72 hours to end World's most senseless War! - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 01 2011 06:32 PanN wrote: I agree with most of what you said. I don't think my argument about it being my body is weak though, I am not mentally disabled, I am an adult, I should be allowed to do substances that I am educated about, and I think the same should apply to everyone under those conditions. I also agree that regulating drugs wouldn't necessarily enforce users to be responsible, I don't think I said or implied that, maybe someone else did. But thats not the point. You really think people need the government to supply drugs? No. They're going to get them anyway, and most people get them VERY easily. The point of having government regulation is providing a safety standard for producing said substances and hopefully reducing a lot of gang and criminal income. No more ecstasy cut with meth, no more impure heroin, no more laced drugs, no more people selling heroin in schools etc. That works in theory, but the truth is we also have huge black markets for drugs that are regulated by the government (prescription drugs). This black market doesn't just consist of drugs that were made to standards, but also contains a huge supply of fake generics that are really no different and just as dangerous as unregulated illegal drugs such as cocaine. I think this goes quite a long way to disproving the notion that regulating illicit substances and ensuring quality control would remove the problem of impure products thrown together in someone's backyard. It may reduce the problem somewhat, but so long as the cost or process of acquiring controlled substances remains a prohibiting factor, a black market will always exist. The argument that anyone that wants illegal drugs could get them is also difficult for me to believe because not everyone knows where to get heroine or even marijuana and the risk of being caught in some sort of sting certainly deters a good number of people from attempting to find out. For some it might not matter one way or the other, but it does give the average person pause as does the lack of reliable quality control. By legalizing these substances, you're increasing their accessibility to people who might otherwise have not had access to them. I'm not saying that there's no valid argument for legalizing any drug, but I don't think the benefits are really as clear cut as most proponents make them out to be. It's essentially trying to weigh the pros and cons and determine the lesser of two evils. I'm just not convinced... | ||
|
Morteth
United States59 Posts
On June 01 2011 06:40 AMaidensWrath wrote: World's most senseless war? I highly doubt that. Senseless? Yes. Worse substances are legal, and the prohibitions on certain substances in the past have proven to proliferate the illegal substances use. Marijuana's legal status is also neglecting the country and potentially the world of many jobs, an issue you have to weigh out in our current situation. How much money have we spent on this in the past half century? Is it an efficient system? Is it the most senseless war? Depends on who you ask, many would say yes. It's just more money down the toilet. And pretty ironic when you see the damage tobacco and alcohol have induced which is why these hard drugs are illegal in the first place. | ||
|
laste
Bulgaria242 Posts
continuing this campaign is counter-productive, it accomplishes nothing other than making people go to jail. these substances are still accessible no matter what you do. in the arab world they have extremely harsh penalties for illegal substance usage yet drugs are still widely used, maybe not as much as in the west but thats perhaps due to their culture. last year the Czech republic changed its drug policies, you can carry around: Marijuana: up to 15 grams Heroin: up to 1.5 grams Cocaine: up to 1 gram Methamphetetamine: up to 2 grams Amphetamine: up to 2 grams Ecstasy: up to 4 tablets Hashish: up to 5 grams Hallucinogenic mushrooms: up to 40 pieces LSD: up to five tabs and I don't think much has changed other than less people going to jail. I believe it has come to the point where the legal status of these substances has become kind of irrelevant. If we'd spend the time, effort and money educating people on why exactly some of this stuff is really bad for you we'd wouldn't have half the trouble with drugs we have today. You'd think in a modern society people wouldn't idolize Charlie Sheen for "bangin 7gram rocks" but they do because they think its bad-ass. Thats the whole point of this, to change people's attitude. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 01 2011 06:38 Insanious wrote: You do realize that two of the most dangerous drugs are already legalized... Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth. It is legalized and in cigarettes. Even drugs like heroine and crack cocaine are less addictive than Nicotine. Then we get into something that is dangerous, lets talk about alcohol. Easy to overdose on, causes a massive amount of impaired judgment, and is the drug tied to the most deaths annually. Legalizing and regulating these drugs are similar to the legalization and regulation of alcohol and nicotine. Not only will legalizing reduce the amount of crime (as it will remove the black market aspect of drugs), but it will make the drugs safer (as in, they will be of a certain purity and will not kill people due to accidental overdoses or being cut with something that shouldn't be ingested.) We also can end up creating business whose jobs are responsible for helping people who are on these drugs. Where you end up with a society that people can do what they want, and can get help when they need it, while being a lot less in danger and having more help available... Legalization and regulation > making it illegal. I think I made it a point to include alcohol in my reasoning precisely because it is a dangerous substance in line with many of the drugs that we currently outlaw. However, I don't believe the fact that alcohol is legal should automatically mean we need to legalize more dangerous and abusive substances. If anything, the fact that alcohol is so problematic should be a sign that we need to find a more effective solution for further regulating it rather than adding to society's problems by introducing more risky substances. I've already explained why I believe that the removal of the black market through legalization is a myth so I won't bother revisiting that topic. If you want to read it, read the post right before this one. If I believed that people were responsible, I might be more convinced, but I don't because they're clearly not. The trouble with any drug be it alcohol or crack is that once consumed, they impair the judgment of people who might otherwise be perfectly responsible. I wish I could believe that people could be depended on to drink responsibly and moderately. I wish I could believe that a person could be depended on to get high once in a while and not let it become a destructive force in their lives. While I believe many can, I also know that there are many more who simply can't. Sure, you can certainly argue that self destructive behavior exists in many other forms as well, but I really can't justify adding to it, especially when we're dealing with things that can distort perfectly good people and turn them into something they're not. It's an ugly industry on all sides and one that's taken a horrible toll on humanity, but I would rather continue to encourage people to find alternative methods of escaping stress (more productive ones) than believe that this is an inevitable disease of humanity that can never be cured. Falling back upon our baser instincts and resorting to substance use in order to make ourselves feel better just feels like a step backward for me rather than a step forward... Be it alcohol, nicotine, or whatever. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:43 PanN wrote: How about you look at the benefits instead of just going off your emotions? If you really care about people dying from drugs, then you need to read up on the benefits of decriminalization, or legalization. More lives would be saved from having factory produced drugs when compared to the street garbage so many users are subjected to. If junkies want to get high, they'll get high; and I think its better getting it from the government, then some asshole outside of a school. Also, guess what? That asshole wouldn't be making money. Instead, your government could be making money off users, and put that money to good use, like better schools, libraries, hospitals, whatever. Also, who are you to tell people what they can, and cannot put in their bodies? I think that's very rude and selfish. If you want it banned to prevent more injuries or needless death, then we need to put more effort on education, not the prohibition; seeing as that isn't working at all. Also, so the person above me, your poll is pretty biased. Legalizing drugs would send the message to people that it's alright to use drugs. By making it criminal you're sending the message that it's wrong to do, and that would discourage a lot of people. Sure it wouldn't matter to junkies, but some people might start using just because it's legal. People can do whatever they want to themselves, i dont care. But the fact is that using drugs hurts others. Same reason as why you cant drive while drunk. You can do whatever you want, as long as you dont hurt other people. I know that legalizing drugs would have its benefits, lower crime, more money for the government etc. but it would also create more drug users, especially in places like central america where drugs are pretty much everywhere. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2011/05/former-presidents-of-brazil-colombia.html | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On June 01 2011 06:46 LegendaryZ wrote: That works in theory, but the truth is we also have huge black markets for drugs that are regulated by the government (prescription drugs). This black market doesn't just consist of drugs that were made to standards, but also contains a huge supply of fake generics that are really no different and just as dangerous as unregulated illegal drugs such as cocaine. I think this goes quite a long way to disproving the notion that regulating illicit substances and ensuring quality control would remove the problem of impure products thrown together in someone's backyard. It may reduce the problem somewhat, but so long as the cost or process of acquiring controlled substances remains a prohibiting factor, a black market will always exist. The argument that anyone that wants illegal drugs could get them is also difficult for me to believe because not everyone knows where to get heroine or even marijuana and the risk of being caught in some sort of sting certainly deters a good number of people from attempting to find out. For some it might not matter one way or the other, but it does give the average person pause as does the lack of reliable quality control. By legalizing these substances, you're increasing their accessibility to people who might otherwise have not had access to them. I'm not saying that there's no valid argument for legalizing any drug, but I don't think the benefits are really as clear cut as most proponents make them out to be. It's essentially trying to weigh the pros and cons and determine the lesser of two evils. I'm just not convinced... That depends on what you mean by regulated. Prescription drugs are regulated such that it is illegal to obtain them for Vast # of people. Alcohol/Tobacco is regulated such that it is illegal for minors/under 21 to obtain them and everyone else can do so legally. If drugs were legalized for all but minors, then the black market would continue to exist, but it would be significantly smaller.(unlike prescription drugs where the it is illegal for a majority of the pop, so a significant black market exists for that demand) I agree that alcohol illutrates the danger with both outlawing (gangs during prohibition) and legalizing (Drunk drivers, children that get addicted, etc.) The issue is the balance between those, and legalizing (particularly with taxation to help pay for the societal costs/regulation of those that dispense it/etc.) may be the better way. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On June 01 2011 07:05 Deadlyfish wrote: Legalizing drugs would send the message to people that it's alright to use drugs. By making it criminal you're sending the message that it's wrong to do, and that would discourage a lot of people. Sure it wouldn't matter to junkies, but some people might start using just because it's legal. People can do whatever they want to themselves, i dont care. But the fact is that using drugs hurts others. Same reason as why you cant drive while drunk. You can do whatever you want, as long as you dont hurt other people. I know that legalizing drugs would have its benefits, lower crime, more money for the government etc. but it would also create more drug users, especially in places like central america where drugs are pretty much everywhere. I think it's important for everyone to realize the last sentence in this post. We do all live in very different places, and the policies as such should be catered to be the most effective for a given situation. If we are talking about a society that already portrays a negative perception of hard drugs, then I believe it is more sensible to decriminalize drug use. Right now, if a drug user gets caught and sent to prison, well that's just going to make the problem worse for him and everyone else once he gets out. That's a waste of time and money on all sides. A place like Panama sounds like a much trickier affair. However, there's a huge difference between decriminalizing drugs and letting dealers sit outside the school parking lot. I would opt for a softer approach than the heavy handed methods that are commonplace today. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On June 01 2011 07:23 Krikkitone wrote: That depends on what you mean by regulated. Prescription drugs are regulated such that it is illegal to obtain them for Vast # of people. Alcohol/Tobacco is regulated such that it is illegal for minors/under 21 to obtain them and everyone else can do so legally. If drugs were legalized for all but minors, then the black market would continue to exist, but it would be significantly smaller.(unlike prescription drugs where the it is illegal for a majority of the pop, so a significant black market exists for that demand) There isn't really a "black market" per say for alcohol and tobacco for minors; there are just straw purchases. After I turned 18 all of my under 18 friends who smoked cigarettes would always ask me to buy packs for them. (with their money) It works the same with medical marijuana today, people with their cards just buy it for their friends. Some people even charge a fee for this and do it regularly. That is what would happen if all drugs were legalized. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On June 01 2011 07:27 Slithe wrote: I think it's important for everyone to realize the last sentence in this post. We do all live in very different places, and the policies as such should be catered to be the most effective for a given situation. If we are talking about a society that already portrays a negative perception of hard drugs, then I believe it is more sensible to decriminalize drug use. Right now, if a drug user gets caught and sent to prison, well that's just going to make the problem worse for him and everyone else once he gets out. That's a waste of time and money on all sides. A place like Panama sounds like a much trickier affair. However, there's a huge difference between decriminalizing drugs and letting dealers sit outside the school parking lot. I would opt for a softer approach than the heavy handed methods that are commonplace today. I don't think legalizing drugs would cause more users in poorer countries. There is little regulation and law enforcement in these countries anyways so legalizing wouldn't have nearly as much as an impact as it would in a first world country. In the first world, I think for the first few years there would be a small percentage in increase of formerly illegal drug usage because the vast majority of people still wouldn't use these drugs even if they were legal. Anyway, look back to alcohol prohibition and look at where we are now. I honestly think that if drugs were legalized formerly illegal drug use would be lower than it is now within the next 10 years. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On June 01 2011 07:08 Voltaire wrote: Signed. It's time for governments to stop wasting billions of dollars on restricting our personal freedoms. I agree with this man. Signed. | ||
|
Shvifb
12 Posts
| ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
In countries in Latin America the drug problem is a direct result of the USA's drug problem. We in the US have provided demand for a long time and now that demand is starting to develop to the south, the supply is more than available for users. The creation of legal, if controlled or limited markets, particularly for marijuana will damage drug cartel's funding and the establishment of available and functional treatment centers is a far more reasonable policy than the utter prohibition of drugs and the imprisoning of users. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
Also, most of the Latin America's drug money does not come from marijuana. If I remember correctly from NPR, marijuana now makes up about .3 percent of the drug money because people over time discovered that it is rather easy to grow marijuana inside your own home. Cocaine, heroine, and guns are much more profitable. Once again, congrats for this finally being considered but I think we can all agree that we should teach kids in health class that marijuana is bad for you and do not help corporations benefit from our death just like we do with cigarettes. Not that it has a major effect seeing how many kids smoke with ALL THE EVIDENCE provided that smoking is bad for you but still. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On June 01 2011 07:39 Shvifb wrote: Does the answer really have to involve legalization/regulation? I've heard that some Asian countries have extremely tough laws; you get caught there with something and you're facing 5-10 years. And the harsh stance is enough to heavily deter drug usage. My problem with this approach is that the sentencing is overly harsh, and you're basically wasting a person's life and wasting money keeping them in prison. You might be achieving better deterrence rate, but you're causing damage elsewhere. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On June 01 2011 08:06 Shiragaku wrote: Also, most of the Latin America's drug money does not come from marijuana. If I remember correctly from NPR, marijuana now makes up about .3 percent of the drug money because people over time discovered that it is rather easy to grow marijuana inside your own home. Cocaine, heroine, and guns are much more profitable. http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-02-21-2221217072_x.htm http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/09/05/mexican-marijuana-fuels-drug-cartels/ That is just not true. Marijuana is the largest source of revenue for drug cartels. Please look things up before posting about things you think you heard one time. | ||
| ||