32
Originally posted by The Pessimist

Originally posted by dr wu23

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by twseel

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).


By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.
Indeed. Any hobby that pulls you to sitting inside for a long time will be as harmful as drugs on the long term.
Drugs is only forbidden because the addictive pleasure comes from an otherwise harmless substance instead of a fun concept.


Well, no.  There is a pretty obvious physical difference when you are actually putting foreign plants or chemicals in your body.  Even drugs that aren't proven to be chemically addicting at all - and something like pot is NOT an example of that, though it is less addicting that alcohol or tobacco - are affecting your body in a way that a sport or book or whatever isn't.

If a child drops acid it can and probably will have a negative effect on their development.  The same is not true of listening to music.

This is why nobody (in politics) really favours legalizing recreational drugs outright.  Some regulation is necessary.
 
What age do you consider 'a child' and why would it , a psychedelic, automatically have a 'negative effect'..?
 


I agree with the vagueness of the first issue you mentioned, but a psychedelic would be more likely to harm a child due to it activating certain parts of the developing brain prematurely. If we consider an adult to be someone who's brain and body are fully developed then we are talking 21/22 years of age. Mind altering substances generally have negative effects on the brain, which are magnified when a brain is developing.

 
Activating certain parts of the brain..? Psychedelics don't  really 'activate' anything from what I understand. They can distort , alter, or  enhance  some sense perceptions which is what causes the 'psychedelic' aspects.
There is no actual 'physical harm' to any structures from what I have read over the years unless one has abused them.
 In lower doses they have been shown to be  beneficial in several types of psychological problems and many scientists were using them in therapy back in the late 50's and early 60's with very encouraging results until the gubbermint banned them due to them being abused by the counter culture movement and others.
Having said that I am not advocating their use as recreational drugs but it's interesting how the pharmaceuticals are allowed to dispense drugs that are much worse for people yet make millions from them.
Just an observation.
btw an excellent book that goes into the whole saga about lsd and related issues is called Acid Dreams by Lee and Shlain.


Edited by dr wu23 - September 07 2013 at 10:42
Et In Arcadia Ego
Back to Top
Metalmarsh89 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 15 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1070
Post Options Post Options   Quote Metalmarsh89 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 11:51
I opted decriminalization. The way I see it, anything that comes naturally from the earth should have no laws bound to it. People should not be prosecuted for what they grow in their garden and consume, whether it be pumpkins or hemp. But that's another matter. Anything that is created synthetically, whether it be food, drug, or medication, should have a much stricter ruling. So yes, I'm all for legalizing weed, but not heroin.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Online
Posts: 8773
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 23:01
I do respect the principle of preserving life, liberty, and property, but whether I should pick legalization or decriminalization is a difficult matter. I would say it depends on which drug we are talking about specifically.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - September 08 2013 at 23:06
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1554
Post Options Post Options   Quote Earendil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 09 2013 at 15:18
I think it should be a non-issue for decriminalization, but there's plenty of room for debate on whether all or some drugs should be legalized, which is what I want to have happen at this point- discussion.
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11108
Post Options Post Options   Quote Blacksword Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 07:36
I don't think it's a complex question. The reasons why recreational drugs are prohibited in most countries are political and nothing to do with the well being of a nations citizens.

How many times has the CIA and major global banks been caught trafficking drugs, laundering drug money etc? You get caught with an ounce of weed of you, in the UK, that could be deemed enough to be dealing. Worst case scenario it could land you over 10 years in prison. Meanwhile in Afghanistan US marines are instructed not to try and stop the opium poppy farming, because it could antagonise the locals. What does much of the revenue from the illegal drug trade fund? That's right, terrorism. Why are we in Afghanistan (oficially)? That's right, to fight terrorism..

It's a twisted world underpinned with dubious and contradictory morality. Personally I'm all for legalisation of drugs in principle. Such an initiative would have some serious teething problems, but ultimately it would, in my opinion, settle down as the market is regulated taxed and controlled.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26796
Post Options Post Options   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 11:42
Legalization, we already have laws on the books for any illegal misbehaviour people may do while on drugs.
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9096
Post Options Post Options   Quote CPicard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 15:18
Legalize the drugs, but stop reanimating people having O.D.s.
If someone suffers lethal wounds after a car crash because of DUI, no reanimation.
No medical care for people suffering of the consequences of the use of drugs.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3260
Post Options Post Options   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 15:26
Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Online Status: Online
Posts: 8773
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dayvenkirq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 20:17
Originally posted by Blacksword

I don't think it's a complex question. The reasons why recreational drugs are prohibited in most countries are political and nothing to do with the well being of a nations citizens.

How many times has the CIA and major global banks been caught trafficking drugs, laundering drug money etc? You get caught with an ounce of weed of you, in the UK, that could be deemed enough to be dealing. Worst case scenario it could land you over 10 years in prison. Meanwhile in Afghanistan US marines are instructed not to try and stop the opium poppy farming, because it could antagonise the locals. What does much of the revenue from the illegal drug trade fund? That's right, terrorism. Why are we in Afghanistan (oficially)? That's right, to fight terrorism..

It's a twisted world underpinned with dubious and contradictory morality. Personally I'm all for legalisation of drugs in principle. Such an initiative would have some serious teething problems, but ultimately it would, in my opinion, settle down as the market is regulated taxed and controlled.
I don't think it's about whether or not the government cares about the national well-being. It's more about the society expecting the government to control the society. That is, some of us want others to be controlled. I don't expect the government to care about us.
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9096
Post Options Post Options   Quote CPicard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:05
Originally posted by timothy leary

Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed


You would be surprised to learn what I already did to my "loved ones".
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2375
Post Options Post Options   Quote Smurph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:09
Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by timothy leary

Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed


You would be surprised to learn what I already did to my "loved ones".

My ears are more than open.
http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/

Weird? Maybe. Unique? Possibly. Prog? To Some. Pop? Not unless you're insane. Music? Supposedly
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9096
Post Options Post Options   Quote CPicard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:17
Originally posted by Smurph

Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by timothy leary

Because that is what you would want done if it is one of your loved ones who Od'ed


You would be surprised to learn what I already did to my "loved ones".

My ears are more than open.


I bought them cakes and pastries more than once. Stern Smile
Back to Top
Luna View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10689
Post Options Post Options   Quote Luna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:49
No one can take Edward Penishands seriously.
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3684
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Pessimist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 04:44
Originally posted by CPicard

Legalize the drugs, but stop reanimating people having O.D.s.
If someone suffers lethal wounds after a car crash because of DUI, no reanimation.
No medical care for people suffering of the consequences of the use of drugs.


Why not? Just because the wounds are self inflicted doesn't mean they don't deserve have. Addiction is an illness often caused by one little mistake that escalates. To assume that people making a very human mistake shouldn't be helped is cruel to say the least.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3260
Post Options Post Options   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 09:06
and a violation of the oath doctors take
Back to Top
twseel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: 52°42'N 5°17'E
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6948
Post Options Post Options   Quote twseel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 09:10
The question is also until how far the drugs would be the cause of the disease. If someone tried out weed once and gets a heart attack 30 years later we probably should take care of him.
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9096
Post Options Post Options   Quote CPicard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 10:34
Liberty without responsability.

Yeah, that's why we need to legalize drugs.

Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3684
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Pessimist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 12:03
Originally posted by CPicard

Liberty without responsability.

Yeah, that's why we need to legalize drugs.



I'm not proposing that it be legalised. There is quite a significant difference between legalisation and decriminalisation.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.