|
On June 09 2011 04:20 iNSiPiD1 wrote:
If one were to end the war on drugs I think we would have a lot more problems than we do currently. I believe that if we were to legalize drugs then there would rise huge corporations that would control the distribution of the substances to the population (much like cigarettes and alcohol).
Keeping this in mind we would realize that the little guy who is running drugs around would no longer be necessary, since I can now purchase pot and cocaine from my local grocery store.
These people who were running the drugs around do it for MONEY! If they could no longer make money from their illicit drug activities then they will do it through other means, like gun smuggling, or human trafficking. They would just replace the current drug running illegal activity with another (probably more crazy) activity that has huge payoff because it's illegal.
Long story short, if we end the war on drugs we will not be solving any problems. We will just have to start a war on <insert another illicit activity here> because all the low lifes who make money off running drugs will start doing something else instead.
So my argument is that the war on drugs isn't really a war on drugs at all. It's a war on a certain type of person who contributes nothing but negativity to society through the exploitation of illegal activities.
-First you begin with a straw man where heroin is treated like tobacco. That is not an end to the war on drugs. That's an end to the war plus a whole bunch of assumptions you seem to have pulled from nowhere.
-You go on with a hypothesis that some members of society seek illegal ways to make money no matter what and that once they couldn't deal drugs they would magic up some demand for slavery and then fulfil it.
On one side we have mountains of evidence brought together by a group of experts in the field comparing the war on drugs with other drug policies.
On the other side we have you with unsubstantiated hypothesis based on feelings. Don't worry too much though, you're in good company, the US government does the the same thing.
|
Okay, I have some questions for the legalization people. These are legitimate questions, and if you respond as if I'm arguing for continuing the drug war or just generally in an abusive or negative tone you're a moron, just FYI.
1) To what extent do you want legalization? Do you wish for all recreational drugs to be as available as, say alcohol? Only particular drugs? More/Less regulation than alcohol? With explanation, of course.
2) If your answer is that they ought to be roughly as available as alcohol, do you hold the same opinion on current prescription drugs (i.e. everything from antidepressants to antibiotics), and if not, which drugs do you think should still require a prescription, and what is your reasoning?
3) What are the main reasons you are pro-legalization? How much of it is utilitarian (i.e. you think it will reduce crime, gangs, help addicted people more, etc.)? How much of it is human rights (i.e. the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you consume)? If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized, and if the latter is more important, does this conflict with your views on 2)?
|
I'm confused as to why people are arguing about the nutritional value of hemp seed. It's actually legal in the UK, and I don't know of any danger of dying of starvation in the USofA,( or in Britain, but...) Maybe in certain places legalizing hemp would be beneficial for health reasons, but I don't think its a very big issue.
More to the point, there are no studies of how people would react if they had access to legal drugs in any quantity. With this in mind, its very hard to say whether the current situation is better than a world with legal drugs or not. It is purely theorycrafting, but with public policy instead of sc. Personally, I am not in favor of " The Nanny State", so I would prefer to give people the chance to prove their merit. I'd like to end the "Drug War", but there is no evidence to back up my claim.
|
On June 03 2011 14:17 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 13:40 ryanAnger wrote:On June 03 2011 13:29 HULKAMANIA wrote:On June 03 2011 13:13 ryanAnger wrote:On June 03 2011 12:55 VIB wrote:On June 03 2011 02:54 Barrin wrote:
For the past ~10,000 years, every civilization in every part of the world used the hemp plant as a staple crop.
It wouldn't do this plant justice if I was to only list some of the things that this plant is capable of, but the previous bolded red sentence above should speak for itself. It frustrates me to no end that a plant with so many GREAT FUCKING uses could possibly be made illegal. The documentary above talks about how it can do things like solve world hunger (hemp seed oil), stop massive deforestation of trees (extremely efficient way to make paper... guess where the first paper came from?), and even be a massive economic boon (this one is pretty complicated); you're damn right it doesn't stop there. If you want to do more research on it then I suggest watching the documentary above to begin with. Can't tell if trolling or not :S You do know there are other plants you can use to eat, there other plants you can use to cut wood. And there are millions of unhealthy things we used to do 10,000 years ago which we don't do anymore, because after 10,000 years of technology progress we finally found they were unhealthy. Right? Here's my own personal solution to world hunger, infrastructure and poverty: potatoes :D I'm such a genius I should write that in bolded red or something ;P Potatoes can't grow in virtually ALL soil conditions on Earth. Potatoes don't grow faster than every other crop in the world. Potatoes aren't completely self-sustaining. Potatoes can't be used to make almost all household items a person uses these days. Also, Hemp isn't unhealthy. I'd point you to the millions of pages of research on this, but I figure if you aren't willing to look for yourself then you are either too stupid to understand, or too ignorant to want to know anyway.I can't wait until the people like you are in the minority, though it will probably never happen. ryan Anger indeed. Did VIB kick your dog or something? No, but he has proved time and time again within this thread that he is unwilling to do any sort of research on the subject, or come up with any remotely intelligent argument in favor of his beliefs. Suggesting that potatoes and hemp are similar in the way he did is both stupid, and ignorant, and he would be less stupid and less ignorant if he actually did the research. 1) I posted the findings of my years of deep, scientific, and completely not trollage research results on page 3: + Show Spoiler +On June 01 2011 03:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 03:05 Spidinko wrote:
I don't understand how legalizing drugs is goind to help humanity in any way.
Not gonna sign. MAYBE YOU COULD READ ANY OF THE MILLION POSTS/WEBPAGES EXPLAINING IT THEN But 99% of those millions are just saying a combination of one of these: - it's natural so it can't possibly be bad - three wrongs make one right. Aka tobacco and alcohol are also bad. - points to country that didn't legalize but claim they did anyway: portugal, netherlands, switzerlands are popular targets - points out violence of drug cartels, but forgets about violence of drug junkies - talks of conspiracy theories of prisons who wants to profit of arresting junkies, but ignores lobbies of billionaire drug lords There's only 1% of those webpages who actually talk about reasonable arguments like the economic question someone brought up a few posts ago. So it's hard to weed down those millions of pro legalization sites into something useful. But even those who do make reasonable economic analysis, I still feel they're dismissing the other side of the argument and ignoring the potential economic risks that legalization could bring. edit: I actually should have added 2 more to the common bad pro-drug arguments list: + Show Spoiler +- it's not unhealthy because my scientific paper is less biased then yours (this is the one you're using)
- humans are very smart and can decide what's good for themselves without anyone telling them what to do (yea, humans = smart is kinda lol, but that's actually a very common argument in this thread) 2) I can find just as many scientific papers saying hemp or whatever other light drug is bad as you can find the opposite. But I'm 99% sure you'll just say the ones I find are "biased conspiracy trying to keep drugs illegal". 3) I <3 you and would never kick your dog 4) I do think there are some good pro-legalization arguments to be made, but 99% of the people use the bad ones instead
Somebody who's against marijuana this much has to be ignorant in some way. Weed is not a bad thing. My life has only been getting better since I discovered how great it is. I'm happier, my sleep schedule is much more regular and my responsibilities haven't been affected negatively. Only positively, really, because I'm not so tired in the mornings anymore and I can get to sleep at a reasonable hour.
|
1) To what extent do you want legalization? Do you wish for all recreational drugs to be as available as, say alcohol? Only particular drugs? More/Less regulation than alcohol? With explanation, of course.
A good start would be: Stop arresting people for possession. That's a start to decriminalisation, it does a bunch of interesting things; drastically reduce the prison population, makes drug addicts more accessable for counciling and treatment, enables law enforcement to focus it's attention on drug cartels and drug related violence as well as just generally freeing up tons of police/court time for other things.
3) What are the main reasons you are pro-legalization? How much of it is utilitarian (i.e. you think it will reduce crime, gangs, help addicted people more, etc.)? How much of it is human rights (i.e. the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you consume)? If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized
Again pro decriminalisation, an end to the "War on drugs" NOT the straw boogie man of "heroin at the local corner store made by glaxosmithkline". Both are important but in answer to your question: More than the harm that the war on drugs causes.
|
Also
"legalise marijuana only because of all it's miriad uses" is a irrelevant to this petition, the Global Commission on Drug Policy's report and this thread. Go make another thread if you love rope so much, or grow an opinion and contribute.
|
Fuck no
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Claiming that pot legalization activists argue that since alcohol and tobacco are regulated -- "two wrongs make a right". NO ONE uses this argument. This is not a valid argument. This does not even make any fucking sense. Alcohol IS more harmful, and, for most people, MORE addicting than marijuana, but it is (and even was during prohibition) widely accepted as something that can be used socially and responsibly. It has nothing to do with 'Two wrongs make a right' it has to do with the fact that, as human beings, we have the sense to understand what we choose to put in our bodies. Right and wrong are relative terms which change from person to person, country to country, etc. so don't even get started with that argument. The effects of these substances are well known, and the laws do not reflect this whatsoever. This, my friend, is a fact. If you think that using pot is morally 'Wrong' then stay away from it by all means, but the moment that you lie to my face, telling ME what is WRONG for my body -- and moreso attempt to bar me from using any substance for this reason -- you are insulting me, and insulting my rights. Frankly if you want to force your morals on others then go to a different country -- we don't want you here in America.
|
I disagree on this completely. In all honesty, I think we need to 'step up' the war on drugs. For what money and lives we save, more money and lives will be lost with decreased drug regulation
|
On June 09 2011 05:25 TheAuditor wrote:
I disagree on this completely. In all honesty, I think we need to 'step up' the war on drugs. For what money and lives we save, more money and lives will be lost with decreased drug regulation
I just literally face palmed. I wish to prove you wrong at this moment, but since I am posting this from my phone I can't.
|
On June 09 2011 05:25 TheAuditor wrote:
I disagree on this completely. In all honesty, I think we need to 'step up' the war on drugs. For what money and lives we save, more money and lives will be lost with decreased drug regulation
All evidence from countries in which drugs have been decriminalised disagrees with this statement.
The shocking is not that you have an opinion that involves exactly zero rigorous thinking, evidence or sound argument, the shocking thing is that you use this opinion to justify STEPPING UP A WAR.
|
On June 09 2011 05:04 Dapper_Cad wrote:
1) To what extent do you want legalization? Do you wish for all recreational drugs to be as available as, say alcohol? Only particular drugs? More/Less regulation than alcohol? With explanation, of course.
A good start would be: Stop arresting people for possession. That's a start to decriminalisation, it does a bunch of interesting things; drastically reduce the prison population, makes drug addicts more accessable for counciling and treatment, enables law enforcement to focus it's attention on drug cartels and drug related violence as well as just generally freeing up tons of police/court time for other things.
3) What are the main reasons you are pro-legalization? How much of it is utilitarian (i.e. you think it will reduce crime, gangs, help addicted people more, etc.)? How much of it is human rights (i.e. the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you consume)? If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized
Again pro decriminalisation, an end to the "War on drugs" NOT the straw boogie man of "heroin at the local corner store made by glaxosmithkline". Both are important but in answer to your question: More than the harm that the war on drugs causes.
So you want to start with not arresting people for possession, fine. But where do you want to end up? This doesn't actually tell me what you stance on "legalization" is or how far you want to take it. I understand that an end to the "war on drugs" is not necessarily "heroin at the local corner store" but what is it?
|
On June 09 2011 05:25 TheAuditor wrote:
I disagree on this completely. In all honesty, I think we need to 'step up' the war on drugs. For what money and lives we save, more money and lives will be lost with decreased drug regulation
How will money be lost?
to give you an idea, in BC the marijuana industry is our second alrgest contributor to out GDP. the moment that starts actually getting taxed that's literally hundreds of millions of dollars in place of the hundreds of millions spent to fight it.
"BC Business places the provincial marijuana industry at $7.5-billion with a labour force of over 250,000." quote from 2008, and it's just continued to grow since then.
|
11589 Posts
On June 09 2011 05:15 Moldwood wrote:
Claiming that pot legalization activists argue that since alcohol and tobacco are regulated -- "two wrongs make a right". NO ONE uses this argument. This is not a valid argument. This does not even make any fucking sense. Alcohol IS more harmful, and, for most people, MORE addicting than marijuana, but it is (and even was during prohibition) widely accepted as something that can be used socially and responsibly. It has nothing to do with 'Two wrongs make a right' it has to do with the fact that, as human beings, we have the sense to understand what we choose to put in our bodies. Right and wrong are relative terms which change from person to person, country to country, etc. so don't even get started with that argument. The effects of these substances are well known, and the laws do not reflect this whatsoever. This, my friend, is a fact. If you think that using pot is morally 'Wrong' then stay away from it by all means, but the moment that you lie to my face, telling ME what is WRONG for my body -- and moreso attempt to bar me from using any substance for this reason -- you are insulting me, and insulting my rights. Frankly if you want to force your morals on others then go to a different country -- we don't want you here in America.
Let me start off by saying that I understand what you're trying to say. You have a libertarian view on personal freedom and believe that it's your right to do whatever you want with your body. You even try to justify it by saying that alcohol is an example of the ability of humans to rationally decide what is right and wrong for them to do.
I simply think that you are mistaken. Humans are not always capable of deciding the best things for themselves. Ironically, alcohol is one of the most glaring examples of this inability to make rational decisions. Drinking and driving has, statistically, been a great argument for how dumb people can be with alcohol.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Now, I understand that there is a general decline in the yearly numbers, but 30%+ is still a significant amount of deaths that are related to drivers with alcohol in their system. I would think that, if humans were always rational enough to decide what's best, then drinking and driving would almost never occur. But, unfortunately, it still does. Why? Because alcohol impairs decision making and cognitive function.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p15263405606h102/
http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/197.full
So, while your conclusion, that people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, might be a good one, you've argued for it all wrong. Using alcohol as an example of how humans can make good decision making is now such a laughably absurd idea that I think you ought to rethink the structure of your idea. It's not the only problem with your reasoning, but it is surely the most glaring in a thread dedicated to discussion of substances and their role in society.
|
Signed! Good to see something like this finally happening.
|
On June 09 2011 05:39 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 05:04 Dapper_Cad wrote:
1) To what extent do you want legalization? Do you wish for all recreational drugs to be as available as, say alcohol? Only particular drugs? More/Less regulation than alcohol? With explanation, of course.
A good start would be: Stop arresting people for possession. That's a start to decriminalisation, it does a bunch of interesting things; drastically reduce the prison population, makes drug addicts more accessable for counciling and treatment, enables law enforcement to focus it's attention on drug cartels and drug related violence as well as just generally freeing up tons of police/court time for other things.
3) What are the main reasons you are pro-legalization? How much of it is utilitarian (i.e. you think it will reduce crime, gangs, help addicted people more, etc.)? How much of it is human rights (i.e. the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you consume)? If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized
Again pro decriminalisation, an end to the "War on drugs" NOT the straw boogie man of "heroin at the local corner store made by glaxosmithkline". Both are important but in answer to your question: More than the harm that the war on drugs causes.
So you want to start with not arresting people for possession, fine. But where do you want to end up? This doesn't actually tell me what you stance on "legalization" is or how far you want to take it. I understand that an end to the "war on drugs" is not necessarily "heroin at the local corner store" but what is it?
You end up with not arresting people for possession. That's exactly what it is. If you think this seems strange, it is, when you have been fed a constant stream of rhetoric for the war on drugs with all other alternatives being presented as insane/morally bankrupt/motivated by evil. Keep in mind that this really is the level of discussion at the moment. Turn on the TV and wait.
Once more, this has already been done in real live countries with real live people who experienced real live benefits from the change. Go wiki up some portuguese drug policy.
|
So, whats happened with this? Has there been an update since the meeting?
|
On June 09 2011 04:42 PJA wrote:
1) To what extent do you want legalization? Do you wish for all recreational drugs to be as available as, say alcohol? Only particular drugs? More/Less regulation than alcohol? With explanation, of course.
In my opinion:
- recreational drugs should be just as easily available as alcohol. Maybe they shouldn't be sold everywhere like alcohol is, but confined to places like coffee shops in the Netherlands.
- drugs that couldn't possible be used responsibly (like heroin, meth) should not be decriminalized/legalized.
2) If your answer is that they ought to be roughly as available as alcohol, do you hold the same opinion on current prescription drugs (i.e. everything from antidepressants to antibiotics), and if not, which drugs do you think should still require a prescription, and what is your reasoning?
- prescription drugs that couldn't possibly be used recreationally (e.g. antibiotics) should require a doctor's prescription to avoid the danger of people misdiagnosing themselves and mismedicating themselves to death.
- other drugs can be made available depending on how dangerous they are (more like weed or more like heroin).
3) What are the main reasons you are pro-legalization? How much of it is utilitarian (i.e. you think it will reduce crime, gangs, help addicted people more, etc.)? How much of it is human rights (i.e. the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you consume)? If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized, and if the latter is more important, does this conflict with your views on 2)?
Mainly utilitarian, the decriminalization of marijuana alone would be a huge improvement.
"If the former is more important, how much harm would have to be done for you to not want drugs legalized".
If I understand this right, then I've stated opinion further above:
"drugs that couldn't possible be used responsibly (like heroin, meth) should not be decriminalized/legalized."
If this is not the answer you were looking for, please rephrase your question.
|
On June 09 2011 05:59 Masq wrote:
So, whats happened with this? Has there been an update since the meeting?
I would like to know as well. Anyone have a link to an article about it or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
