 |
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Giancarlo
--"They speak like it is the majority of the opinion, well it is not in the United States for that matter."
Then you haven't been paying very close attention. The War on Drugs does not have majority support, at least not in the case of marijuana. The majority of the US has several times indicated that they do not support this, up to and including passing state-level balot initiatives legalizing it.
--"I am for the Drug war, because I believe it is efficient"
Do you know how many billions we've spent on it? How much freedom we've lost because of it? And yet you can still buy any drug you want on the street, and even in prison. If we can't even keep drugs out of the prisons, what makes you think any part of this is efficient?
--"and not only that the national guard must be deployed in every city to end drug sales."
How are they going to do this? You think all the drug dealers are going to be putting out signs? Not to mention the number that are actually in the National Guard already...
Frankly this sounds more like fascism than anything else.
--" but is it really a personal freedom to fill yourself up with artificial stimulants and ruin your life? Is it a personal freedom to hold this opinion towards support for the drug war?"
Yes and yes.
--"But do it with respect towards the opposing opinion,"
Respect must be earned. I can respect the arguments of some people who support the War on Drugs, even if I don't agree with them. None of the arguments presented here in favor of the War on Drugs has earned any of my respect. If even one of you people were arguing that drugs should remain illegal to keep you from falling to temptation, then I could respect that. All this "stop them from doing what I don't like because I say so" just gets irritating. No one has presented a rational, factual argument in favor of the WoD here, or even addressed many of the main points raised against it (ie. it's effect on crime rates).
Drago Sinio
--"You are talking about who makes the choice, not whether or not the choice is moral."
See, this is the problem. You still haven't explained why hurting yourself is immoral.
--"If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you."
See, here's the thing (Giancarlo, you read this too). The US is not now, and never has been, a pure democracy. We're a democratic republic, and we were formed that way on purpose. The Founders did not like the idea of a pure democracy, calling it mob rule. They felt that was a danger to minority rights, and with good cause. That's why the Constitution was written as it was, to guarantee that the majority could not infringe on the rights of any minority (with the smallest minority being the individual, hence the foundation of individual rights).
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to wage a "War on Drugs" (the drugs, by the way, seem to be winning). There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the authority or power to dictate what people do or don't do to themselves in their own homes. They no more have the just power to tell us not to do drugs than they do to force us to participate in drug trials.
--"I do not need to know all things to know drug abuse is foolish and immoral."
Foolish I can understand and agree with, but I still can't see where you get immoral. Please explain.
November Adam
--"How do drugs affect a family?"
Dunno about anyone else here, but I'm single. There are a lot of us out there.
--"How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system?"
Well, it's more to the point that I don't care how it would effect a socialized health care system, because we shouldn't have one.
Wraith
"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?"
-- Harlon Carter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
Regarding Adam's point about the effect of drugs on families: if a person on drugs does something criminal to his family, such as abuse, that's a separate crime which can be dealt with by the legal system regardless of whether drugs are legal. If (s)he avoids criminal behavior but puts time, energy and money into drugs which could have been spent on the family. . . well, that's unfortunate but it's a matter of free choice. (And, I might add, the financial impact of the habit on the family would be a lot less if the drug in question were legal.) There are plenty of non-chemical choices a person can make which deprive his family of his time, energy and/or money. I pay a lot less attention to my wife and kid than I would if I didn't play computer games, read science fiction and post on Apolyton; should these activities be banned? If I were to quit my comfortable job, sink my savings into a new business and go bankrupt, my family's standard of living would plummet; should I be forbidden to take that risk?
There seems to be a belief among drug-war supporters that if we legalize drugs we'll be "a nation of addicts." This is nonsense if you think it through. Do you yourself use illegal drugs? If so, the law isn't stopping you, is it. If not, would you use them if they were legalized? I've never heard anyone answer yes to that last question. I know people who use and people who don't, but I don't personally know any non-user who I believe would start up if drugs were legal.
(Myself, I pretty much stopped using drugs when they became legal, in the sense that alcohol is an illegal drug if you're under 21 but legal if you're an adult.)
I apologize if either of these points have already been made in this thread. It was already two pages long when I found it, and I don't have time to go over every post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:17
|
|
Rex, libertarian hordes;
When heroine is illegal, it's true you can eventually get some if you want, but there's a huge barrier for a lot of people associated with the process of getting the drug. First you have to build up the courage to try something that might not be pure (the risk that I don't know what I'll be getting actually keeps me off ecstasy and speed, so I can answer your last question affirmative, Rex), then you have to seek out a pusher (and there are actually people out there, especially in small town communities, who don't know any pushers or places to obtain drugs - this especially applies to very young people) and then finally walk up to him and ask for his services.
That heroine wouldn't be much more used in a libertarian society can't possibly be correct. I think I questioned Berzerker about this before, but I might as well mention it again; if you guys are serious about your ideology, then you'll also allow commercials saying it's cool and hip to snort cocaine or do LSD, and then I think you're underestimated the advertising business if you think they won't boost the sale of drugs significantly, especially those that makes you come back for more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:17
|
|
I might add that I am a supporter of legalisation regarding cannabis and relative decriminalisation for the rest. I don't in any way support the so-called war on drugs, I'm merely speaking out against those who want to legalise everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
Monk's right: ideally I believe that it should be legal to use, make, buy, posess, sell and advertise drugs. (Adults only; I have no problem making any or all of these activities illegal for children, as we do with tobacco and alcohol.)
I don't believe in the godlike power of advertising to turn people into zombies who mindlessly do things to themselves that they know are harmful. I think the major effect of drug ads would be to influence a pot smoker to try Acapulco Gold brand instead of California Red. But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. If a ban on advertising was the price it took to get drugs legalized, I'd consider that an acceptable compromise, since the benefits (reduction in violence and property crime, freeing up of police resources, etc.) would be so huge.
In response to Kirnwaffen and others: of course drugs are the wrong choice; I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But freedom includes the right to make wrong choices. Otherwise it's not freedom, just a change of masters. (That's a quote, or at least a paraphrase, but I forget the source.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"1. Wraith.. do you have parents? Siblings? Grandparents?"
Yes, but at quite a distance. Unless I was doing LSD when my mother called and I, for some reason, decided to answer the phone (and was still capable of it), you'd be very hard pressed to argue that any of my drug use would effect them.
--"but there's a huge barrier for a lot of people associated with the process of getting the drug."
Not really. I mean, if you want to find a pusher you really don't need to look further than the local public high-school, although that certainly could qualify as a high-risk area you'd hesitate entering.
As far as commercials go, yes, why not? Cigarette and liquor companies can advertise now, what's the difference?
Really, a large part of the appeal of (starting) drug use these days is the whole forbidden fruit effect. I really can't see any advertising ever convincing me that heroin would be a good thing.
--"Any medical treatment that is provided at taxpayer expense"
Simple answer here is that no medical treatment should be provided at taxpayer expense.
--"Auto fatalities/injuries caused by someone who decided they were ok to drive when they were high"
Why do people always assume that legalizing marijuana would also mean repealing all DUI laws? I've never understood the logic behind this argument.
--"Families who suffer physically, emotionally, or financially due the drug habit of one or more members"
Now you're getting into the area Rex was talking about. Do we start jailing people for gambling? Collecting war memorabilia? Telling people about the Bognards from Hydroxyl 4 who are going to destroy the Earth? How about overworking? Just about any activity can be taken to harmful extremes.
--"Yet you haven't addressed my concerns regarding HEALTH,"
If we're going that route, you're going to be trying to ban junk food next. Looking at obesity numbers from the federal goverment, this would seem to be a far greater health problem in the US than drug usage.
--"but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you?"
Well, the thing is that smoking pot doesn't kill the person next to you. Driving while high can, but making that illegal isn't the same as saying all drugs should be outlawed. And we still haven't talked about those crazy truck-drivers on No-Doze and coffee.
--"Or increase their insurance premium?"
This is only an issue if insurace is state-mandated. As long as insurance is truly voluntary then it doesn't matter. Plans would be offered at different rates to those who were willing to forego (although it would probably require proof) drug usage if there was demand for it.
--"Or emotionally scar them for life?"
I don't think you've seen my opinions of the public schools 
Wraith
"It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself."
-- Justice Casey Percell
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Your argument seems to be that because one thing is bad for you lets make everything that is bad for you legal. |
No, my argument is that just because something is bad for you, that does not justify making it illegal. You own your life and your body, which means you are free to treat it as well or poorly as you choose. If you want to justify banning drugs, you have to find some reason other than the fact that they're bad for you.
I haven't, yet, seen someone die from substance abuse, but my oldest and dearest friend is an alcoholic/coke addict, and his life is a complete mess as a result. I've had to talk him out of suicide. That does not change my conviction that it was his life, and he had the right to throw it away as he did, regrettable as that was.
quote:
Freedom does indeed include the freedom to make wrong choices, but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you? Or increase their insurance premium? Or emotionally scar them for life? |
None of these questions can be answered with a flat yes or no; it's a matter of degree. Any time you drive a car, even cold sober, there's a chance you could make a mistake which causes a fatal accident. If you string lights on a Christmas tree, there's a chance that it could catch fire and the fire could spread to your neighbor's house. The level of risk associated with these activities is low enough that our laws allow them; activities with a higher risk level, such as drunk driving or firing a gun at random in the middle of the street, are forbidden.
With regard to risk imposed on others, I think the law treats alcohol in a reasonable manner. An adult is free to drink, but while under the influence he is not allowed to perform activities, such as driving, where his intoxication materially increases the risk imposed on others. I see no reason not to use the same rule for any other mind-altering substance.
Edit: Wraith posted while I was typing. As usual, he made the same arguments but more succinctly and readably.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirnwaffen
|
 |
Tryin' hard to chill in the city of Dis
Jul 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
As far as commercials go, yes, why not? Cigarette and liquor companies can advertise now |
Partially inaccurate. Cigarette companies, as far as I know, have been forbidden from all methods of advertising.
quote:
Simple answer here is that no medical treatment should be provided at taxpayer expense. |
Great, but it is. And while this service continues to be provided, a burden is put on the system by the medical consequences of drugs.
quote:
Why do people always assume that legalizing marijuana would also mean repealing all DUI laws? I've never understood the logic behind this argument |
Fine. I wasn't sure whether or not they covered controlled substances outside of alcohol.
quote:
Now you're getting into the area Rex was talking about. Do we start jailing people for gambling? Collecting war memorabilia? Telling people about the Bognards from Hydroxyl 4 who are going to destroy the Earth? How about overworking? Just about any activity can be taken to harmful extremes. |
Yes, most activities can be taken to harmful extremes, but, with the possible exception of gambling, most of the above activities are far more difficult to take to that level than drugs are.
quote:
Well, the thing is that smoking pot doesn't kill the person next to you. Driving while high can, but making that illegal isn't the same as saying all drugs should be outlawed. And we still haven't talked about those crazy truck-drivers on No-Doze and coffee. |
As long as someone with a job that requires focus to maintain a safe working environment has the professionalism to refrain from working for up to a day in order to fully recover from the effects of marijuana.
quote:
This is only an issue if insurace is state-mandated. As long as insurance is truly voluntary then it doesn't matter. Plans would be offered at different rates to those who were willing to forego (although it would probably require proof) drug usage if there was demand for it. |
Good idea, but I fear that insurance companies would be unlikely to offer plans to users due to the risk involved. If they were, it would likely be at a high rate which many may be unwilling to pay. This means one of three things now happens:
1. The user pays the hospital directly - unlikely if they are unwilling to pay for health insurance.
2. At a state subsidized hospital, the bill will be covered with tax payer money.
3. At a private hospital, the bill simply goes unpaid, which means that the care will be covered by the closing of unprofitable programs that, despite the lack of profit, still provide good patient care.
quote:
I don't think you've seen my opinions of the public schools |
No, I haven't. It's probably roughly similar to mine around finals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Drago - quote:
No, that is not accurate. You are taking words out of context. Note the topic refers to "Addicts" , and take another look at the context of the phrase you quoted. |
First, "addicts" is in quotes for a reason, to reflect what O'Reilly claimed. You made two statements:
quote:
It seems to me that criminal behaviour and drug abuse are further linked and interwined in that both activities are stupid and self destructive. The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes. |
While I understand your point about the context, you did switch from "drug abuse" to drug users in those two sentences. Since you apparently find this distinction important, does that mean you meant to exclude drug users from your accusations of foolishness and immorality?
quote:
I think it is valid. The fact that we are not immortal nor impervious to harm does not invalidate it. |
But the fact we all harm ourselves does.
You've offered a definition of immorality that applies to us all which makes it hypocritical to indict others when you're also guilty.
quote:
Every minute of every day is another choice made . Things are not black and white, they are shades of grey. It is not as if a single puff of smoke makes you a "bad person" or deciding not to take one makes you a "good person". All you can do is try to make the best choices, minute by minute and move on. In my opinion abusing a drug is a bad choice. It harms you, and it harms those around you. This is a fact. |
Are you still making a distinction between "abuse" and "use"? It would appear so... Since you've already explained that only the user is qualified to determine if they are an abuser, doesn't that make your definition meaningless? After all, we don't depend on the opinions of murderers to decide if murder is immoral.
quote:
No, those are examples, not generalizations. |
No, they are generalizations. These "examples" were your attempt to prove that drug "abuse" - a characterization you said could only be made by the user - is immoral. Claiming drug use or abuse is immoral because drug user "A" did something bad is a generalization and immoral in that using drug user "A" to "justify" punishing other drug users is punishing the innocent because of the guilty.
quote:
Yes, exactly. But we are just arguing over the meaning of the word. I looked it up in several web dictionaries, and the number one definition in each case was as shown below. |
The dictionary was written in a time when governments exist and dominate, not before government was invented to combat crime. If we could go back in time to that point where a group of people first invented government, I'll bet they didn't invent a new word for "crime", but merely used the word they were already using.
quote:
So I think my defintion is a better use of the word "crime" than yours. I think "sin" would be a more precise choice for what you are trying to describe , slavery or genocide. |
"Sin" is a religious concept. Crime is not only a legal concept, but the catalyst for the creation of government - self-defense.
But you can try telling slaves and the survivors of genocide that these were merely sins, not crimes The Declaration of Independence is, among other things, a lengthy list of crimes committed by their government. Frederick Douglas referred to slavery as "man-stealing" - a crime.
quote:
Avoiding sleep with drugs is a poorer choice than getting some sleep. A less moral choice, showing less regard for human life, your own and others. |
Losing your job for sleeping instead of delivering people or cargo is not always an option. Try telling your boss you need to sleep the next time you're at work and feeling a bit drowsy Would you have told the Allied flyers fighting the Battle of Britain that using speed to stay awake was a less than moral choice than sleeping? And just how does using a drug to stay awake constitute "less regard" if the drug prevents drowsiness? Maybe you consider it immoral now to drink coffee - which contains a drug - in the morning before heading off to work?
quote:
Well, I dont know about the legal issues, I am no lawyer. But to say that drug use is protected if it is religous seems doubtful to me. That is one possible interpretation- but the constitution does not specify that. |
So now the 1st Amendment was supposed to list all the possible religious activities people engage in as part of their religious freedom? That would take an encyclopedia. The "free exercise" of religion does specify which religious activities were protected, those that fall under the definition of freedom - the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action.
quote:
Always a sin, sometimes a crime. |
Always a sin, always a crime, legal or not.
Ever hear the term, "crimes against humanity"? This phrase is often used to describe crimes committed by governments against people under it's jurisdiction, rarely to describe crimes by individuals outside of government.
quote:
You are talking about who makes the choice, not whether or not the choice is moral. |
You claimed there was no relevant difference between hurting yourself or hurting another person. Claiming that hurting yourself is immoral because hurting someone else is immoral is illogical. Btw, if hurting another person is immoral, isn't it immoral to hurt drug users by punishing them?
quote:
If it is immoral to harm a human being, than who makes the choice is not relevant. |
You're the one claiming it is immoral to hurt a human being. Most people might agree until you tell them you mean hurting yourself too. Is it immoral to hurt someone trying to murder you? Again, you've come up with a definition of immorality that includes us all and ignores that people make trade offs between self-harm and gain. If I work as a construction worker, I will be harming my body, but I will be gaining something I want - money -which I can then use to buy something that might bring me pleasure.
quote:
It is still immoral. If you decide, or I decide, or George W Bush decides, it makes no difference in my opinion. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. |
If you decide it makes no difference in your opinion?
quote:
No, I said you risk damage, and it is better to avoid the risk. |
How does one avoid risk? We can't! So we evaluate the risk and compare it to the perceived benefit to be gained.
quote:
I agree that if you need to take a drug to improve your health, then that makes sense. Not the same thing as drug addiction or drug abuse, or taking drugs for entertainment. |
Not everything people do is designed to improve health. Eating tasty foods with high fat/sugar content is not healthful, but we seek the pleasure of these foods - a trade off. But does this mean you think people should be allowed to use drugs if they either improve health or diminish pain? Oh, while I'm at it, can I watch TV tonight, daddy?
quote:
Yes, I am afraid so. |
Nah, not even Jesus thought getting drunk once in a while was immoral. 
quote:
That is not a logical statement. Further, I avoid hurting myself, as much as I can. As do most people. |
Sure it's logical, if we all harm ourselve's, self-harm cannot be immoral. And apparently you've never played tackle football But whether or not most people avoid harm as much as possible is irrelevant, you said people who hurt themselves were immoral.
quote:
No, I disagree. Your vote counts as much as mine. If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you. I have not been elected Supreme World Ruler. |
This doesn't change the fact that you claimed you were not forcing your opinion on the rest of us when supporting the law IS forcing your opinion on the rest of us. The fact I can vote is irrelevant; and you're assuming the authority to act as a ruler by forcing us to obey your opinions about how we live our lives. The fact you have to share your rulership with other voters who don't believe in freedom doesn't change that reality.
quote:
This is not Africa nor Germany. |
The African slaves I mentioned were enslaved in many places, including here.
quote:
"Liberty and Justice for All" is a goal we aspire to , but can never perfectly attain. |
Not with people like you dictating what the rest of us can or cannot ingest.
quote:
Whats the old saying, we have the worst government in the world, except for all the other ones. ? |
Spoken by an advocate of democracy. Pointing to someone who says fascism is the best system doesn't prove it is...
quote:
I do not need to know all things to know drug abuse is foolish and immoral. |
You haven't proven it is foolish and your "proof" that it is immoral includes everyone.
Giancarlo - quote:
But I am stunned, just stunned to see how people speak here on their opposition to the drug war. |
Meaning we shouldn't speak here?
quote:
They speak like it is the majority of the opinion |
Who said they speak for the majority?
quote:
It is just stunning to see that people here think their opinion should be more highly valued then the other opinion, without consideration. |
And we should value yours more than our own? Convince us! And whose opinions have you considered? I rarely if ever see you actually respond to the arguments coming from our side while many on our side do respond to your arguments.
quote:
I am for the Drug war, because I believe it is efficient |
The fact the Nazis made the trains run on time is not a validation of Nazism.
quote:
Certainly, libertarians may rip my throat out for trying to abolish personal freedoms, but is it really a personal freedom to fill yourself up with artificial stimulants and ruin your life? |
Yes, you don't own the human race (see definition of freedom in my next response).
quote:
Is it a personal freedom to hold this opinion towards support for the drug war? |
Depends. I'm not free to express the opinion that my employee should murder you. But I suspect you miss typed... Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action. While I've never seen anyone dispute this definition when it comes to their own freedom, for some reason, they start creating "loopholes" in it when it comes to the freedom of others they don't like.
quote:
If you want to show opposition to the drug war, then by all means express yourself. But do it with respect towards the opposing opinion, which by the matter is the majority in the United States and you will thusly get respect back. |
Were opponents of the drug war dis-respecting the opinions of others in this thread? Sorry, but I'm not going to pat people on the back for claiming ownership of my existence.
Adam - quote:
Even if the person using them doesn't actually cause direct harm, there is always indirect harm. |
I asked you to offer specifics the last time you used a vague catch-all, now you offer up "indirect harm"?
quote:
Ever watch a loved one slowly kill themselves with drugs? |
Alcohol, yes, very sad, but nothing anyone could do mattered. Even putting him and the millions of alcohol users in cages for using that drug wouldn't have helped since prohibition doesn't work.
quote:
They aren't doing anything directly to you, but wait! You care about them and don't want to see them hurt. |
And millions of people can and have used illegal drugs without meeting the "fate" you claim awaits them. Funny you would put them in cages with real criminals to keep them from hurting themselves 
quote:
How bout having to explain to your child why daddy smells like a skunk, and gets very loud, and doesn't act normal. Kinda scarry for that child I would think. |
Should we make darkness illegal? Do you support banning alcohol?
quote:
These are a few examples of how a child would be affected... want more? |
No, I'm tired of your generalizations. Using the "bad" people in your examples to "justify" hurting millions of people is immoral.
quote:
How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system? |
The absence of proof is not proof your claims are valid.
quote:
Now I don't have any statisics, but who cares about them as anyone can pull numbers out of a hat. Now this may seem like a cold way to look at it, but here ya go. Tobacoo, what happens to the person? Lung cancer, emphesima, etc. Sure the person dies sooner, but they don't just go poof, and fall over, they linger, putting a drain on a medical system. As well as removing themselves from the work force sooner. |
Do you want to ban tobacco? Very, very few pot smokers continue so far into their life as to cause these ailments; that's probably why there has never been a recorded death attributed to ailments caused by marijuana. You are putting a drain on the medical system by advocating a policy that creates more crime than it prevents.
quote:
Alchol... liver failure, jerkitis (this is where your a jerk to someone, and they clock you), etc. (I'm not a doctor obviously). Another one that puts a drag on the med system. So from these 2 I conclude that legalizing other drugs sure as well won't help. |
But banning these two drugs would help?
I suggest you compare the number of deaths related to alcohol and tobacco with ALL the illegal drugs combined. A half million or so per year to 5 or 6 thousand!
If we were going to ban any drugs, these two would at the top of the list.
quote:
Even though they are being used, if it was legalized there is a good chance use would increase. |
Not according to the historical record. Consumption rates before prohibition were comparable or slightly lower than now, and according to the Commerce Dept, per capita alcohol consumption increased under alcohol prohibition! Btw, when all drugs were legal in the 19th century, the various drugs from alcohol and tobacco to heroin/morphine were consumed in similar proportion to today showing that even when all drugs are legal, alcohol and tobacco were still the drugs of choice. Marijauna is legal in India and largely so in The Netherlands and teen use is lower in both than the USA where prohibition supposedly lowers consumption. By why do I get the feeling you will ignore all this?
quote:
I have no problem with medicinal drugs, as this is regulated. |
Not true. Marijuana is banned, not regulated, and it does have medicinal properties which is why a synthetic, albeit less effective, form of the drug is allowed.
Lefty - quote:
It all my years of contact with the legal profession and courts, I had never encountered a felon who was not an addict. |
And if you only had experience with black felons, this would "justify" putting all the black people in cages? Frankly, I find your claim too hard to believe unless all you do is sit in a drug court. Do you see a problem with your experience and the crime stats from the links in this thread?
quote:
From what I have observed in addicts, addiction VERY STRONGLY leeads to sociopathy, which, of course, will almost inevitably result in crimminality. |
Can you offer specifics? Since drugs are illegal, their inflated cost means those addicts willing to steal to buy the drugs have to steal more, which is an indictment of prohibition, not proof the drugs cause "sociopathy". If all food costs were increased by say, 40 times, would you conclude food casues sociopathy?
Monk - quote:
I think I questioned Berzerker about this before, but I might as well mention it again; if you guys are serious about your ideology, then you'll also allow commercials saying it's cool and hip to snort cocaine or do LSD, and then I think you're underestimated the advertising business if you think they won't boost the sale of drugs significantly, especially those that makes you come back for more. |
Cool? Depends on the person. Legal? Yes. If people don't like the advertising, they can boycott the media outlets thereby stifling the advertising. As for the advertising world, ads don't get me to buy products I don't want, they get me to possibly choose certain brand names of products I do want. Ford doesn't put out ads telling people to buy cars, they put out ads telling people who want a new car that Fords are good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Kirnwaffen - quote:
I don't have a problem with those who use drugs, I have a problem with the burden and danger that many users eventually pose to others.
This includes:
- Any medical treatment that is provided at taxpayer expense |
Pardon, but did the drug user impose this burden on you or did a politician? Kind of important question if you are going to punish someone, true?
quote:
- Auto fatalities/injuries caused by someone who decided they were ok to drive when they were high |
According to the stats offered in this thread, all the illegal drugs combined account for a very small amount of traffic fatalities while alcohol is way up there. Of course, the stats don't actually tell us who was at fault, only that alcohol or some other drug was involved. If you are high on pot and go thru an intersection with the green light and get slammed by a sober motorist running a red, the accident is still called "drug-related". But as a co-owner of the public roads - both important distinctions - I would also oppose legalizing driving under the influence of drugs with the exception of speed.
quote:
- Families who suffer physically, emotionally, or financially due the drug habit of one or more members |
Hurt feelings are not grounds for caging someone. Are you sure this Pandora's Box should be opened? As for physical harm, it shouldn't matter if the attacker is high or not. But I'd love to see stats showing that pot users beat the family more than sober people. Hell, there are many sober people with tempers who could use some pot when they get upset just so they don't beat the family I wish my father used pot instead of alcohol. Financially? No. Stealing? Up to the victim. But it's the high cost of drugs caused by prohibition that might lead to this being a problem for some drug users and their families.
quote:
I have a problem with any danger or burden thrust upon others because of an individual's choice to use drugs. |
"Danger" is far too vague, too subjective. And the burden was imposed by others so I suggest you deal with them and not hurt the innocent.
quote:
Freedom does indeed include the freedom to make wrong choices, but does it include the freedom to make choices that can kill the person next to you? Or increase their insurance premium? Or emotionally scar them for life? |
1) "Can"? I've used a wide variety of drugs in my day and never felt the urge to even hurt the person next to me much less kill them. If drugs really caused this kind of behavior, there would be millions of murders/deaths every year.
2) If you smoke tobacco, you get to pay higher premiums. That's how insurance works... Are you now claiming a "right" to dictate who gets to buy or sell insurance and at what rates too?
3) Like I said, hurt feelings doesn't justify putting people in cages, quite an emotionally damaging punishment for some people.
quote:
Cigarette companies, as far as I know, have been forbidden from all methods of advertising. |
Just television I think, but maybe magazines for youngsters too.
quote:
Great, but it is. And while this service continues to be provided, a burden is put on the system by the medical consequences of drugs. |
Not by the drugs or the users, but by the politicians. Besides, you're ignoring the burden resulting from the escalation in crime from the black market in drugs caused by prohibition. Besides, it's mainly the OD's from quality control problems that end up in the emergency room, another drug war "success". Only a tiny percentage of users continue for more than a few years with pot having probably the greatest longevity among the illegal drugs. William Burroughs, the author of "Naked Lunch", a life long heroin user, died at 83 years of age. Not bad for a drug that supposedly destroys people...
quote:
Yes, most activities can be taken to harmful extremes, but, with the possible exception of gambling, most of the above activities are far more difficult to take to that level than drugs are. |
This nation's greatest health problem is obesity with processed sugar leading the diabetes epidemic. And a half million or so people die from alcohol and tobacco related diseases every year. Several thousand deaths due to all illegal drugs and many of those are OD's from a lack of quality control - another result of the drug war. The numbers just don't support your claim.
quote:
As long as someone with a job that requires focus to maintain a safe working environment has the professionalism to refrain from working for up to a day in order to fully recover from the effects of marijuana. |
It doesn't take a day to "recover" from a joint. Do you have a source for this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
Hey berzerker..
quote:
It doesn't take a day to "recover" from a joint. Do you have a source for this?
|
Have you ever partaked? If you have then you cant possibly tell me it doesnt take a day to get over it, the entire rest of the day one will be slower and have less energy. Unless you've been smoking some homegrown shake that isnt worth the bag it came in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monk
Rex, libertarian hordes;
......snip.......
That heroine wouldn't be much more used in a libertarian society can't possibly be correct. I think I questioned Berzerker about this before, but I might as well mention it again; if you guys are serious about your ideology, then you'll also allow commercials saying it's cool and hip to snort cocaine or do LSD, and then I think you're underestimated the advertising business if you think they won't boost the sale of drugs significantly, especially those that makes you come back for more. |
We see this sort of thing already with massive advertising for beer, much more than when I was a kid. Yet alchohol consumption continues to go down (though beer and wine's market share continues to increase over hard liquor). I'm not too worried about this, but let me also say that we are in a lot less danger with this happening than we are in maintaining the status quo.
Any sort of government formed in this country is going to be a limited one. Whether it's formed with a Libertarian majority or whatever, there are going to be innumerable compromises. I wouldn't worry about the shape of someone's purely idelogical form of government, because they are never going to have it all their way. It's fun to argue everyone's weak points when we throw down over politics, but as a practical matter I don't think we are in any danger of seeing Panama Red ads on Saturday morning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
Berzerker... I live in Canada, marijuana is now allowed for medicinal purposes there is a farm being built in an old bunker in Alberta here for the purpose of growing the marijuana.
I think I'm just frustrated by seeing people around me destroy their lives with drugs, and I would like to see away for this to be avoided. What do you propose should be done if drugs where to be made legal? It is very hard to be tolerant of drugs when you see the destruction they cause, and not a single benifit arise.
Well I would be of the opinion that if a government with a socialized health care system (which you say get rid of, but which many people up here are loath to do), were to legalize drugs, then a tax should be put on them to pay for the additional health burden. Ha... like that would happen though, we have a gasoline tax that was supposed to be for road upgrades, and improvements, yet very little of that goes there. (Little rant)
I don't think people who use drugs are bad, but I don't see any good coming out of drugs. What is there purpose? To be mind-altering? Why would you want to alter your mind?
What about ecstasy? What should be done about this wonder drug? Or are you just talking about marijauna?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CB2034
Hey berzerker..
Have you ever partaked? If you have then you cant possibly tell me it doesnt take a day to get over it, the entire rest of the day one will be slower and have less energy. Unless you've been smoking some homegrown shake that isnt worth the bag it came in. |
Sorry, I disagree. What alot of people fail to realize when they say things like this is that everyone is different. I don't doubt that you might take a day to get over smoking pot. I've never really heard anyone else say that but that may be how the drug effects you. It takes me about an hour or two. (And that's not due to the quality of the substance)
Can we agree that some people react to things differently then others. Give my mom a half glass of champage and she is mildly drunk. My wife, relatively the same weight, wouldn't feel any effect from 2 or 3.. Some people get acne some dont. Some eat junk food and get fat others don't. We are not all the same.
If my brother smokes pot, (which he hasn't for about 20 years now and only tried it once or twice when he did) he says he gets extremely paranoid and feels like he "is losing his mind". I get a feeling of pleasure and insight. For me it enhances my performance in certain activites - music in particular. Hence my brother doesn't smoke pot and I do. That situation won't change no matter if it is legal or not.
One more little piece of counter-intuitive antecdotal evidence.
My brother has a degree from University of Michigan. Yet he has been unable to hold a steady job, is totally unmotivated and lives with my parents at age 44. Currently he is working for minimum wage in a grocery store. He's the one who doesn't smoke pot.
I was on the executive staff of a major corporation before opening my own business. I have run successfully for over 5 years. I am the one who smokes pot.
Now, I would never say that pot makes you more motivated and will lead to success and if you don't smoke you'll be unmotivated and live with your parents your whole life. BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF MY SITUATION AND MY BROTHER'S WERE REVERSED THERE WOULD BE ALOT OF PEOPLE BLAMING IT ON MARIJUANA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
A couple points re: advertising--
Cigarettes are banned from advertising on TV. But they can still advertise elsewhere.
Advertising towards adults is a myth. It's all to children. 85% of smokers started smoking before they were 18. Most drinkers started before they were 21. Big Tobacco & Big Alcohol know that if someone makes it to legal age without ever trying it, they likely never will because they're intelligent enough at that point to realize the harm those products do. Kids, on the other hand, are generally blissfully ignorant of the health issues involved. If drugs are legalized (and I believe 100% they should be), advertising must be as strict as possible. No TV would be a bare minimum.
As for people starting drug use once legalization goes through--bollocks. I did a massive research paper on Prohibition back in my undergrad years. Alcohol consumption dropped a bit at first, but went rapidly back up to pre-Prohibition levels within a few years, and did not rise any more after Prohibition was repealed. The most striking statistical changes of the Prohibition era? Health plummeted ("bathtub gin"). Crime skyrocketed. We legalize now, we reduce crime, and we improve public health.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"Cigarette companies, as far as I know, have been forbidden from all methods of advertising."
Well, I don't ever pay much attention to advertising, but I know that at least before the recent settlement they had magazine ads. Not sure what the terms of the settlements did, but I'm pretty sure there are still cigarette billboards up.
--"And while this service continues to be provided, a burden is put on the system by the medical consequences of drugs."
Well, if libertarians were running things, this would be phased out as well.
However, this again doesn't quite work. As I mentioned before, the health problems associated with obesity seem to be a much larger problem in the US. And while I know some people have actually argued for a War on Fat, I haven't seen it in this thread.
--"most of the above activities are far more difficult to take to that level than drugs are."
But they still can, right? As long as we're arguing about potential abuse, you can't leave them out.
--"Good idea, but I fear that insurance companies would be unlikely to offer plans to users due to the risk involved."
There's always ways to make money on such things. Just look at the number of credit cards or loans that target-advertise to people who are major credit risks.
--"You know, the more Wraith writes, the more I think I'd like to hang out with him."
Bah. You godless anime-loving commies have no business hanging out with us godless anime-loving libies.
--"MMmm, LSD and Serial Experiment: Lain."
Now that would be a trip (have you seen the new boxset, btw? I've got the lunchbox set, but I may e-bay my discs and get the new one just for completion's sake). I can't imagine how someone on LSD would react to the pools of blood that are always showing up in the shadows, or the powerline hum. Not to mention just about everything else going on... We'd have to top it off with a showing of End of Evangelion, maybe start with some Boogiepop Phantom to get the mood going.
Of course, with a viewing schedule like that, who needs LSD?
Hmm... maybe we can get people off heroin by getting them hooked on stuff like St. Tail and I'm Gonna be an Angel. Some of those incredibly cutesy animes have to be a good substitute for methedone.
--"It is very hard to be tolerant of drugs when you see the destruction they cause, and not a single benifit arise."
Well, the thing is, if drugs are that obviously destructive, why do you think people do them? No amount of legislation will ever be able to stop self-destructive behavior. The reasons for the behavior generally have little to do with the chosen means and a lot to do with things that are outside the law's purview.
Wraith
"Society is a cancer of the mind"
-- Serial Experiments: Lain
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
CB2034 - quote:
Have you ever partaked? |
Yes.
quote:
If you have then you cant possibly tell me it doesnt take a day to get over it |
Sure I can, because it didn't take a day, not even hours. Once it wore off, I felt just fine. If we are talking about residuals of the chemicals staying in my system, obviously they didn't up and disappear immediately, but the effect of the drug - the high - didn't linger beyond it wearing off.
quote:
the entire rest of the day one will be slower and have less energy. Unless you've been smoking some homegrown shake that isnt worth the bag it came in. |
Hmm...this is a bit harder to gauge. If I was tired when I smoked, I would be tired after the effects wore off. If I was energetic when I smoked, I was energetic while under the influence. Now, there are certain kinds of pot that do induce this lethargy you are talking about, like Thai Stick - opiumated pot. I knew some Iranians who were into opium, and while the couple times I tried it with them, it had no noticeable effect, they said it was a relaxing experience they enjoyed after a day's work. But these guys were extremely hard workers and were right back in the rat race so to speak the next day. If what you say is true, the Chinese who broke their backs building the trans-continental RR and the gold mines in California, many of whom were opium users, would have been slackers. The Chinese opium smokers who mined gold wanted their white competitors who were more into hard booze to think the Chinese were at a dis-advantage because of opium; it was a kenard they perpetuated as a tactic to lead their competition to under-estimate them.
Adam - quote:
Berzerker... I live in Canada, marijuana is now allowed for medicinal purposes there is a farm being built in an old bunker in Alberta here for the purpose of growing the marijuana. |
Ah, you were talking about Canada and I was talking about the USA. Okay... Btw, I understand Canadian farmers are allowed to grow industrial hemp, is this true? I've heard complaints from northern US farmers that they cannot grow it while their Canadian neighbors just across the border can increase their revenue by ~ 3 times.
quote:
I think I'm just frustrated by seeing people around me destroy their lives with drugs, and I would like to see away for this to be avoided. |
It's not a pleasnat sight. My friend killed himself with alcohol, but I know his unfortunate end cannot justify hurting others who use alcohol.
quote:
What do you propose should be done if drugs where to be made legal? It is very hard to be tolerant of drugs when you see the destruction they cause, and not a single benifit arise. |
While I consider freedom and morality to be benefits, other benefits of legalization are still there. We had another drug debate a couple to 3 weeks ago in which our side produced a list of problems created by the drug war. Canadians don't seem to have these problems, at least not to the extent we have them anyway.
I will look for the list and post it here...
quote:
Well I would be of the opinion that if a government with a socialized health care system (which you say get rid of, but which many people up here are loath to do), were to legalize drugs, then a tax should be put on them to pay for the additional health burden. Ha... like that would happen though, we have a gasoline tax that was supposed to be for road upgrades, and improvements, yet very little of that goes there. (Little rant) |
Hehe, they do that here too. But I have no doubt there would be "sin" taxes on drugs, but when taxes remain relatively low, the incentives for a black market are kept low. I'm not convinced drug use will increase, perhaps at first, but history shows us that "societal" factors - peer pressure - is much more effective at reducing drug use than laws, at least if we are to avoid authoritarianism and a police state.
quote:
I don't think people who use drugs are bad, but I don't see any good coming out of drugs. What is there purpose? To be mind-altering? Why would you want to alter your mind? |
We all "alter" our minds. You might do it in other ways, watching TV shows you enjoy, playing computer games, etc. If you do these things for "pleasure", you are altering your mind. The fact your brain produces or stimulates the production of chemicals that trigger this pleasure is really no different that consuming chemicals that cause a similar effect. Many people drink alcohol to overcome "shyness" in social gatherings, etc. There are a wide variety of reasons people seek to "alter" their minds and with good reasons. My Dad used Prozac which really helped him with his bi-polar problem. This was altering his mind, but his mind had already been altered by existing chemical imbalances. Many people who have drug "problems" had other problems before using the drugs and that their attempt to "alter" their minds was an attempt to get away from these other problems.
quote:
What about ecstasy? What should be done about this wonder drug? Or are you just talking about marijauna? |
I was just reading in the recent "Reason" magazine about the origins of "ecstasy" and was not surprised to learn it was a drug developed or introduced for the psychiatric profession and was an effective tool. The drug should have been called "empathy", but "ecstasy" was more marketable when it hit the streets. It, as all other drugs, should be legal. Educating people about the potential hazards of using drugs and in what situations is more effective than turning drugs into "forbidden fruits" and creating massive black markets.
Kirnwaffen - quote:
Yes I do, but the web address is on another computer. The stat was from a drug rehab center, and was, IIRC, 19-24 hours. I'll post the link tomorrow afternoon if you're still interested. |
I guess it depends on how we define "effect". If the source is a drug rehab center, you may be talking about chronic users who've used a variety of drugs for extended periods. It hasn't been my experience even though I did smoke quite a bit. But I was under the impression you guys were claiming that marijuana constitutes a hazard - as in being high - for ~24 hours after using. I don't agree, hell, I'm a better driver than most people regardless of any drug I may be on (except alot of alcohol )
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2002 21:36
|