|
I have been together with my girlfriend for around 5 months and we get along amazingly spending most of our time together that we are able to and are in love completely. However something that bothers me is her stubbornness in political and ideological issues. Her mother is one of those prolific conspiracy theorists who post on news sites attempting to uncover elaborate government conspiracies that the "lefties" are trying to push upon us. Luckily she is not like this at all, however whenever our talks go into politics I find that it is hard for us to compromise, we are both people who are strong in our convictions and I tend to favor logic and data far more than her reasoning of morals. Also I tend to not side with one party or another as far as US politics as I prefer international issues and believe that both sides don't offer too much to desire.
For example the debate of legalizing drugs, this topic was brought up through us discussing and English assignment in which we had to act like a parent and respond to various situations. One of the situations was how you would respond to your child wanting to experiment with drugs. My position was one that I wouldn't be actively supportive of allowing my child to do so, and would warn him of the risks and discourage him from so but I wouldn't chastise him, just attempt to educate him.
Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. However my position is that I have no problem with drug use by other people as long as they are aware of the dangers and precautions. (Such as using a clean needle etc.) I argue that it is not drug use itself that propagates violence, but merely the trafficking and procurement of drugs based upon the illegal status of said drugs.
Our "War on Drugs" is no doubt misguided as evidence shows our jails are overcrowded because we have 5 percent of the worlds population, yet 25 percent of the worlds prisoners and most are held on drug related crimes. The decriminalization of drugs has proven to be effective in countries such as Portugal. ( http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal) By focusing on being more open with drugs and allowing for safer distribution and regulation the amount of drug users declines as the rush from illegality is shattered and there is an easier way to focus on treating the addicts to recover and live a better life rather than sending them to sit in jail wasting our tax dollars.
![[image loading]](http://reflow.scribd.com/9f5eq39fcwamt9x/images/image-9.jpg)
Omg pretty picture ^_^ detailing the effects of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal
By ridding ourselves of the taboo over drugs we can focus our efforts on regulating these substances and eliminate most of the violence caused by the trafficking of drugs and possibly as an effect decrease crime and even discourage drug use by having more open discussion, removing the illegal rush and offering rehabilitating support. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-24/politics/miron.legalization.drugs_1_prohibition-drug-traffickers-violence?_s=PM:POLITICS
After explaining all of this to her she just tells me "I hate drugs" she refuses to back up her arguments only saying that drugs are wrong and should not be allowed. Personally I don't believe drug use should be so heavily criminalized as it only serves to amplify the problems that drugs bring and puts any hope of help out of reach.
I would be interested to hear how teamliquid views the "drug problem" and their experiences/opinions on drug use/legalization. Originally this was going to asking if I should insist on my views and use evidence or just leave the topic alone, but I can already see that changing someones mind who is already so set upon their view is not possible and trying to do so will only fuel their discontent. I can live without having my girlfriend share my exact views.
Also interesting views from the opposing side http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
TLDR/questions to consider:
What is your opinion on drug use?
What is the major problem about drugs?
Should drugs become legalized, If so why?
PS This is my first time trying to write a discussion blog and attempting to convey my thoughts in this manner feedback would be appreciated feel free to criticize wherever you feel necessary I don't mind.
-Abstract
Edit: poll removed too much variance on the topic would be easier to see written opinion also lol why do we have this rating system if the only people who ever care about rating a blog are the people who disagree with it ^_^ I accept all opposing opinions and am not afraid to concede to your points if they are valid and will respect your opinion don't need to be underhanded about it.
  
|
United States7927 Posts
Hers sounds like a typically uneducated opinion and that's the end of it. I hold the same views as you, with the exception of drinking to excess on occasion because getting drunk is the bees knees :D
|
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required.
|
People who " just hate drugs" are on the same level as religious people who "just hate gays" or racist groups who "just hate blacks", IMO. There's no reason to hate something that doesn't effect you at all. Each individual has their own choice of how to live, and that's that... The law should really back off, because a) We don't need the police to be our lifestyle nannies and b) Because making things illegal creates a black market where criminals profit.
I live in Canada and although marijuana is "illegal" here, pretty much everyone is cool with it/uses it, all age groups. Surely it will be decriminalized soon.
|
sometimes you gotta accept your girl is an idiot
no harm done
|
Eating paint will fuck you up, but we don't ban the eating of paint. Thats my opinion on drugs.
The major problem with drugs is it's association with crime, and ultimately under our system how they go hand in hand.
They should be legalized, and we should take all of the wasted money on "the War on Drugs" and spend it on awareness/recovery programs. Eventually, the fads will die out/lessen.
Sucks about your girl though. Maybe try and have her talk to people that do weed or something, to show it's not all that awful?
|
I think you'd make an excellent parent, AbstractVoid. I'm basically a clone of you ideologically. I don't do drugs or drink alcohol much (well, i tried pot once but that's besides the point.) Yet i don't condemn them. I think it's importaant to allow other people's freedoms despite our personal beliefs but at the same time provide awareness for the dangers such choices would lead to.
I think the major problem with drugs is the stigma behind them. Look at alcohol and cigarettes. Those are drugs as well, yet they're accepted by society. However, does this help remove the dangers? No. Alcohol, whether legal or not, is going to lead to people doing stupid shit. It is a great example of a drug that needs to be more highly regulated in my opinion. For example, No one buys 120 proof Vodka with any other intent other than to get completely plastered. Likewise, no one buys magic carpet for any other intent than to get severely fucked up.
Cigarettes and marijuana, however, are more recreational drugs with less immediate harmful side-effects. Sure the threat of lung or throat cancer is always there, but no one is going to rob or assault you for their Cig money (bar the person who would have robbed you elsewise). No one, while high on mary jane, is going to rape one of his friends or run out onto the middle of the street butt naked screaming their head off about bats. (true story, cocaine is a hellavuh drug).
Should drugs become legalized? They already are. After minor surgery last month, I lay in bed all day high as a fuckin unicorn from painkillers. Last weekend I drove my inebriated roommates home. Should all drugs be legalized though? Fuck no. Should we be informed about the effects of drugs, and allow the minor and less harmful ones to be legally sold for those that choose to use them despite their harmful effects? Sure. People got to get their kicks somehow, and I'd rather know about my kids smoking a joint in their friends backyard than they sneak off to a drug-dealer's home to do so.
|
I think you should both get high and THEN have this conversation; it will go much better.
|
On March 08 2012 10:10 darkscream wrote:
People who " just hate drugs" are on the same level as religious people who "just hate gays" or racist groups who "just hate blacks", IMO. There's no reason to hate something that doesn't effect you at all. Each individual has their own choice of how to live, and that's that... The law should really back off, because a) We don't need the police to be our lifestyle nannies and b) Because making things illegal creates a black market where criminals profit.
I live in Canada and although marijuana is "illegal" here, pretty much everyone is cool with it/uses it, all age groups. Surely it will be decriminalized soon.
Well yeah any group of people who are willing to be ignorant and unwilling to look at facts and reconsider their position based on actual fact are not people you want to deal with. I do agree with your statement that law should be more limited and allow more freedom for people why restrict marijuana but not tobacco or alcohol? Doesn't make sense why you should be selective with it oh yeah wait the government just wants to get money. And finally yes illegality provides the opportunity for a prohibition style complex where nobody wins and violence is prevalent.
On March 08 2012 10:11 FFGenerations wrote:
sometimes you gotta accept your girl is an idiot
no harm done
Meh that seems like an unfair statement she is intelligent just seems like most people are willing to take their parents views as their own without regard for their own views or any possible facts which is disappointing to me but not the end of the world it doesn't make people dumb if they believe in religion even if I personally don't support religion at all.
On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required.
Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others?
On March 08 2012 10:23 sam!zdat wrote:
I think you should both get high and THEN have this conversation; it will go much better.
Not a possibility I'm not a drug user myself and never will be.
On March 08 2012 10:23 Fishgle wrote:
I think you'd make an excellent parent, AbstractVoid. I'm basically a clone of you ideologically. I don't do drugs or drink alcohol much (well, i tried pot once but that's besides the point.) Yet i don't condemn them. I think it's importaant to allow other people's freedoms despite our personal beliefs but at the same time provide awareness for the dangers such choices would lead to.
I think the major problem with drugs is the stigma behind them. Look at alcohol and cigarettes. Those are drugs as well, yet they're accepted by society. However, does this help remove the dangers? No. Alcohol, whether legal or not, is going to lead to people doing stupid shit. It is a great example of a drug that needs to be more highly regulated in my opinion. For example, No one buys 120 proof Vodka with any other intent other than to get completely plastered. Likewise, no one buys magic carpet for any other intent than to get severely fucked up.
Cigarettes and marijuana, however, are more recreational drugs with less immediate harmful side-effects. Sure the threat of lung or throat cancer is always there, but no one is going to rob or assault you for their Cig money (bar the person who would have robbed you elsewise). No one, while high on mary jane, is going to rape one of his friends or run out onto the middle of the street butt naked screaming their head off about bats. (true story, cocaine is a hellavuh drug).
Should drugs become legalized? They already are. After minor surgery last month, I lay in bed all day high as a fuckin unicorn from painkillers. Last weekend I drove my inebriated roommates home. Should all drugs be legalized though? Fuck no. Should we be informed about the effects of drugs, and allow the minor and less harmful ones to be legally sold for those that choose to use them despite their harmful effects? Sure. People got to get their kicks somehow, and I'd rather know about my kids smoking a joint in their friends backyard than they sneak off to a drug-dealer's home to do so.
First thanks ^_^ I appreciate the people who can take rational fact and base their decisions off of that rather than the Bible or their families ideals. Freedom is a very important aspect of our society (at least we pretend it to be) and yes certain drugs should not be accepted while others aren't it sets a bad precedent.
|
On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:
Not a possibility I'm not a drug user myself and never will be.
I thought that too when I was your age.
|
On March 08 2012 10:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:
Not a possibility I'm not a drug user myself and never will be.
I thought that too when I was your age.
Lol ^_^ Yeah well I have considered it and wouldn't really mind trying it to be honest, I know most of my friends have or still do but it just doesn't interest me enough to do so. I like being in control of my own bodily functions I suppose lol ;o
|
Don't ever do anything until you've thought seriously about what it is and why you're doing it.
|
On March 08 2012 10:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Don't ever do anything until you've thought seriously about what it is and why you're doing it.
And only with friends. I'm have slight depression sometimes, but depressants (such as alcohol) make me completely suicidal. So uh. yea. There's that.
|
On March 08 2012 10:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Don't ever do anything until you've thought seriously about what it is and why you're doing it.
Yes this is exactly what I mean. If you have seriously considered the implications and are fine with it and see more benefit than harm then I see no reason why you can't partake because it is your body and as long as it is what you want and you have reasons then I see no reason to disallow it.
|
Forget about all these issues and just have fun with your GF and enjoy your relationship. So who cares if you have differing opinions on some random stuff? People are different, they've been raised differently, and have different opinions about things. If you don't like discussing it because you're both close minded about your opinions, then just don't discuss them. Don't let small things like this get in the way of an otherwise healthy relationship.
|
On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others?
im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from.
i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care.
proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate.
baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers.
should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives.
our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned.
|
Ask her if she thinks that taking her hypothetical child (who is using drugs) and putting him in a cage where he has to be subjected to the most violent and depraved members of society, while witnessing and possibly being a victim of assault, rape, and other violence, and have his future completely decimated - whether that is going to help solve drug use.
Putting people in prison only teaches them how to be violent criminals, and promotes more drug use to deal with the unbelievable amount of stress being in jail causes. Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one.
|
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
|
On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned.
I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision.
Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons.
The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on.
What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs?
I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example.
On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
Meh fair enough but these drugs would still benefit from open treatment centers and better programs to raise awareness and promote treatment than just being left alone to be abused.
|
On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
Two drugs could not be more different.
|
Anyone who's looked into it seriously favors drug legalization on some level, while people who don't know what they're talking about (or have some ulterior motive, as in the case of lobbyists/government officials) say things like, "drugs are bad so they should be illegal".
At this point, there's really no more debate to be had; the world just needs to smarten up and legalize (and control) that shit. Unfortunately, the problem is people like your girlfriend, who have been borderline brainwashed and refuse to see the facts. If a large majority of the population favored legalization, reforms on a federal level might be possible, but I don't think this will happen for at least a decade or so, considering the rampant ignorance prevalent in some parts of the country.
|
On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different.
I think he is trying to choose drugs that have shown to be potentially harmful to others like hallucinogens causing you to harm others. I don't know if this argument really has place though as the decriminalization serves to promote awareness and treatment which would reduce the use of these drugs.
On March 08 2012 10:45 Baobab wrote:
Anyone who's looked into it seriously favors drug legalization on some level, while people who don't know what they're talking about (or have some ulterior motive, as in the case of lobbyists/government officials) say things like, "drugs are bad so they should be illegal".
At this point, there's really no more debate to be had; the world just needs to smarten up and legalize (and control) that shit. Unfortunately, the problem is people like your girlfriend, who have been borderline brainwashed and refuse to see the facts. If a large majority of the population favored legalization, reforms on a federal level might be possible, but I don't think this will happen for at least a decade or so, considering the rampant ignorance prevalent in some parts of the country.
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs".
|
On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different.
Well, legalized for general consumption. I guess there's medical usage to both which I'm fine with. mehhh
I'm ok with decriminalization of drugs. Not so much ok with making them the next consumer product you can buy at the gas station across the street.
|
On March 08 2012 10:46 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different. Well, legalized for general consumption. I guess there's medical usage to both which I'm fine with. mehhh I'm ok with decriminalization of drugs. Not so much ok with making them the next consumer product you can buy at the gas station across the street.
Neither am I and I don't believe that is the way we are going. However I don't think you could have a suitable argument against the fact that removing barriers that block open awareness or discussion or treatment of drug use would help to lessen the harmful effects. I don't believe I would be ok with such easy use as you describe either. Portugal for example did not really "legalize" but just made drug use acceptable and not a criminal offense.
|
On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example.
i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons."
i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc.
|
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal.
|
On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc.
First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself.
Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide.
|
On March 08 2012 10:45 AbstractVoid wrote:
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs".
I used to have a subscription actually, but I can't get it here in Korea so I'm a sad panda. Actually I named myself after the baobab tree itself, known as the tree of life in Africa... wikipedia it when you're bored, it's a pretty badass tree (if trees can be badass haha)
|
On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required.
Same here lol.
"I have a sad story about my girlfriend. Her mom is a conspiracy theorist, my girlfriend isn't *that* bad, and TAKE A LOOK AT THESE GORGEOUS GRAPHS."
OP: You're more right than your girlfriend, but a relationship is built on compromise (and trust). Figure out if you can both compromise on issues. If you can: great! If you can't: find someone else 
I agree with your opinions when it comes to the drugs too 
|
On March 08 2012 10:54 Baobab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:45 AbstractVoid wrote:
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs". I used to have a subscription actually, but I can't get it here in Korea so I'm a sad panda. Actually I named myself after the baobab tree itself, known as the tree of life in Africa... wikipedia it when you're bored, it's a pretty badass tree (if trees can be badass haha)
Haha yeah one of the influences on my ideology is a former United Nations worker and he got me interested in the economist and it's a great tool for information about international affairs. Also yeah the baobab tree is pretty awesome 
On March 08 2012 10:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Same here lol. "I have a sad story about my girlfriend. Her mom is a conspiracy theorist, my girlfriend isn't *that* bad, and TAKE A LOOK AT THESE GORGEOUS GRAPHS." OP: You're more right than your girlfriend, but a relationship is built on compromise (and trust). Figure out if you can both compromise on issues. If you can: great! If you can't: find someone else I agree with your opinions when it comes to the drugs too
We do trust each other more than enough as far as being committed to each other and in the end we will respect each others views. She will not convert to my side anytime soon and I will never convert to hers. If we just avoid talking about these issues it will cause no problems and we will be alright. I am confident this won't harm our relationship at all except for make her mad for like 10-20 minutes (I don't get mad at all so it's funny to see her get more mad at me not getting mad and it is really confusing because I don't understand the feeling of anger all that well :D)
|
On March 08 2012 10:51 N3rV[Green] wrote:
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal.
But but but Dihydrogen Monoxide is lethal! It should be banned!
alright, i changed my mind. Drugs can all be legalized. BUT there's still problems with regulation and healthcare and a multitude of other problems related to drugs that will appear (DUI, AA, disappearing paychecks, etc.) I think there's always going to be stupid people, no matter how much awareness about drugs is out there.
|
On March 08 2012 10:59 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:51 N3rV[Green] wrote:
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal. But but but Dihydrogen Monoxide is lethal! It should be banned! alright, i changed my mind. Drugs can all be legalized. BUT there's still problems with regulation and healthcare and a multitude of other problems related to drugs that will appear (DUI, AA, disappearing paychecks, etc.) I think there's always going to be stupid people, no matter how much awareness about drugs is out there.
Agreed lol wasn't expecting to change anyone's mind but I suppose good job for being able to respond to rational reasoning and at least acknowledge another opinion that is a skill that most people seem to lack. Yes we do have healthcare and regulatory problems right now and people will always be ignorant but the least we can do is try to reform our system and try our best to educate people. Pretty much anything is better than the status quo.
|
On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide.
taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know....
|
On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know....
Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track.
|
On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track.
the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries.
|
On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
Yeah, a few others too, but weed not being legal is really dumb in my opinion. Also never done any of them either
|
On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries.
This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them.
|
On March 08 2012 11:13 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries. This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them.
so, you only refer to the portugal study, the DEA refers to various studies, and you accuse them of cherry-picking. interesting. i don't disagree you have to consider the reporter's agenda, but that includes considering your agenda.
|
On March 08 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:13 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:
[quote]
Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others?
im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries. This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them. so, you only refer to the portugal study, the DEA refers to various studies, and you accuse them of cherry-picking. interesting. i don't disagree you have to consider the reporter's agenda, but that includes considering your agenda.
That's fair I will acknowledge that anyone who has an opinion will have a bias and therefore I am included. Also there is much more studies based upon the policies or Portugal or the Netherlands just search yourself, I stand by my position that the DEA facts are less than savory in their content or scientific merit. A company or department would not acknowledge any facts that would in any way decrease their funding or popularity, but what does a news company have to lose? They just want to report the facts and get people to read their articles they are much less likely to have bias.
|
Your poll doesn't list enough options.
Legalize ALL or NONE? Where is the option to legalize some particular drugs but not others. Heroin and meth in my opinion should not be legal, for good reason.
|
In my opinion, decriminalization of certain drugs would be beneficial: safer use, tax revenue, stopping pointless imprisonment, weaken organized crime. I also doubt that it would lead to a significant increase in the use of drugs. The truth the matter is that nowadays even with drugs being illegal, you can still get them easily.
On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
As sam!zdat already pointed out, LSD and Meth are pretty much incomparable (meth should be somewhere to the upper right of Heroin...):
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png)
While one of them is probably the least dangerous drug used for recreation, the other is basically poison.
|
i doubt this topic really matters. If you guys "love" each other than a slight disagreement is stupid. on the other hand drugs are illegal and shouldn't be done. My uncle took LSD and Weed became sterile, has flashbacks, and randomly yells at people, other than that hes a pretty cool guy.
|
On March 08 2012 11:25 Tektos wrote:
Your poll doesn't list enough options.
Legalize ALL or NONE? Where is the option to legalize some particular drugs but not others. Heroin and meth in my opinion should not be legal, for good reason.
Yeah I sort of agree maybe the poll should be reconsidered but there is so much variance in opinion. Also legalize a drug such as meth or heroin is not equal to promoting the drug or attempting to increase use, it is the opposite trying to open up treatment and awareness to stop use of these harmful drugs and eliminate the problems caused by trafficking them.
On March 08 2012 11:33 MysteryMeat1 wrote:
i doubt this topic really matters. If you guys "love" each other than a slight disagreement is stupid. on the other hand drugs are illegal and shouldn't be done. My uncle took LSD and Weed became sterile, has flashbacks, and randomly yells at people, other than that hes a pretty cool guy.
I derailed my own thread didn't I? :D I'm confident it won't be a serious problem just provoked though on the issue. Also I'm sorry for your uncle but I don't believe we should make drugs illegal because of a few cases when the problem illegality causes is much bigger. I could use tobacco for instance people could tell endless stories of how their family or friends have died from lung cancer but we won't make tobacco illegal because it brings in tax money and is a firm part of our culture already. Sometimes personal appeal doesn't have much place in debate. (Not trying to be insensitive I do have emotions and family as well and wouldn't want anything to happen to the people I love.)
|
What a ridiculous poll. Way to reduce a whole complex argument to 2 black and white options.
|
On March 08 2012 11:35 ManicMarine wrote:
What a ridiculous poll. Way to reduce a whole complex argument to 2 black and white options.
Thanks for the feedback I do agree the poll is not an accurate metric of opinion and thus I have removed it as the variance in opinion is so great that I would just encourage posting of comments as to explain opinion rather than trying to force people into two extremes. Sorry for the confusion, appreciate the feedback.
|
10387 Posts
Like you said, legalization has already shown to provide big benefits, there's very few drawbacks to a well-done legalization of drugs. Problem is ofc, that many drugs are highly addictive and that's where the problem therein lies ..
Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. Quite cutely naive ^_^ ah the innocence of youth ..
|
On March 08 2012 11:58 ArvickHero wrote:Like you said, legalization has already shown to provide big benefits, there's very few drawbacks to a well-done legalization of drugs. Problem is ofc, that many drugs are highly addictive and that's where the problem therein lies .. Show nested quote +Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. Quite cutely naive ^_^ ah the innocence of youth ..
I would be careful with naive lol I don't think I'm youthfully innocent although I am only 17 as far as age I've been exposed to quite a few things already and that doesn't mean my future experiences won't include drinking or trying weed but as this present point I don't think it's a real possibility. As I said it's fine but I have goals for myself and would like to stick to them.
|
|
|
On March 08 2012 12:20 cmen15 wrote:
LSD??? GOOD DRUG!!
Can we try to keep comments relevant, the great thing about TL for me is that it is a place where the average user is capable of intelligent discussion please don't try to ruin things for us.
|
i wasn't trying to bring my uncle in as a guilt trip but people say that drugs don't have bad side effects. LSD and Meth are pretty much incomparable (meth should be somewhere to the upper right of Heroin...):While one of them is probably the least dangerous drug used for recreation, the other is basically poison.
People who continue to quote that drugs don't have any side effects are to baked to read facts.
I agree with you that the reason that the reason tobacco won't be outlawed anytime soon is because it brings in so much tax money.
Alcohol on the other hand is a cultural thing, and on another note you can still drink it without getting drunk. You stated this yourself as well.
Doing weed on the other hand incapciated you for a while even when taking just a little bit. Most/all users do it for the side effect of getting high and not because meth tastes good (i wouldn't know).
oh btw im 17 as well.
|
On March 08 2012 12:54 MysteryMeat1 wrote:i wasn't trying to bring my uncle in as a guilt trip but people say that drugs don't have bad side effects. Show nested quote +LSD and Meth are pretty much incomparable (meth should be somewhere to the upper right of Heroin...):While one of them is probably the least dangerous drug used for recreation, the other is basically poison. People who continue to quote that drugs don't have any side effects are to baked to read facts. I agree with you that the reason that the reason tobacco won't be outlawed anytime soon is because it brings in so much tax money. Alcohol on the other hand is a cultural thing, and on another note you can still drink it without getting drunk. You stated this yourself as well. Doing weed on the other hand incapciated you for a while even when taking just a little bit. Most/all users do it for the side effect of getting high and not because meth tastes good (i wouldn't know). oh btw im 17 as well.
I don't think anyone has said that drugs don't have negative side effects, they all do part of what makes a drug a drug is altering the normal function of the body.
|
On March 08 2012 11:34 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:25 Tektos wrote:
Your poll doesn't list enough options.
Legalize ALL or NONE? Where is the option to legalize some particular drugs but not others. Heroin and meth in my opinion should not be legal, for good reason. Yeah I sort of agree maybe the poll should be reconsidered but there is so much variance in opinion. Also legalize a drug such as meth or heroin is not equal to promoting the drug or attempting to increase use, it is the opposite trying to open up treatment and awareness to stop use of these harmful drugs and eliminate the problems caused by trafficking them.
I am fully aware that legalizing a drug is not synonymous with encouraging usage of the substance. It is just the legalizing a serious drug such as heroin has other implications other than just being able to provide treatment to stop use.
Also note that decriminalization and legalization are both different yet viable options. I specifically stated I would never support the legalization of a drug like heroin.
|
On March 08 2012 14:03 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:34 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:25 Tektos wrote:
Your poll doesn't list enough options.
Legalize ALL or NONE? Where is the option to legalize some particular drugs but not others. Heroin and meth in my opinion should not be legal, for good reason. Yeah I sort of agree maybe the poll should be reconsidered but there is so much variance in opinion. Also legalize a drug such as meth or heroin is not equal to promoting the drug or attempting to increase use, it is the opposite trying to open up treatment and awareness to stop use of these harmful drugs and eliminate the problems caused by trafficking them. I am fully aware that legalizing a drug is not synonymous with encouraging usage of the substance. It is just the legalizing a serious drug such as heroin has other implications other than just being able to provide treatment to stop use. Also note that decriminalization and legalization are both different yet viable options. I specifically stated I would never support the legalization of a drug like heroin.
Yes I get the differences in decriminalization and legalization and personally would be more towards the decriminalization as the first transitional step and you state that you would allow it for most drugs except heroin and maybe a few others. I don't think it's right to discriminate which drugs would be decriminalized if you are setting the precedent and example you must follow it and not make special exceptions that would accomplish nothing but allow the same problems to persist in a specific area of drugs because they were "too serious to decriminalize".
PS: Going to bed now I'll be on tomorrow to respond to whatever comments may appear while I'm going thanks for all the discussion so far and I would appreciate it if you want to share your opinion and get in on the discussion.
|
10387 Posts
On March 08 2012 12:19 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:58 ArvickHero wrote:Like you said, legalization has already shown to provide big benefits, there's very few drawbacks to a well-done legalization of drugs. Problem is ofc, that many drugs are highly addictive and that's where the problem therein lies .. Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. Quite cutely naive ^_^ ah the innocence of youth .. I would be careful with naive lol I don't think I'm youthfully innocent although I am only 17 as far as age I've been exposed to quite a few things already and that doesn't mean my future experiences won't include drinking or trying weed but as this present point I don't think it's a real possibility. As I said it's fine but I have goals for myself and would like to stick to them.
lol trust, 17 is pretty young. It's nice you have that goal, like a lot of us did when we were 17 or so but 90% of the time your perception and views change a lot as you get older, especially once you go to college
|
On March 08 2012 14:39 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:19 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:58 ArvickHero wrote:Like you said, legalization has already shown to provide big benefits, there's very few drawbacks to a well-done legalization of drugs. Problem is ofc, that many drugs are highly addictive and that's where the problem therein lies .. Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. Quite cutely naive ^_^ ah the innocence of youth .. I would be careful with naive lol I don't think I'm youthfully innocent although I am only 17 as far as age I've been exposed to quite a few things already and that doesn't mean my future experiences won't include drinking or trying weed but as this present point I don't think it's a real possibility. As I said it's fine but I have goals for myself and would like to stick to them. lol trust, 17 is pretty young. It's nice you have that goal, like a lot of us did when we were 17 or so but 90% of the time your perception and views change a lot as you get older, especially once you go to college
Most people only hold those views because they're bludgeoned into them by their parents and society. Once they realize there's not a belt-wielding asshole dad waiting for them if they break the "rules" then they go nuts.
OP is not like that. He has his legitimate reasons to not use narcotics and will continue to not use them for as long as he feels they're more detrimental than beneficiary. I was the same way when I was 17, and the only drugs I use are caffeine and alcohol.
|
On March 08 2012 14:39 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:19 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:58 ArvickHero wrote:Like you said, legalization has already shown to provide big benefits, there's very few drawbacks to a well-done legalization of drugs. Problem is ofc, that many drugs are highly addictive and that's where the problem therein lies .. Let me preface this by stating that in my personal life I will never experiment with any drugs regardless of potency or effect besides the occasional partaking of alcohol, but even then never with the intent to become fully intoxicated. This is mostly because I am comfortable and content with the way I feel and see no need to endanger my health or spend money on altering my being. Quite cutely naive ^_^ ah the innocence of youth .. I would be careful with naive lol I don't think I'm youthfully innocent although I am only 17 as far as age I've been exposed to quite a few things already and that doesn't mean my future experiences won't include drinking or trying weed but as this present point I don't think it's a real possibility. As I said it's fine but I have goals for myself and would like to stick to them. lol trust, 17 is pretty young. It's nice you have that goal, like a lot of us did when we were 17 or so but 90% of the time your perception and views change a lot as you get older, especially once you go to college
I love how people with a different view from you are immediately naive...
I'm 24, never smoked cigarettes and never did any drugs. I drink like 1-2 times a year and never get drunk (a couple of beers max) and drink caffeine very rarely when I need to work on a project and I'm late.
Am I still too young to hold my beliefs that I don't want to take drugs? I've been exposed to them every week and I know all about drugs (did 3 years in pharmacy) but I guess I'm just naive.
|
What is your opinion on drug use?
my opinion on drug use is that it is unhealthy, unsafe, and in many cases supports directly the cartels which are responsible for the deaths of over 35,000 people in 4 years in the border cities of Mexico.
What is the major problem about drugs?
the major problem? their effect on society is terrible, and the monetary support of terrorists and murderers is a big part of it.
Should drugs become legalized, If so why?
i don't think they should become legalized.
|
On March 09 2012 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
What is your opinion on drug use?
my opinion on drug use is that it is unhealthy, unsafe, and in many cases supports directly the cartels which are responsible for the deaths of over 35,000 people in 4 years in the border cities of Mexico.
What is the major problem about drugs?
the major problem? their effect on society is terrible, and the monetary support of terrorists and murderers is a big part of it.
Should drugs become legalized, If so why?
i don't think they should become legalized.
legalize them and your answers to question one and two are dealt with.
|
On March 09 2012 05:47 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
What is your opinion on drug use?
my opinion on drug use is that it is unhealthy, unsafe, and in many cases supports directly the cartels which are responsible for the deaths of over 35,000 people in 4 years in the border cities of Mexico.
What is the major problem about drugs?
the major problem? their effect on society is terrible, and the monetary support of terrorists and murderers is a big part of it.
Should drugs become legalized, If so why?
i don't think they should become legalized. legalize them and your answers to question one and two are dealt with.
It would help the support for drug cartels but :
1) People will still be really fucking stupid when on drugs
2) People will still be addicted to drugs and it will still be unhealthy
3) Drug cartels will still find ways to make money (probably more violent ways including selling people for sex/slavery on a much larger scale than now and more/harsher drugs). People involved with cartels that suddenly stop bringing in money or buying drugs would be in a large amount of shit.
But overall I don't think legalizing drugs would help much. Overall, more people would take them I believe.
|
United States5162 Posts
It pretty much comes down to if you think criminalized drugs actually reduce use. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and that legalizing drugs would result in a negligible increase in use, as it's been shown in areas where decriminalization has already occurred.
Of course people are going to act stupid and potentially get addicted - the same way they do with alcohol, tobacco, and prescribed drugs(legally prescribed that is). The main difference would be that they'd no longer cost the justice system billions, potentially bring in billions in tax revenue, and increase the safety of drugs since they wouldn't be made in basements anymore and would have to meet regulations like other products.
And cartels will still try to make money in other areas, but this is still one less area for them to do that in, an area that probably brings in the most revenue for them. No reasonable person should suggest they would disappear, but they would be significantly weakened from the lack of funds.
|
On March 09 2012 06:07 Myles wrote:
It pretty much comes down to if you think criminalized drugs actually reduce use. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and that legalizing drugs would result in a negligible increase in use, as it's been shown in areas where decriminalization has already occurred.
Of course people are going to act stupid and potentially get addicted - the same way they do with alcohol, tobacco, and prescribed drugs(legally prescribed that is). The main difference would be that they'd no longer cost the justice system billions, potentially bring in billions in tax revenue, and increase the safety of drugs since they wouldn't be made in basements anymore and would have to meet regulations like other products.
And cartels will still try to make money in other areas, but this is still one less area for them to do that in, an area that probably brings in the most revenue for them. No reasonable person should suggest they would disappear, but they would be significantly weakened from the lack of funds.
I know the issue of would it increase or decrease drug use is a factor, but I believe data has shown that over time it decreases drug use by quite a bit and helps already addicted users find help.
People will find a way to do drugs whether they are legal or not, marijuana being illegal doesn't stop 30 percent of high school kids from using it.
Cartels are also a problem mainly because of their trafficking of drugs across borders and the incidents caused from doing so. Would they find other ways to make money? Maybe but I don't think it would raise human trafficking as you said because the demand for such services aren't expected to rise because of this at all. Their funding would be slashed and deaths would be avoided.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 09 2012 07:00 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 06:07 Myles wrote:
It pretty much comes down to if you think criminalized drugs actually reduce use. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and that legalizing drugs would result in a negligible increase in use, as it's been shown in areas where decriminalization has already occurred.
Of course people are going to act stupid and potentially get addicted - the same way they do with alcohol, tobacco, and prescribed drugs(legally prescribed that is). The main difference would be that they'd no longer cost the justice system billions, potentially bring in billions in tax revenue, and increase the safety of drugs since they wouldn't be made in basements anymore and would have to meet regulations like other products.
And cartels will still try to make money in other areas, but this is still one less area for them to do that in, an area that probably brings in the most revenue for them. No reasonable person should suggest they would disappear, but they would be significantly weakened from the lack of funds. I know the issue of would it increase or decrease drug use is a factor, but I believe data has shown that over time it decreases drug use by quite a bit and helps already addicted users find help. People will find a way to do drugs whether they are legal or not, marijuana being illegal doesn't stop 30 percent of high school kids from using it. Cartels are also a problem mainly because of their trafficking of drugs across borders and the incidents caused from doing so. Would they find other ways to make money? Maybe but I don't think it would raise human trafficking as you said because the demand for such services aren't expected to rise because of this at all. Their funding would be slashed and deaths would be avoided.
I completely agree.
|
On March 09 2012 07:00 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 06:07 Myles wrote:
It pretty much comes down to if you think criminalized drugs actually reduce use. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and that legalizing drugs would result in a negligible increase in use, as it's been shown in areas where decriminalization has already occurred.
Of course people are going to act stupid and potentially get addicted - the same way they do with alcohol, tobacco, and prescribed drugs(legally prescribed that is). The main difference would be that they'd no longer cost the justice system billions, potentially bring in billions in tax revenue, and increase the safety of drugs since they wouldn't be made in basements anymore and would have to meet regulations like other products.
And cartels will still try to make money in other areas, but this is still one less area for them to do that in, an area that probably brings in the most revenue for them. No reasonable person should suggest they would disappear, but they would be significantly weakened from the lack of funds. I know the issue of would it increase or decrease drug use is a factor, but I believe data has shown that over time it decreases drug use by quite a bit and helps already addicted users find help. People will find a way to do drugs whether they are legal or not, marijuana being illegal doesn't stop 30 percent of high school kids from using it. Cartels are also a problem mainly because of their trafficking of drugs across borders and the incidents caused from doing so. Would they find other ways to make money? Maybe but I don't think it would raise human trafficking as you said because the demand for such services aren't expected to rise because of this at all. Their funding would be slashed and deaths would be avoided.
Also the only reason that things like Weed can be considered a gateway drug (more than anything like alcohol and cigarettes which are gateway drugs too) is because its illegal. I'm not saying that people are going to be less likely to try hard drugs when they start with something a little less potent, but I am saying there is a stigma with some illegal substances thats undeserved. Basically any positive experience with a substance could have a gateway affect on someone.
I'm in Intensive Outpatient Treatment (3 times a week) for Marijuana right now actually, and we watched a video on the stigma around addiction and treating addicts. Basically explained how Addiction classifies as a disease and Addicts should be patients not criminals. Video was called Pleasure Unwoven.
http://web.me.com/kevintmccauley/Pleasure_Unwoven/Home.html
Good stuff.
|
On March 09 2012 07:09 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 07:00 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 09 2012 06:07 Myles wrote:
It pretty much comes down to if you think criminalized drugs actually reduce use. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and that legalizing drugs would result in a negligible increase in use, as it's been shown in areas where decriminalization has already occurred.
Of course people are going to act stupid and potentially get addicted - the same way they do with alcohol, tobacco, and prescribed drugs(legally prescribed that is). The main difference would be that they'd no longer cost the justice system billions, potentially bring in billions in tax revenue, and increase the safety of drugs since they wouldn't be made in basements anymore and would have to meet regulations like other products.
And cartels will still try to make money in other areas, but this is still one less area for them to do that in, an area that probably brings in the most revenue for them. No reasonable person should suggest they would disappear, but they would be significantly weakened from the lack of funds. I know the issue of would it increase or decrease drug use is a factor, but I believe data has shown that over time it decreases drug use by quite a bit and helps already addicted users find help. People will find a way to do drugs whether they are legal or not, marijuana being illegal doesn't stop 30 percent of high school kids from using it. Cartels are also a problem mainly because of their trafficking of drugs across borders and the incidents caused from doing so. Would they find other ways to make money? Maybe but I don't think it would raise human trafficking as you said because the demand for such services aren't expected to rise because of this at all. Their funding would be slashed and deaths would be avoided. Also the only reason that things like Weed can be considered a gateway drug (more than anything like alcohol and cigarettes which are gateway drugs too) is because its illegal. I'm not saying that people are going to be less likely to try hard drugs when they start with something a little less potent, but I am saying there is a stigma with some illegal substances thats undeserved. Basically any positive experience with a substance could have a gateway affect on someone. I'm in Intensive Outpatient Treatment (3 times a week) for Marijuana right now actually, and we watched a video on the stigma around addiction and treating addicts. Basically explained how Addiction classifies as a disease and Addicts should be patients not criminals. Video was called Pleasure Unwoven. http://web.me.com/kevintmccauley/Pleasure_Unwoven/Home.htmlGood stuff.
Yes the social "rebellious" attitude obviously contributes to teenage use of illegal substances and I know about the gateway effect. Also the idea you mentioned about treatment rather than punishment is the primary reason I would support this movement because we should help people instead of putting them in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
