Print Page | Close Window

Drug Law

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Discription: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=95098
Printed Date: April 23 2014 at 02:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Drug Law
Posted By: The Pessimist
Subject: Drug Law
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 08:37
This is a deep topic that has been the subject of many upon many a Question Time debate in the U, and I can imagine it is an ongoing issue across the world. I've given three options in the poll, but like all political views there are all the shades in between to consider, and it would be helpful for the debate if all voters would specify where they stand in the comments below.

As far as my personal opinion goes I am for decriminalisation. Not only that, but I think drug addiction should be seen as a medical illness and not a criminal offense. A few of my friends are or have once been addicted to narcotics and I've witnessed first hand that it really IS a gross psychological and medical issue. Further more I do not agree with methadone or even buprenorphine as a substitute to ween addicts off heroin as studies have shown that they are just as detremental and have proven to be an ineffective method of curbing the addiction.

There is a great video clip of Russel Brand talking about it and making some very valid points on the subject. Although I don't particularly like the guy, I do find myself agreeing with him on this topic.

[TUBE]O_LHuII-jYQ[/TUBE]

Just to clarify, any commenting on drug consumption or drug supplying outside of the subject matter, i.e. not regarding its legality, will not be tolerated and will no doubt be removed by the admins. I really hope that such comments do not emerge as this is an important subject and I would hate to see the thread closed because of irresponsible comments. I'm sure you pleasant folk on PA will post responsibly, but I must put this disclaimer.

Once more, comments on THE LEGAL POSITION OF DRUGS ONLY PLEASE.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg



Replies:
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 08:43
I voted legalization, but then again I'm pretty much an anarchist.
I don't think the government can keep people from reaching moods or physical states by prohibiting a type of product.

P.S. Nice idea for a poll!


-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 09:08
Decriminalization basically does nothing to keep the drug trade out of the gangs/criminal elements, nor out of kids' hands (which is something the government at least are concerned about).  Legalization makes much more sense for soft drugs.  That way they can tax them too, same as liquor and tobacco.  I don't see something like meth or crack or mescaline being legalized, but marijuana, shrooms and similar probably make sense.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">
[QUOTE=Vompatti]I wouldn't put a Warr guitar in my vagina.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 09:57
Full-on legalization. For everybody's sake (except law enforcement agencies and prisons who will lose one of their major cash cows). It will benefit not only the US but Mexico and other places where the US' stupid policies have generated violence and death. It will be better for addicts in many ways. It will be better for our revenues. And it will be better for parents IF they choose not to treat it as taboo as alcohol is treated in the US (can't drink till 21? that's so ridiculous)and instead educate and prevent use through education and not brute stupid force. 

-------------


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 09:58
But also, I forgot: it is compatible with a supposedly free society. 

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 11:44
Legalisation without any restraints: if people can legally buy and drink enough alcohol to die from ethylic coma, they should be able to do the same with ecstasy, heroine, PCP and all that stuff.

Of course, I don't consume any kind of drugs (I can't even stand the foul stench of marijuana), but I would be glad to see my neighbours becoming zombies hooked to their needles.


-------------


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 11:52
Legalization. The past say hundred years of the opposite has done the human race nothing good. There is a huge responsibility involved though, and I'm not sure most folks are aware of this. It's dangerous to force one's 'freedom' onto innocent bystanders. It's a tightrope really. 

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 11:54
They are probably zombies hooked on some legal sh*t anyway.

-------------


Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 11:58
Originally posted by CPicard

Legalisation without any restraints: if people can legally buy and drink enough alcohol to die from ethylic coma, they should be able to do the same with ecstasy, heroine, PCP and all that stuff.

Of course, I don't consume any kind of drugs (I can't even stand the foul stench of marijuana), but I would be glad to see my neighbours becoming zombies hooked to their needles.

Exactly. It's your fault if you can't handle what is legal and what isn't.


-------------
http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/

Weird? Maybe. Unique? Possibly. Prog? To Some. Pop? Not unless you're insane. Music? Supposedly


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 12:10
The trouble is in the west we still have a prominent relative proletariat, the poorer portion not having access to the education that is required to prevent heroin, cocaine, ketamine and methamphetamine use. Looking at how often and how much pretty much everyone drinks in the UK, I fear that these drugs will rapidly become more widespread if it is entirely legalised. Of course there is not enough data to back this up, but it is only my assumption. On the other hand, full prohibition is, I feel, a violation of our freedom.

Plus the services to get off heroin will be a lot more costly under legalisation than decriminalisation and thus less accessible. I mean just look at the price of Nicorette products... It's cheaper to buy cigarettes!


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 12:37
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).

-------------


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 12:50
The people that fall in addiction with drugs being illegal are the same ones that would if it were legal. I don't think class has anything to do with this. Alcohol prohibition and alcohol tabooism like in the current US has shown to be terrible at preventing people who want to drink from actuay doing so.

The services to get off heroin would be costly, maybe, the equivalent to nicorette patches wouldn't be extremely cheap, maybe, but they would be there. Drugs would have better regulated quality and would drop in price, theft for drugs and overdose would diminish, the rush to obtain the next hit as if it were going to be the last in the minds of addicts would be lessened. And the cost of "services" to keep addicts off the streets and dealers off the street would go down because there wouldn't be an industry devoted to make profit out of the insane drug war.

But this industry is the reason the "war o drugs" will never end.

-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 12:53
Just for clarification purposes, what is the difference between decriminalization and legalization?  Doesn't making it not criminal in effect make it legal?  Or would that mean that it isn't criminal to use but it is still criminal to sell?

-------------


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 12:57
Originally posted by rushfan4

Just for clarification purposes, what is the difference between decriminalization and legalization?  

Decriminalization analogy:  (being caught) smoking pot would be equivalent to getting a speeding ticket.

While not fully legal, you would not be charged with a crime for engaging in it.


-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 16:03
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.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">
[QUOTE=Vompatti]I wouldn't put a Warr guitar in my vagina.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 16:06
I'm for legalization. A person should be free to consume whatever he wants.

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 16:17
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.

For real my parents wanted me to speak to a counselor about music addiction.


-------------
http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/

Weird? Maybe. Unique? Possibly. Prog? To Some. Pop? Not unless you're insane. Music? Supposedly


Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 17:11
Drugs are very bad for the government and should be illegalized at once!


-------------
http://www.nervoushorse.com/" rel="nofollow - Aria ariari isa, vena amiria asaria

DEATH TO TOTALITATARIAIANIMISM! UNBAN SHAKESPEARERARE


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 17:20
Decriminalisation
 
 
I actually favor full out legalization of marijuana, all the rest should be decriminalized. In theory, I suppose legalizing all drugs makes sense but in reality (damn real life eh?) such an idea would never get support...so decrim all + legalize marijuana I'd say is my ideal, realistic, goal


-------------
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 17:23
"With great trips comes great responsibility"

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 18:11
I kind of sit on the fence on this one.  I wrote a paper many years ago while in college that stated the reasons why drugs should be legalized.  Mainly for economic purposes of taxing the income on drug sales; freedom of choice purposes of one's right to make their own choices; public safety purposes for the elimination or reduction of illegal syndicates such as gangs and mobs; and individual health purposes by regulating the purity level of the drugs so they are at "safe" levels.  While I still mostly feel this way, I do realize that these are theoretical "positive" results of legalization.  The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic. 


-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 18:19
Originally posted by rushfan4

The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic. 


Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting.

Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">
[QUOTE=Vompatti]I wouldn't put a Warr guitar in my vagina.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 18:24
Originally posted by Vompatti

Drugs are very bad for the government and should be illegalized at once!


Wrong! It's the government that is bad for drugs! Beer


-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 18:31
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by rushfan4

The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic. 


Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting.

Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though
I suspect that this is probably true.  I am sure that I am in a minority that has never tried pot and has no real desire to do so, although if it were legal and I could order a joint to go with my pint of Killians I might just do that because I could.  I have a strong aversion to cigarette smoke though, so have really never had any desire to smoke anything or even be around smoke.  I can't really say that I am all that big of a fan of contact highs from attending concerts.  I kind of question the "smoking pot has had no ill effects on me" people, as most that I have met seem to be lacking quite a few brain cells.  I can't say that it might not be due to excessive alcohol or other drug use however.


-------------


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 18:56
Laws don't keep people from ruining themselves.

-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:11
drugz, k

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:16
More prisons, more prisons, more prisons.

Fill them all with potheads!!!

-------------
Excuse-moi d'casser ton fun mais j'me cherche une rime pour automne


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:18
Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by rushfan4

The big negative being easier access to these addictive drugs leading to more addictions and all of the negatives associated with drug addictions.  And I have to be honest that that kind of scares me.  How many people who wouldn't otherwise do drugs because they are illegal would just "try them once to see what it is like" because it is legal and accessible, become addicted, and completely ruin their lives?  I suppose that should be everyone's choice to make but it is possible that the outcome could be pretty catastrophic. 


Ask any teenager, it's way easier to get pot than alcohol when you are underage.  Pot is also less *chemically addicting.

Your point is very valid for most other illegal drugs, though
I suspect that this is probably true.  I am sure that I am in a minority that has never tried pot and has no real desire to do so, although if it were legal and I could order a joint to go with my pint of Killians I might just do that because I could.  I have a strong aversion to cigarette smoke though, so have really never had any desire to smoke anything or even be around smoke.  I can't really say that I am all that big of a fan of contact highs from attending concerts.  I kind of question the "smoking pot has had no ill effects on me" people, as most that I have met seem to be lacking quite a few brain cells.  I can't say that it might not be due to excessive alcohol or other drug use however.


Scott, your concerns are valid and not silly at all.  I did party back in the day, and all of my friends partied.  I can tell you first hand that if the weed were better quality, more available, with no consequences for using it, everyone I know would have indulged a lot more.  Instead, it was expensive, pretty poor quality, and carried risks. 

I don't know how people can say with a straight face that legalizing would not lead to much more use by young people, but then again, these are the same people who claim it is harmless.  It is far from harmless.  While it may not be physically addictive, the tars in good weed are damaging to your lungs over time and that is undeniable.  No, it may not kill you quickly, but like cigs if you use a lot over time it may well contribute to lung disease.  I won't even address psychological issues as there's much to debate there, but like you, I have the same experience with long time stoners....you just know they've been affected.  Maybe not all are affected in that way, but some clearly are.  I have seen this "harmless" drug contribute to the woes of some people I've known.  I've seen guys lose motivation, I've seen very smart guys lose interest in life as they became more interested in the next buzz. 

Legalizing will over time ingrain the message  that this drug is safe and no problem to use, or at the least it makes them a bit more likely to experiment.  While I admit the drug is fun, less deadly than alcohol in many ways, it is not harmless and making it legal means kids/young adults will use it more, and use more of it.  That's my opinion based on personal experience.  Had my circle of buddies had access to that great bud in the fancy glass jars, with no risk of trouble, we would have smoked our asses off.  Instead, it was somewhat difficult to get the good stuff, so often we didn't bother with any of it. 

I'm not a prude on this stuff and back then I would have argued the opposite view.  I still don't support harsh penalties for recreational use nor do I support job discrimination for a weed pee test positive.  But growing up and seeing the effects on good people I've known, you have to be honest with yourself.  It is not harmless and it is best avoided or used very sparingly.  I know the Libertarian argument would be , it's your choice, it's your body, blah blah blah.  If Johnie's life damaged because he used, that's his problem.  Maybe.  Looks good on paper.

I know saying this stuff here is opening myself to huge ridicule.  But its worth it to me to say to some of the teens who may read this, not everyone agrees with the popular message on this stuff.  Everyone wants you to swallow the "weed is harmless"  message now.  I encourage you to dig a little deeper and consider your body, think about how precious your lungs are.  I've seen people die from lung disease.  I know smoking is fun, I love it actually.  I loved weed  and I loved Cigs even more(though I don't use either anymore) .  It's very hard to give up these things once you start to enjoy them.  Think about all of it before you start...you might be one of the people who can't give it up.  I wish I hadn't abused myself as long as I  did.  I worry about COPD now every time I feel short of breath.  It's a very sh*tty way to die, trust me on that one. 

ok, enough babble.  I' don't really want a debate.  People are going to do what they do, and they'll decide on their own someday whether it was wise.  I just wanted to give one man's opinion looking back. 




-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:35
Jim, I respect your opinion, but I can say with a straight face that legalizing would probably lead to a really small (if any) increase in young drug use. I don't claim it is harmless. I say it as someone who has had not just contact with stoners and the such but with cases of real hard-drug addiction. More than one. And with enough people who have had chances and have never tried or re-tried of they did.

-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by Finnforest



I don't know how people can say with a straight face that legalizing would not lead to much more use by young people, but then again, these are the same people who claim it is harmless.  It is far from harmless.  While it may not be physically addictive, the tars in good weed are damaging to your lungs over time and that is undeniable.  No, it may not kill you quickly, but like cigs if you use a lot over time it may well contribute to lung disease.  I won't even address psychological issues as there's much to debate there, but like you, I have the same experience with long time stoners....you just know they've been affected.  Maybe not all are affected in that way, but some clearly are.  I have seen this "harmless" drug contribute to the woes of some people I've known.  I've seen guys lose motivation, I've seen very smart guys lose interest in life as they became more interested in the next buzz. 



This is an excellent comment. I don't exactly know where the notion that weed is "harmless" comes from. Too much Vitamin C is harmful for crying out loud... Marijuana is not just thin air. It is a toxin. The feeling of being high is your body telling you that something is foreign in your body and shouldn't be there, and our attraction to that feeling as humans is one of our many evolutionary blips.

Regarding the big dogs of the narcotics world, I would say that they are made class A and highly illegal due to the fact that you need only a very small amount to become hooked on a substance that is highly detrimental. They are illegal at the moment for a reason, but I really do feel that we come down too hard on addicts. The real issue for me is that addicts are treated as lesser people, which they are most certainly not, and also leads to knock on effects on the homeless population. I have lost count on how many people don't give to homeless people thinking that "They're just drug addicts and will spend all of my money on smack" is a valid excuse. Not only are they saying something hugely derogatory to the homeless population, but they are also making a general assumption on the homeless population that is backed up by little to no reliable evidence.

Decriminalisation making room for proper medical treatment will reduce the homeless population significantly I believe, for the above reasons.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:45
Originally posted by The T

Jim, I respect your opinion, but I can say with a straight face that legalizing would probably lead to a really small (if any) increase in young drug use. I don't claim it is harmless. I say it as someone who has had not just contact with stoners and the such but with cases of real hard-drug addiction. More than one. And with enough people who have had chances and have never tried or re-tried of they did.


This isn't a loaded question, but I'm just curious as to what sways you towards total legalisation as opposed to decriminalisation?


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:55
You can regulate it if it's legal.

You take the "taboo" and the "can't do it so I have to do it" thing if it's legal.

Addicts will be treated as addicts if they and their families are willing and not if a judge orders it so (unless it's something specific like drugged driving) if they are legal.

The cash cow of keeping thousands of small-time drug dealers who are just trying to earn an income in huge bloated jails for the jail-police industry will fade away if it's legal.

And out of principle. None should have a say in what other person puts in his/her body unless it harms someone else.

-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:58
Originally posted by Finnforest


I don't know how people can say with a straight face that legalizing would not lead to much more use by young people, but then again, these are the same people who claim it is harmless.



This has been shown this time and time again.  If it is legalized and only available for sale by government approved vendors, only to adults, it's far less available for young people than if it is in the hand of gangs and drugs dealers.  Any expert on the subject will tell you.  When Portugal decriminalized all drug use - which has far less impact at keeping the industry out of the hands of criminals as full legalization - they found adult use increased slightly but teen use decreased, for example.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">
[QUOTE=Vompatti]I wouldn't put a Warr guitar in my vagina.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 19:59
I think Scott's point is fair, but I think, overall, drug addiction and overdosing would decrease. If it's made legal, over time, drugs will become less of a social stigma and information on how to use drugs properly will become more widely available and it will also be a lot safer to buy and consume them, as we start regulating them.


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:03
Originally posted by The T

Jim, I respect your opinion, but I can say with a straight face that legalizing would probably lead to a really small (if any) increase in young drug use. I don't claim it is harmless. I say it as someone who has had not just contact with stoners and the such but with cases of real hard-drug addiction. More than one. And with enough people who have had chances and have never tried or re-tried of they did.



I wish I could agree, my friend.  But I know how I felt at 22.  Pretty ravenous, all of my buddies were.  If there were a weed store on the corner with that fancy bud, and a prevalent casual attitude in the society, not only would we have partied so much more but we would have easily brought some of our skeptical non-partying friends with us.  After all, the partying would be "OK" by society, not something frowned upon.  While that obviously didn't mean two sh*ts to me, it did impact some of the "good kids" that hung around us.  They abstained because they were concerned that it was illegal, and they were concerned about getting in trouble.  Take that away, and make it easy to get....you honestly don't think that would matter to the numbers?

I do agree that the drug war and the employment screening war need to be ratcheted way down.  Doing so would improve other problems.  But we don't have to all out legalize and push the harmless message, thus cause other problems at the same time. 



-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:07
That it be legal doesn't mean we would be saying it is harmless. Check how we managed to bring down tobacco use by attacking it without making it illegal. And I guess by now only 20 people on Earth think tobacco is harmless.

-------------


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:10
Originally posted by smartpatrol

I think Scott's point is fair, but I think, overall, drug addiction and overdosing would decrease. If it's made legal, over time, drugs will become less of a social stigma and information on how to use drugs properly will become more widely available and it will also be a lot safer to buy and consume them, as we start regulating them.


I think they would be abused more.  Think about how little regulation and "information" mean to HS/College kids with alcohol partying. 


-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:17
True, but still, if there was no information available, then even more people would drink like that.
But does that mean we should try to prevent them from doing that? Who are we to decide what some college student does to themselves


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:24
Originally posted by smartpatrol

True, but still, if there was no information available, then even more people would drink like that.
But does that mean we should try to prevent them from doing that? Who are we to decide what some college student does to themselves


I don't know man, there is more information now than ever, and I don't see problem drinking going down much. 

Two, yes we should try to prevent them from hurting themselves.  We love them if they are our kids, so of course we want to help them make good choices.  We won't always succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:25
^And only college students.
No high school pupils, not even middle school pupils.
And, of course, no middle age people (cf. Williams Burroughs). Ermm


-------------


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:29
Originally posted by The T

That it be legal doesn't mean we would be saying it is harmless. Check how we managed to bring down tobacco use by attacking it without making it illegal. And I guess by now only 20 people on Earth think tobacco is harmless.


It was fairly easy to bring down numbers when the majority of people use to smoke cigs, it was one huge fecking pool of people. We also have de facto Cig prohibition now and tax penalties which accounts for a good chunk of the decrease. 

Weed is different.  More exciting/fun, a different dynamic than cigs, and with less users than there were Cig smokers decades ago.  Therefore the numbers will not follow the cig use pattern, imo, especially as we are making it more available.   I don't believe that weed numbers will absolutely go through the roof, but I do believe more people will use and be damaged by their use.  Even if the number proves small it is a tragedy that really doesn't need our blessing as a society.  Cut back the psycho part of the drug war though, sure, we could go about things much smarter than we do. 

Idk, as I said, it's just my take.  I respect your views guys.  Have a good one!  Smile


-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:30
If my kids started doing drugs, I would be concerned and would try to make sure that they were at least using them healthily. But I don't think it should be made illegal

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:38
What do I vote if I couldn't care less?

-------------
http://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:43
Originally posted by Luna

What do I vote if I couldn't care less?


This comment suffices.  Thanks for letting us know.  Wink


-------------
Blessed Easter to you and yours...




Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:49
That probably came off as more cynical and bitchy than I wanted. 

I guess my point is that I don't do drugs or know any people who abuse drugs, therefore this doesn't affect me directly or indirectly. As a result, I can't be bothered to care about "what's good for everyone" because no one should have the power to do that. [JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE CRIMINALIZING DRUGS, RIGHT????????]


-------------
http://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 20:54
Originally posted by Luna

What do I vote if I couldn't care less?


Damn I should have put that as an option... Wait, it already is an option. Don't vote LOL

In response to the comments above regarding high school/college/university/whatever party drinking culture... I would say that the heroin/coke/meth/ket party culture is far less prominent than alcohol party culture. What is the reason for this other than the social stigma attached to it through illegalisation?

Furthermore, is there a safe way to use these drugs? Really? I think the fundamental part of their danger is the addictiveness of these substances, so I'd be very surprised to hear that there is a safe method of taking these drugs. I'm a smoker myself, and as we all know nicotine is highly addictive. Consequently I don't believe there is a safe way to smoke, because no matter how you take nicotine, all nicotine products will be eventually highly detrimentally to your health due to how "moreish" it is.

As far as the moral issue of human liberty goes... I'm on the fence here. I support free speech, but I also agree with political correctness. In a sense, political correctness contradicts free speech as a dialectic to reach a new thesis on the moderation of speech, and I think it is a good thing. To me, decriminalisation would be the new thesis created by the dialectic of legalisation of drugs against their current illegality. More common than not, morals do not coincide with effective law.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 21:00
Originally posted by Luna

That probably came off as more cynical and bitchy than I wanted. 

I guess my point is that I don't do drugs or know any people who abuse drugs, therefore this doesn't affect me directly or indirectly. As a result, I can't be bothered to care about "what's good for everyone" because no one should have the power to do that. [JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE CRIMINALIZING DRUGS, RIGHT????????]


Firstly, drugs effect a lot of people. It's a compassion thing. Secondly, if no one should have the power to decide what is best for everyone, how would that function in a society? Society can't function without laws. It can't just be a massive free for all. I understand your ideal, but it can't function, and so we have to take the most moral form of government which is in my view a democratic one.


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 21:03
Originally posted by The Pessimist

Originally posted by Luna

That probably came off as more cynical and bitchy than I wanted. 

I guess my point is that I don't do drugs or know any people who abuse drugs, therefore this doesn't affect me directly or indirectly. As a result, I can't be bothered to care about "what's good for everyone" because no one should have the power to do that. [JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE CRIMINALIZING DRUGS, RIGHT????????]


Firstly, drugs effect a lot of people. It's a compassion thing. Secondly, if no one should have the power to decide what is best for everyone, how would that function in a society? Society can't function without laws. It can't just be a massive free for all. I understand your ideal, but it can't function, and so we have to take the most moral form of government which is in my view a democratic one.
That's why I'm not in the government Tongue My own ideals prevent me from doing so and I'm fine with that.


-------------
http://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 21:20
I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body.

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 21:27
Originally posted by thellama73

I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body.


"...And here started a flood of dirty jokes..."


-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 22:13
Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by thellama73

I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body.


"...And here started a flood of dirty jokes..."






-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: September 05 2013 at 22:49
Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by thellama73

I voted decriminalization, because legalization implies that the government has some kind of legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body.


"...And here started a flood of dirty jokes..."

I don't think the government should control that kind of putting things in bodies either.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/I_am_A_Person" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 00:41
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.


-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 00:58
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.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">
[QUOTE=Vompatti]I wouldn't put a Warr guitar in my vagina.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 04:18
Originally posted by The Pessimist

I mean just look at the price of Nicorette products... It's cheaper to buy cigarettes!
Except they aren't more expensive - they are deliberately priced to be more or less the same as cigarettes, which in turn are artificially priced by excise tax alledgedly as a deterrent to buying them (and that single fact blows any idea of a libertarianism self-regulalting free-market out of the water). The rationale behind the price-rigging of Nicorette type products is to stop them becoming a replacement or enhancement for cigarettes.
 
 
I couldn't give a crap whether drugs are banned, decriminalised or legalised because I don't expect that it would make a whole load of difference. When laudanum, cocaine and opium were not illegal there was still drug abuse, addiction, health damage and death, and there was still direct and indirect criminal activity associated with it. I guess that fewer idiots will be buying drugs cut with strychnine or baking soda, or making spliffs with vegetable stock cubes, or paying $100 an oz for chanterelle or death cap mushrooms if they were legal but people are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325963/Cheznye-Emmons-British-backpacker-23-dies-drinking-poisoned-alcohol-Indonesia.html" rel="nofollow - dying from drinking counterfeit alcohol and they are http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5336" rel="nofollow - dying from legal highs  so I doubt that's going to change much either. Prohibition is another mixed bag of inconclusive results, abundant in false-positives, false-negatives, ill-formed causal associations and biased cherry-picking. The positive aspects of drug-use are also littered with selective data-mining, (as much as I admire Bill Hicks as a humourous social culture observer he was making a joke, not a sharp socio-cultural comment on the use of drugs in the creation of music). The only people who really gain out of legalising drugs are the governments that cream off their percentage at every step in the production, distribution and retail process and the Big Pharmaceutical corporations who will now be producing and marketting the legal products ... and we all trust those two paragons of virtue don't we guys.
 
 
We cannot change attitudes towards drugs with legislation and authoritative campaigns - the only people that affects are those that are rabidly opposed to drugs in the first place (cue letter to the Daily Mail by "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells").
 
IMO drugs (and that goes for alcohol and nicotine too) should be de-cooled - not by make being a dope, a druggie, a crackhead, a junkie, a drunkard, a smoker even more of a social stygma than it already is, (because everyone already knows that), but by peer pressure that regards anyone who indulges even casually as being a bit of a dick and a seriously uncool one at that. (I'm a nicotine adict btw).
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 05:14
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.


I know the actual effects differ, and that is due to the present substance. The point is that the concept of a harmful addiction is the same as with presumably milder addictions.
I think if drug use gets punished we should also consider punishing any other unhealthy addiction like gaming.

-------------


Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 08:21
I support full legalization of all drugs, but as a gradual process; despite my somewhat radical libertarian views I'm willing to acknowledge that legalizing all drugs all at once will probably just create more problems.  The first step is to decriminalize, to scale down the  "drug wars," and to end the most terrible atrocities of the present system.  Then legalize the softer drugs, then gradually the harder ones; it will give time for society (and especially the education system) to catch up.


-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 11:38
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by The Pessimist

I mean just look at the price of Nicorette products... It's cheaper to buy cigarettes!
Except they aren't more expensive - they are deliberately priced to be more or less the same as cigarettes, which in turn are artificially priced by excise tax alledgedly as a deterrent to buying them (and that single fact blows any idea of a libertarianism self-regulalting free-market out of the water). The rationale behind the price-rigging of Nicorette type products is to stop them becoming a replacement or enhancement for cigarettes.
 
 
I couldn't give a crap whether drugs are banned, decriminalised or legalised because I don't expect that it would make a whole load of difference. When laudanum, cocaine and opium were not illegal there was still drug abuse, addiction, health damage and death, and there was still direct and indirect criminal activity associated with it. I guess that fewer idiots will be buying drugs cut with strychnine or baking soda, or making spliffs with vegetable stock cubes, or paying $100 an oz for chanterelle or death cap mushrooms if they were legal but people are http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325963/Cheznye-Emmons-British-backpacker-23-dies-drinking-poisoned-alcohol-Indonesia.html" rel="nofollow - dying from drinking counterfeit alcohol and they are http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5336" rel="nofollow - dying from legal highs  so I doubt that's going to change much either. Prohibition is another mixed bag of inconclusive results, abundant in false-positives, false-negatives, ill-formed causal associations and biased cherry-picking. The positive aspects of drug-use are also littered with selective data-mining, (as much as I admire Bill Hicks as a humourous social culture observer he was making a joke, not a sharp socio-cultural comment on the use of drugs in the creation of music). The only people who really gain out of legalising drugs are the governments that cream off their percentage at every step in the production, distribution and retail process and the Big Pharmaceutical corporations who will now be producing and marketting the legal products ... and we all trust those two paragons of virtue don't we guys.
 
 
We cannot change attitudes towards drugs with legislation and authoritative campaigns - the only people that affects are those that are rabidly opposed to drugs in the first place (cue letter to the Daily Mail by "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells").
 
IMO drugs (and that goes for alcohol and nicotine too) should be de-cooled - not by make being a dope, a druggie, a crackhead, a junkie, a drunkard, a smoker even more of a social stygma than it already is, (because everyone already knows that), but by peer pressure that regards anyone who indulges even casually as being a bit of a dick and a seriously uncool one at that. (I'm a nicotine adict btw).
 


How do you feel about addiction being approached as a genuine medical condition (which it is) as opposed to being a criminal act?


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:14
Originally posted by The Pessimist


How do you feel about addiction being approached as a genuine medical condition (which it is) as opposed to being a criminal act?
Addiction isn't a criminal act and I can't think of a Western government that regards it as one. You can get thrown in the pokey for engaging in an illegal activity associated with, or is a direct or indirect consequence of, your addiction, but not for just being an addict - you cannot be arrested for being addicted, but you can for possession. I would imagine, (based upon my own nicotine addiction), that the chances of finding an addict not in possession is remote. Also it is very rare to become addicted to illegal substances without indulging in a criminal activity. In that respect the law is blind to whether you are addicted or not (or how harmful or addictive the substance is).  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/184/18409.htm" rel="nofollow - Almost half the UK prison population has an addiction problem , while I'm reluctant to make a causal connection, it is not unreasonable to assume that most of those were arrested and charged from offences relating to their drug addiction, whether that is possesion or mugging an old lady for money to feed the addiction.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:42
In the end, it is absurd to tell someone what substance they can or cannot put in their body. But when you consider the addictive potential of heroin or meth, I think we all can recognize the problem isn't so black and white. In some areas at least.

I support full legalization (18+ years of age) for marijuana and psychedelics and decriminalization for everything else except crack, meth, PCP, and other similarly addictive, destructive, and unpredictable drugs. Heroin and coke I'm on the fence about.


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: dr wu23
Date 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


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date 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


Posted By: dr wu23
Date 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.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date 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.


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date 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.

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Earendil
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: Blacksword
Date 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!


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: timothy leary
Date 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


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date 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


Posted By: CPicard
Date 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".


-------------


Posted By: Smurph
Date 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/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/

Weird? Maybe. Unique? Possibly. Prog? To Some. Pop? Not unless you're insane. Music? Supposedly


Posted By: CPicard
Date 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


-------------


Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: September 10 2013 at 21:49
No one can take Edward Penishands seriously.

-------------
http://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date 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


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 09:06
and a violation of the oath doctors take


Posted By: twseel
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 10:34
Liberty without responsability.

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



-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date 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


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 18:54
Originally posted by The Pessimist

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.


A difference... but not a long distance.


-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 11 2013 at 23:39
Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by The Pessimist

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.


A difference... but not a long distance.


So you are proposing that we just leave addicts to suffer without help by the sounds of things, although I may be jumping to a conclusion... Why? Isn't our fundamental purpose here to help each other and make life better for each other as opposed to letting pain consume someone because we feel they "deserve" it?


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 17:53
What? Confused Do you really think I'm such an insensitive monster? Shocked Of cours, I don't want addicts to suffer! Angry
I'll make you know that I'm in favor of euthanasia.


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 17:59
^ and if they're stoned they won't feel a thing.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 12 2013 at 20:52
They should legalize pot. Pot has been bringing people together since...since...

...ummm....I can't remember when.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 08:25
First, people legalize pot, but, soon after, they legalize Pol. Beware! Stern Smile


-------------


Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 13:27
Then I must have missed your point entirely

Also, slippery slope... Classic


-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 14:35
Yall call yourselves "progressives" poppycock!
All drugs should be made mandatory
 


-------------
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 14:46
You'd get bored by the monotony.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 15:22
Originally posted by JJLehto

Yall call yourselves "progressives" poppycock!
All drugs should be made mandatory
 


Is green mint tea considered as a drug? I don't know for you, but I always feel a bit dizzy after sniffing green mint tea bags.


-------------


Posted By: AnonymousLoner
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 17:37
I'm all for the legalization of pot. Maybe acid too. Hell, every drug really - I don't need no damned government telling me what I can and can't consume for my pleasures.

Pot will be legalized, then coke, and then every other drug out there. It'll be anarchy or something, guise!


-------------
"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and life to everything."

                                                ~ Plato


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 17:47
Coke's legal.
 
 
 
 
 
Pepsi too. Not sure about Dr Pepper. Clearasil's legal too but that leaves a soapy aftertaste.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: AnonymousLoner
Date Posted: September 13 2013 at 17:54
Chug down three or more cans of either soft drinks in a short period of time and you'll be able to catch Road Runner. Ah, the powers of crack caffeine.

-------------
"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and life to everything."

                                                ~ Plato



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk