|
On June 02 2011 02:15 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 23:12 maartendq wrote:On June 01 2011 17:49 teekesselchen wrote:Totally signed, legalising is the only way. It is better for absolutely everyone. 1) We cannot win war on drugs with violence, this is an ever-going struggle as long as there are people desperate enough to work in illegal drug trade. 2) There is absolutely no way illegal trade could compete with legal trade, thus it's a guaranteed win against the illegal business. 3) Examples have shown that decriminalisation do not increase the number of addicts. It also becomes easier to reach addicts to help them, when their doings are not illegal. Control who gets hands on drugs (no minors, for example) also becomes easier. Illegal dealers can't be forced to obey age restrictions, legal companies can. 4) There will be way less drug victims when the dose is reliable, and when there are no dangerous cuts to it. 5) Amongst both addicts and non-addicts there are hilarious sentences for drug abuse, even when it was a purely private matter and nobody came to harm. 6) With the number of addicts not rising in decriminalised countries, it is not likely that stuff like drug induced car crashes will increase, either. Obviously driving under drug influence will still be illegal, and obviously coming to work drugged will still cost one his job. 7) Instead of spending on the war on drugs, we'ld rather have income from taxes. The severe monetary difference could be used to fight addiction much better than it is done now, for example. On June 01 2011 16:54 zizou21 wrote:
can we just legalize weed? i don't think legalizing crack and heroin is a good idea LOL Everyone knows how dangerous this stuff is. The treshhold of "I really shouldn't take this stuff" is the same, whether it is purchased legally or not. Gonna play the devil's advocate here: why should we fight addiction? Why should the tax payer spend money on people that became addicted to drugs? It's their own fault they got addicted, they knew it was bad for them yet they took drugs anywa. Why not just let those people rot away, they clearly showed no respect for life. This is NOT my opinion but I can imagine a lot of people thinking this way. The problem with legalizing drugs is exactly the same as with declaring war on it; they're essentially two opposites that have got one thing in common: they treat the symptom rather than the cause. The only reason to stop drug crime is to stop people from wanting to take them. Most people take drugs because they're miserable. Those who do it for fun are plain decadent (yes, that includes you, pot smokers and people who get drunk on a frequent basis) and should not even be cared about. If we were to find a way to get rid of the enormous poverty a huge part of the world's population is living in, ie. get them a decent job, drug use would plummit. If people are happy, they don't need pychedelics to make them feel better. We should fight addiction for the same reason we fight any socials ills: it costs us money not to fight it, and it makes life better for everyone. If we don't fight addiction, we will pay the cost of a weakened work force, crimes committed by people who messed up their lives, and all the other related problems. Also, it's like asking why we should fight poverty when it's clear that nobody who has poor has made the best possible decisions in their life, or why we should provide health care to people who don't make perfect diet decisions. People aren't born into equal situations with respect to education, being raised well, having money, etc., and people poor decisions/get fucked over despite making good decisions. It takes a lot of arrogance to be so certain that you'd come out any better if you were in their position, and it's just basic decency to not say "well fuck them, they're screwed."
The problem is the method that is used to fight addiction.
We don't fight the "war on poverty" by arresting poor people (unless you are proposing bringing debtor's prisons back, or revoking the 13th amendment and allowing unemployed people to sell themselves into indentured servitude)
Perhaps we should sterilize people as soon as they go onto welfare (make it illegal to produce a child you can't support)... that might help poverty, but we don't do it.
Or execute the homeless (you can be without a legal residence for 6 months... then we execute you)... no more homelessness problem.
The "war on crime" is fought by punishing criminals, but not all social ills can be solved that way.
If the "war on drugs" was changed to a "war on addiction" it might be more successful and have less other problems.
|
On June 02 2011 03:15 VIB wrote:Wrong + Wrong = Right It's a branch from Classic Logic called Junkie Logic. Very popular in pro drugs debates 
What's wrong about ecstasy?
We allow tobacco to be legal, no one wants it to be illegal, its more harmful than ecstasy.
We want ecstasy to be illegal because it is harmful.
That is the gap in logic.
There are less reported deaths from ecstasy than shootings related to ecstasy trafficking. Thats why a war to stop drugs impoverishes a society.
|
On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous.
Didn't you read what I wrote? Even alcohol is considered more dangerous than ectasy. Most of the dangers associated wth ecstasy come from the fact that it's an illegal drug consumed on the borderline of society in a marginalized manner. MDMA had also raised a great interest in the eyes of many therapis before the rave ban act.
I mean, get your facts STRAIGHT. It kills me when people say bullshit like "it kills your brain cells" and don't even remember where they heard it. It has for example NEVER been proved that marijuana kills brain cells, and it's impossible to OD on it.
Ignorance, ignorance!
|
On June 02 2011 03:29 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:25 PanN wrote:On June 02 2011 03:15 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote:On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Wrong + Wrong = Right It's a branch from Classic Logic called Junkie Logic. Very popular in pro drugs debates I didn't present that argument, but thanks for assuming so, makes you look really nice and cute. My point is, he said ecstasy is TOO dangerous, implying it's more dangerous than tobacco, which is a lie. I didn't say you did Just took the opportunity to quote you because I <3 you ^^
I don't think you love me.
So you know, I do follow your posts from time to time and think you're generally a really good poster. Just saying.
|
On June 02 2011 03:30 FOUTWENTYSIXTY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:15 VIB wrote:Wrong + Wrong = Right It's a branch from Classic Logic called Junkie Logic. Very popular in pro drugs debates What's wrong about ecstasy? We allow tobacco to be legal, no one wants it to be illegal, its more harmful than ecstasy. We want ecstasy to be illegal because it is harmful. That is the gap in logic. There are less reported deaths from ecstasy than shootings related to ecstasy trafficking. Thats why a war to stop drugs impoverishes a society. I don't know how to answer that without just repeating what I already said. You just didn't understand what I said and is just saying that Wrong + Wrong = Right one more time
We allow tobacco to be legal. That doesn't mean we should allow any kind of crap to be illegal. Duh? There's plenty of people trying to slowly move tobacco to the same side as hard drugs. Would you be more satisfied then? Would that be "fair" to the unjusticed hard drugs who are being victim or racial double standard?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934
|
We should fight addiction for the same reason we fight any socials ills: it costs us money not to fight it, and it makes life better for everyone. If we don't fight addiction, we will pay the cost of a weakened work force, crimes committed by people who messed up their lives, and all the other related problems.
Social ills are largely a product of subjective opinions not any kind of objectivity. But still, we should fight addiction to most drugs.
Wrong + Wrong = Right one more time
How is ecstasy wrong?
|
i don't know why anyone thinks a government should be able to regulate what i put in my own body in the privacy of my own home, especially given the billion legal ways i have to harm myself and others if i want to.
|
On June 02 2011 03:30 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Didn't you read what I wrote? Even alcohol is considered more dangerous than ectasy. Most of the dangers associated wth ecstasy come from the fact that it's an illegal drug consumed on the borderline of society in a marginalized manner. MDMA had also raised a great interest in the eyes of many therapis before the rave ban act. I mean, get your facts STRAIGHT. It kills me when people say bullshit like "it kills your brain cells" and don't even remember where they heard it. It has for example NEVER been proved that marijuana kills brain cells, and it's impossible to OD on it. Ignorance, ignorance!
ignorance ,prejudice and lack of knowledge are the reasons for 99% of the "drugs are bad mmkay" guys.
i cant blame em for the not knowing what they talk about since the drug education is plain shit evrywhere. but i blame em for beeing stubborn,ignorant and pulling out wrong info just to argue about something they dont now anything about.
its like some old guy saying FPS should be banned cause they turn kids into serial killers cause all he knows about shooters is the crap in the news about some school shooting where the kid playd counterstrike. we all know that this is bullshit and that this guy has no clue. but still some of us pull off the same stupid behavior as soon as the topic is drugs.
On June 02 2011 03:40 rycho wrote:
i don't know why anyone thinks a government should be able to regulate what i put in my own body in the privacy of my own home, especially given the billion legal ways i have to harm myself and others if i want to.
yeah. at the most basic point of view banning most drugs is illegal since usually the constitution says something like " evrybody is free to do whatever they want as long as they dont harm others".
|
On June 02 2011 03:20 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote:On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What. I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying? Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous? And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source  Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : /
You didn't actually read anything did you? The graph shows harm to others (red) and harm to self (blue) and adds them together. Meth, Heroin and Crack have the largest blue bars, but their red bars are much smaller than alcohol because it does significantly more harm to people around the user than any other drug, which when you think about it makes perfect sense.
And you're right, you never having drunk alcohol or done drugs doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, but it makes it very likely that the majority of information you get about drugs is from the media. Its a two way street though.
Graph
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm pretty sure this is a completely useless petition if only because the UN has absolutely no obligation to do anything for a bunch of anonymous people on the internet, especially only half a million.
Just look at organizations like Norml and ACLU's membership counts -- there are obviously well over 500k people who are against drug criminalization and everyone's quite aware of it already.
|
On June 02 2011 03:50 hmunkey wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is a completely useless petition if only because the UN has absolutely no obligation to do anything for a bunch of anonymous people on the internet, especially only half a million.
Just look at organizations like Norml and ACLU's membership counts -- there are obviously well over 500k people who are against drug criminalization and everyone's quite aware of it already.
It's not a useless petition, any petition that has directly had contact with the people making the rules is a success in my book.
|
On June 02 2011 03:46 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:20 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote:On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What. I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying? Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous? And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : / You didn't actually read anything did you? The graph shows harm to others (red) and harm to self (blue) and adds them together. Meth, Heroin and Crack have the largest blue bars, but their red bars are much smaller than alcohol because it does significantly more harm to people around the user than any other drug, which when you think about it makes perfect sense. And you're right, you never having drunk alcohol or done drugs doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, but it makes it very likely that the majority of information you get about drugs is from the media. Its a two way street though. Graph + Show Spoiler +
Yea i know. He measures 2 different kinds of harm you could say. So in "total harm" alcohol is more dangerous than heroin, and cannabis is more dangerous than Meth, LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy.
I disagree with that. He did also say that this kind of measurement is subjective, so theres that.
But i really like this part:
“direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other (illegal) drugs is not possible, since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability”
Which i think is a very good point.
|
On June 02 2011 03:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +We should fight addiction for the same reason we fight any socials ills: it costs us money not to fight it, and it makes life better for everyone. If we don't fight addiction, we will pay the cost of a weakened work force, crimes committed by people who messed up their lives, and all the other related problems. Social ills are largely a product of subjective opinions not any kind of objectivity. But still, we should fight addiction to most drugs.
I don't understand how the problems caused by addiction, poverty, poor health, crime, etc. are "subjective." There is a lot of objective economic damage caused by all of these things.
|
On June 02 2011 03:30 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:15 PJA wrote:On June 01 2011 23:12 maartendq wrote:On June 01 2011 17:49 teekesselchen wrote:Totally signed, legalising is the only way. It is better for absolutely everyone. 1) We cannot win war on drugs with violence, this is an ever-going struggle as long as there are people desperate enough to work in illegal drug trade. 2) There is absolutely no way illegal trade could compete with legal trade, thus it's a guaranteed win against the illegal business. 3) Examples have shown that decriminalisation do not increase the number of addicts. It also becomes easier to reach addicts to help them, when their doings are not illegal. Control who gets hands on drugs (no minors, for example) also becomes easier. Illegal dealers can't be forced to obey age restrictions, legal companies can. 4) There will be way less drug victims when the dose is reliable, and when there are no dangerous cuts to it. 5) Amongst both addicts and non-addicts there are hilarious sentences for drug abuse, even when it was a purely private matter and nobody came to harm. 6) With the number of addicts not rising in decriminalised countries, it is not likely that stuff like drug induced car crashes will increase, either. Obviously driving under drug influence will still be illegal, and obviously coming to work drugged will still cost one his job. 7) Instead of spending on the war on drugs, we'ld rather have income from taxes. The severe monetary difference could be used to fight addiction much better than it is done now, for example. On June 01 2011 16:54 zizou21 wrote:
can we just legalize weed? i don't think legalizing crack and heroin is a good idea LOL Everyone knows how dangerous this stuff is. The treshhold of "I really shouldn't take this stuff" is the same, whether it is purchased legally or not. Gonna play the devil's advocate here: why should we fight addiction? Why should the tax payer spend money on people that became addicted to drugs? It's their own fault they got addicted, they knew it was bad for them yet they took drugs anywa. Why not just let those people rot away, they clearly showed no respect for life. This is NOT my opinion but I can imagine a lot of people thinking this way. The problem with legalizing drugs is exactly the same as with declaring war on it; they're essentially two opposites that have got one thing in common: they treat the symptom rather than the cause. The only reason to stop drug crime is to stop people from wanting to take them. Most people take drugs because they're miserable. Those who do it for fun are plain decadent (yes, that includes you, pot smokers and people who get drunk on a frequent basis) and should not even be cared about. If we were to find a way to get rid of the enormous poverty a huge part of the world's population is living in, ie. get them a decent job, drug use would plummit. If people are happy, they don't need pychedelics to make them feel better. We should fight addiction for the same reason we fight any socials ills: it costs us money not to fight it, and it makes life better for everyone. If we don't fight addiction, we will pay the cost of a weakened work force, crimes committed by people who messed up their lives, and all the other related problems. Also, it's like asking why we should fight poverty when it's clear that nobody who has poor has made the best possible decisions in their life, or why we should provide health care to people who don't make perfect diet decisions. People aren't born into equal situations with respect to education, being raised well, having money, etc., and people poor decisions/get fucked over despite making good decisions. It takes a lot of arrogance to be so certain that you'd come out any better if you were in their position, and it's just basic decency to not say "well fuck them, they're screwed." The problem is the method that is used to fight addiction. We don't fight the "war on poverty" by arresting poor people (unless you are proposing bringing debtor's prisons back, or revoking the 13th amendment and allowing unemployed people to sell themselves into indentured servitude) Perhaps we should sterilize people as soon as they go onto welfare (make it illegal to produce a child you can't support)... that might help poverty, but we don't do it. Or execute the homeless (you can be without a legal residence for 6 months... then we execute you)... no more homelessness problem. The "war on crime" is fought by punishing criminals, but not all social ills can be solved that way. If the "war on drugs" was changed to a "war on addiction" it might be more successful and have less other problems.
Did you even read the post I responded to?
I'm pretty sure you read "we should fight ..." and then went on a fucking random pro-drug propaganda rant like a retard. Stop doing that.
|
I don't really know what this has turned into after reading the OP, but there seems to be alot of stupid posts arguing about how they should be able to do whatever drugs they want. I would agree, but there are long reaching problems. Like asking someone about the drug war on the US border, and them saying, "I just like to smoke." This OP is more in the right than the bashing, cause they are dumb as shit.
|
if the war on murder was costing to much, and not delivering results, would your solution be legalise murder?
this petition is stupid, you have to change the majority perception on whether drugs are right or wrong before legalising it becomes an option...
before someone with a soap box replies saying how drugs are not evil and shows some pretty graphs: there is no right or wrong, only socially accepted norms, and atm drugs are not accepted
|
The problem with legalizing drugs is exactly the same as with declaring war on it; they're essentially two opposites that have got one thing in common: they treat the symptom rather than the cause. The only reason to stop drug crime is to stop people from wanting to take them. Most people take drugs because they're miserable. Those who do it for fun are plain decadent (yes, that includes you, pot smokers and people who get drunk on a frequent basis) and should not even be cared about. If we were to find a way to get rid of the enormous poverty a huge part of the world's population is living in, ie. get them a decent job, drug use would plummit. If people are happy, they don't need pychedelics to make them feel better.
the vast majority of people take drugs of any form just for the enjoyment.
and thats a totally natural thing. humans use drugs for all kindsa reasons since thousands of years. even the old egyptians brewed some form of "beer" . there are some kinds of people living in the jungle where their whole community evolves around one drug. hell even stupid animals eat half rotten fruit because it has some alcohol in it.
its not decadent. its not for misery. its something humans/some animals do because its nice.
your view is very limited here and you look at drugs as a evil thing thats just for sad people. which is just wrong.
|
On June 02 2011 04:15 jfourz wrote:
if the war on murder was costing to much, and not delivering results, would your solution be legalise murder?
this petition is stupid, you have to change the majority perception on whether drugs are right or wrong before legalising it becomes an option...
before someone with a soap box replies saying how drugs are not evil and shows some pretty graphs: there is no right or wrong, only socially accepted norms, and atm drugs are not accepted
nvm
|
On June 02 2011 03:54 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:46 Eufouria wrote:On June 02 2011 03:20 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote:On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What. I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying? Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous? And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : / You didn't actually read anything did you? The graph shows harm to others (red) and harm to self (blue) and adds them together. Meth, Heroin and Crack have the largest blue bars, but their red bars are much smaller than alcohol because it does significantly more harm to people around the user than any other drug, which when you think about it makes perfect sense. And you're right, you never having drunk alcohol or done drugs doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, but it makes it very likely that the majority of information you get about drugs is from the media. Its a two way street though. Graph + Show Spoiler + Yea i know. He measures 2 different kinds of harm you could say. So in "total harm" alcohol is more dangerous than heroin, and cannabis is more dangerous than Meth, LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy. I disagree with that. He did also say that this kind of measurement is subjective, so theres that. But i really like this part: “direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other (illegal) drugs is not possible, since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability” Which i think is a very good point.
Why are laws made prohibiting these substances? Because of how badly they harm the individual and more importantly how the harm the society around the individual. I think that's very important to take into account with any sort of legislation.
And yes, direct comparison isn't possible. But we know from countries like portugal, switzerland and to a small extent places like croatia that drug related crime/deaths/illnesses actually go down with de-criminalisation. Mainly because the drugs get made better as the market becomes open, and people are made more aware of the manner in which drugs should be taken and how to be safe without killing yourself.
I just think its disingenuous to say "marijuana is fine but you cross a line with those other drugs" when the scientific evidence is out there to say some of those "harder" drugs are not even as bad for you as pot. It's just opening you up to hypocrisy/a double standard. I speak as a person who hasn't tried anything but alcohol, so I have no bias to any particular drug.
In the end, the libertarian view of us being able to decide what goes in our bodies is the best one, along with the help of proper education and "dissuasion clinics". I always find it funny that when I ask a smoker what do they think about drug criminalization they're all for it, but when I say tobacco should be criminalized as well they say it's "nanny-state ism and against their rights".
|
Regulation and decriminalization is one thing. But it is missing the bigger picture IMO. The picture that drugs need to be SUBSIDIZED. Do you know how expensive weed/MDMA is for an average college student. Damn hell it is. And the fact of the matter remains - for a lot of people, with the tough economic situation and corporate wage slavery & low living standards, drugs is the only way to escape the problems of reality, even if only temporarily. Hence, in the interest of public happiness, there need to be heavy subsidization programs and tax benefits for producers of drugs.
Dont let the UN get away by trying to move the issue onto another tangent, we must keep them focused on the REAL problem.
On June 02 2011 04:53 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:54 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 02 2011 03:46 Eufouria wrote:On June 02 2011 03:20 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote:On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote:On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What. I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying? Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous? And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : / You didn't actually read anything did you? The graph shows harm to others (red) and harm to self (blue) and adds them together. Meth, Heroin and Crack have the largest blue bars, but their red bars are much smaller than alcohol because it does significantly more harm to people around the user than any other drug, which when you think about it makes perfect sense. And you're right, you never having drunk alcohol or done drugs doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, but it makes it very likely that the majority of information you get about drugs is from the media. Its a two way street though. Graph + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler +
Yea i know. He measures 2 different kinds of harm you could say. So in "total harm" alcohol is more dangerous than heroin, and cannabis is more dangerous than Meth, LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy.
I disagree with that. He did also say that this kind of measurement is subjective, so theres that.
But i really like this part:
“direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other (illegal) drugs is not possible, since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability”
Which i think is a very good point.
Why are laws made prohibiting these substances? Because of how badly they harm the individual and more importantly how the harm the society around the individual. I think that's very important to take into account with any sort of legislation. And yes, direct comparison isn't possible. But we know from countries like portugal, switzerland and to a small extent places like croatia that drug related crime/deaths/illnesses actually go down with de-criminalisation. Mainly because the drugs get made better as the market becomes open, and people are made more aware of the manner in which drugs should be taken and how to be safe without killing yourself. I just think its disingenuous to say "marijuana is fine but you cross a line with those other drugs" when the scientific evidence is out there to say some of those "harder" drugs are not even as bad for you as pot. It's just opening you up to hypocrisy/a double standard. I speak as a person who hasn't tried anything but alcohol, so I have no bias to any particular drug. In the end, the libertarian view of us being able to decide what goes in our bodies is the best one, along with the help of proper education and "dissuasion clinics". I always find it funny that when I ask a smoker what do they think about drug criminalization they're all for it, but when I say tobacco should be criminalized as well they say it's "nanny-state ism and against their rights".
Drugs do NOT harm any individual! That is a completely fallacious statement! Drugs are good, as expressed by demonstrated preference. People CHOOSE to use drugs, hence Drugs are GOOD for people!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201003/gl201003_p5f1.jpg)
