Hopefully this won't be seen as spam, I really hope some of us gamers can help with this. I am not endorsing this website either, I just think the window of opportunity for this change is getting smaller.
This is big - with 72 hours until we meet the UN Secretary General, we're closing fast on half a million voices! Tell everyone!
Dear friends,
http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_the_war_on_drugs/?cl=1089732682&v=9261 In 72 hours, a group of powerful world leaders will ask the UN to *end the war on drugs and move towards regulation*. But politicians say that the public will not support alternative drug policies. Let's give this unique opportunity massive public support and get urgent action. Sign below, and tell everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_the_war_on_drugs/?cl=1089732682&v=9261 *In 72 hours, we could finally see the beginning of the end of the ‘war on drugs’*. This expensive war has completely failed to curb the plague of drug addiction, while costing countless lives, devastating communities, and funneling trillions of dollars into violent organized crime networks.
Experts all agree that the most sensible policy is to regulate, but politicians are afraid to touch the issue. In days, a global commission including former *heads of state and foreign policy chiefs of the UN, EU, US, Brazil, Mexico* and more will break the taboo and publicly call for new approaches including decriminalization and regulation of drugs.
*This could be a once-in-a-generation tipping-point moment -- if enough of us call for an end to this madness.* Politicians say they understand that the war on drugs has failed, but claim the public isn't ready for an alternative. Let's show them we not only accept a sane and humane policy -- we demand it. *Click below to sign the petition and share with everyone* -- when we reach 1/2 million voices, it will be personally delivered to world leaders by the global commission:
*For 50 years current drug policies have failed everyone, everywhere but public debate is stuck in the mud of fear and misinformation.* Everyone, even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime which is responsible for enforcing this approach agrees -- deploying militaries and police to burn drug farms, hunting down traffickers, and imprisoning dealers and addicts – is an expensive mistake. And with massive human cost -- from Afghanistan, to Mexico, to the USA the illegal drug trade is destroying countries around the world, while addiction, overdose deaths, and HIV/AIDS infections continue to rise.
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
Powerful lobbies still stand in the way of change, including military, law enforcement, and prison departments whose budgets are at stake. And politicians fear that voters will throw them out of office if they support alternative approaches, as they will appear weak on law and order. But many former drugs Ministers and Heads of State have come out in favour of reform since leaving office, and polls show that citizens across the world know the current approach is a catastrophe. Momentum is gathering towards new improved policies, particularly in regions that are ravaged by the drug trade.
If we can create a worldwide outcry in the next 72 hours to support the bold calls of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, we can overpower the stale excuses for the status quo. *Our voices hold the key to change -- Sign the petition and spread the word*:
We have a chance to enter the closing chapter of this brutal 'war' that has destroyed millions of lives. *Global public opinion will determine if this catastrophic policy is stopped or if politicians shy away from reform*. Let's rally urgently to push our hesitating leaders from doubt and fear, over the edge, and into reason.
With hope and determination,
Alice, Laura, Ricken, Maria Paz, Shibayan and the whole Avaaz team
*Support the Avaaz community!* We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here https://secure.avaaz.org/en/donate_to_avaaz/?cl=1089732682&v=9261 .
Avaaz.org is an 9-million-person global campaign network* that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php/?footer , or follow us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Avaaz or Twitter http://twitter.com/Avaaz .
Just signed. Wow, looking at that list is intense. Another five signers a second, or something on that order. This is a small step, but a great one towards a happier future.
Really, 500k netizen signatures is all it takes for a UN council to react? Seems like a small number to demonstrate that the global public is a-okay with drugs.
This should be done for the reasons listed regardless of an online petition.
Through this website, I and many people were able to vote STOPPING the anti-gay bill from passing in Uganda, which actually would of passed a death penalty to anyone of those innocent people. Disgusting, but it was done.. incredible really.
I don't really understand the difference between "regulation" and "war" when it comes down to this matter regarding drugs. Would somebody enlighten me please ?
signed! drug wars especially in mexico are tearing that country up. i feel bad for those guys who live in border towns where theres drug wars literally everyday :/
Wait, so what happens if the UN wins in majority against this "Drug War" going on. Does that mean the United States has to make like Weed legal or some crap like that?
So the politicians aknowledge that this is the reasonable thing to do but don't do so because they think the public does not understand? In other words they abstain from implementing sound policy because they are worried about their re-election? I thought politicians were into politics for the people, being involved etc? : D
On June 01 2011 01:36 DorF wrote: I don't really understand the difference between "regulation" and "war" when it comes down to this matter regarding drugs. Would somebody enlighten me please ?
A war on drugs means trying to stop the illegal trafficking and selling of drugs. Regulation means its legal but has rules, like say cigarettes or alcohol.
Legalize it. It's the only responsible decision made if you want to ever be considered fiscally responsible. The results for the amount of money wasted in the War on Drugs are laughable.
Regulation is fine as long as it is within reason.
Im confused, what does signing this actually do? Have leaders agreed to something if this reaches 500,000 signatures? I can't see an internet petition doing anything real, especially influencing government officials.
On June 01 2011 01:34 Dwelf wrote: Clearly Netherlands wins at this, maybe someday others will realise as well. In the meantime I signed.
We shouldn't be too proud of our drug policy. We might just be the first nation in the world to move back from a liberal drug policy to a conservative one.
As we speak the drug policy is slowly being adjusted to the EU standard with things like a weed-pass and a max on the ammount of customers coffeeshops can have.
On June 01 2011 02:01 jimminy_kriket wrote: Im confused, what does signing this actually do? Have leaders agreed to something if this reaches 500,000 signatures? I can't see an internet petition doing anything real, especially influencing government officials.
Of course it doesn't. It's just like a lying propaganda like almost every single line in the OP.
On June 01 2011 01:34 Dwelf wrote: Clearly Netherlands wins at this, maybe someday others will realise as well. In the meantime I signed.
We shouldn't be too proud of our drug policy. We might just be the first nation in the world to move back from a liberal drug policy to a conservative one.
As we speak the drug policy is slowly being adjusted to the EU standard with things like a weed-pass and a max on the ammount of customers coffeeshops can have.
Cuz you know thats conservative whereas having even one spec of weed on you is enough to be charged for possession in most every other country. Not saying youll be convicted but you will be charged in many cases. Netherlands you have the best legal policy out there and brought us Nils Christie, best country ever in terms of forward effective legal legislation.
No flamefests please, this is a moment to realize that you do have that individual right to move something forward, to change something which otherwise would of HAD no change. Be appreciative. It's a known fact that the war on drugs is UNSUSTAINABLE, it is EXTREMELY inefficient and spending right now is the WORLD's thorn on its side. And the amount of money we spend on this is astronomical.
i like looking at drugs from a libertarian perspective:
what people do in the privacy of their own homes with their own time whilst hurting no one doesn't matter; law enforcement should only step in, in the occurrence of violating another individuals personal freedom. Furthermore, when the person taking said drugs overdoses from said drugs, society will be better off without them as they are only bringing it down seeing that there is a very strong chance they aren't contributing to it.
as for the bill, I honestly don't care. It is a no win situation: you either throw money at the problem to control drugs/educate or "regulate" them from minors and we all know how well that works with alcohol/tobacco...
Is it bad if i think the wars we are currently participating in are good? I am all for helping out the middle east. I personally do not want the war to be over and all our troops to be pulled out.
No flamefests please, this is a moment to realize that you do have that individual right to move something forward, to change something which otherwise would of HAD no change. Be appreciative. It's a known fact that the war on drugs is UNSUSTAINABLE, it is EXTREMELY inefficient and spending right now is the WORLD's thorn on its side. And the amount of money we spend on this is astronomical.
I wish weed was legal but you remind me of the hippies from "Die Hippie Die." WE'RE GONNA SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THIS CRUNCHY GROOVE UNTIL THE CORPORATIONS STOP."
If you want weed to be legal then go spend money on politicians who will vote to legalize it, don't sit around hawking for e-petitions with typical SUPER-EARNEST but also KINDA SILLY stoner political rhetoric.
Is it bad if i think the wars we are currently participating in are good? I am all for helping out the middle east. I personally do not want the war to be over and all our troops to be pulled out.
Of course it isn't "bad," it's just solid gold trollbait for 75% of the people here who'd care to express an opinion about your opinion. Don't know you how evil and stupid the wars are?!?!?!?!
It's a silly war, but I wouldn't call it the most senseless. As said above, isn't 500,000 a joke? Also...
"In days, a global commission including former *heads of state and foreign policy chiefs of the UN, EU, US, Brazil, Mexico* and more will break the taboo and publicly call for new approaches including decriminalization and regulation of drugs."
Former leaders who would probably have trouble getting a new job if they tried to run without having that "tough on drugs" stance. Hell, even if Barack was going, the Republicans wouldn't let it happen. Rich people already get all the drugs they want/need from their doctors. Hell... Even if you're not rich, just do some research on doctors in your area and go say the right symptoms.
I think drug policies are way outdated. The world is not black and white. I think it is important to clearly define different types of drugs into categories. Things like marijuana is not harmless, but compared to other stuff like tobacco and alcohol, which is perfectly legal, is it much more harmful? Or is it less harmful? The advances of marijuana for medical use is also important, if a patient can be helped by this substance but can't get it legally, I do think there is somthing wrong.
If we do end up making weed legal, do you think this will decrease the power of the drug cartels?
I think it just might, it's the bread and butter of the drug cartels, and is the most sold and used drug there is.
As drugs like LSD, shrooms, DMT etc, do you think these should be made illegal? LSD is mostly harmless, death by overdose is uncommon, and it is not addictive. But then there's stuff like HPPD and bad-trips that can lead to mental issues...
Anyway, I think somthing needs to be done, and that right soon. I think regulation is the way to go.
I signed. Perhaps regulation is a better step, the ban is just forcing people to buy it illegally and give massive amounts of money to criminals who found their way into drug dealing.
On June 01 2011 02:07 optical630 wrote: what good can come out of regulating drugs?
i agree with cannabis, but the hard shit like cocaine, how can that seriously be regulated?
edit; only 500k signatures? thats a laughable amount
Well the idea is that you spend less money fighting against drug smugglers becuase now it's legal to buy so the illegal market is pushed out for the most part, along with that you spend money on education of the public on the effects of drugs with that hoping that most people make the right decision not to do drugs. Ofc for the illegal markets to be pushed out the thing like coke and heroin need to be readily available meaning people need to actually be using it. It's more a move about money rather then a move about morals, esp american morals brought about the foundation that is the forms of Christianity that was/is popular in the US which prizes the ideals of working hard and demonizes the use of drugs and generally anything that would be considered lazy. There was a reason why the US was able to pass prohibition.
On June 01 2011 02:07 optical630 wrote: what good can come out of regulating drugs?
i agree with cannabis, but the hard shit like cocaine, how can that seriously be regulated?
edit; only 500k signatures? thats a laughable amount
Well the idea is that you spend less money fighting against drug smugglers becuase now it's legal to buy so the illegal market is pushed out for the most part, along with that you spend money on education of the public on the effects of drugs with that hoping that most people make the right decision not to do drugs. Ofc for the illegal markets to be pushed out the thing like coke and heroin need to be readily available meaning people need to actually be using it.
That's the only pro-legalization argument that I think is reasonable. Supporters need to use this one more and the silly ones less.
But don't you agree we would first need better understanding of how much it would cost to regulate and fiscalize that hard drugs like cocaine and crack still aren't being sold as they shouldn't? You now moved the problem from paying cops to run around town looking for dealers. To bureaucrats being paid to look for clever frauds. And if fiscalization of regulation just happen to fail. Then you'll have increase of hard drug usage. And increase in healthcare cost from more people dying of crack.
How can you be sure that these new added costs won't be even bigger than the current costs?
On June 01 2011 02:07 optical630 wrote: what good can come out of regulating drugs?
i agree with cannabis, but the hard shit like cocaine, how can that seriously be regulated?
edit; only 500k signatures? thats a laughable amount
Well the idea is that you spend less money fighting against drug smugglers becuase now it's legal to buy so the illegal market is pushed out for the most part, along with that you spend money on education of the public on the effects of drugs with that hoping that most people make the right decision not to do drugs. Ofc for the illegal markets to be pushed out the thing like coke and heroin need to be readily available meaning people need to actually be using it.
That's the only pro-legalization argument that I think is reasonable. Supporters need to use this one more and the silly ones less.
But don't you agree we would first need better understanding of how much it would cost to regulate and fiscalize that hard drugs like cocaine and crack still aren't being sold as they shouldn't? You now moved the problem from paying cops to run around town looking for dealers. To bureaucrats being paid to look for clever frauds. And if fiscalization of regulation just happen to fail. Then you'll have increase of hard drug usage. And increase in healthcare cost from more people dying of crack.
How can you be sure that these new added costs won't be even bigger than the current costs?
well the current war on drugs is failing. Everyone can buy this stuff illegally if they so wished and this makes drugs a legal industry and thus subject to worker union laws etc.etc.
In 2010 research shows that the "heroin-junkies" have disappeared from the streets of the Netherlands and the treatment is upgraded from a test-trial to standard treatment for otherwise untreatable addicts. Also, the number of heroin addicts has dropped by more than 30% since 1983
By making something illegal you provide groundwork for crooks and badguys to set up shop and earn money. By making these things legal you give power to the people and leave choice up to each indivual, form an industry around it, an Industry you can tax and form boundaries around.
As it stands i dont se why not? The people who would do / sell drugs already do /sell them.
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.
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
christian: I don't understand evolution it doesn't make sense!
*never reads anything on evolution ever*
I've read posts in this thread. They didn't convince me.
Didn't know I need to have MD from anything that is discussed in a thread.
Of course it doesn't make sense to me, as I said earlier, I don't understand how it could help. I didn't say it couldn't.
THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND.
atheist: I'm right.
Because by keeping them illegal we are spending billions of dollars in law enforcement. Not only that, but we are creating a black market to traffic these drugs; markets owned by dangerous, murderous drug lords. It would be much better to have regulated sale for tax revenue, sanitation and the general safety of everyone involved. Also, the money we spend keeping all these people in jail is pretty absurd.
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.
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.
I do not believe that any harm-minimisation approach to tackling drug issues is good. I guess that the liberal voice is stronger on the internet, but for me the images of failed drug regulation trials (such as free needle-exchanges and the resulting surge of dumps of used needles littering open streets) are much more saddening than anything else.
I am strongly in favour of taking increasingly punitive measurements to tackle drug use, and I do not encourage people to sign this unless you have spent an exhaustive amount of time studying this subject and have an imformed opinion. Harm-reduction stratagies. Do. Not. Work.
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
christian: I don't understand evolution it doesn't make sense!
*never reads anything on evolution ever*
I've read posts in this thread. They didn't convince me.
Didn't know I need to have MD from anything that is discussed in a thread.
Of course it doesn't make sense to me, as I said earlier, I don't understand how it could help. I didn't say it couldn't.
THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND.
atheist: I'm right.
You didn't understand because you're not aproaching the subject with an understanding attitude. If you do research, read a lot of articles on the issue and examine the arguments from both sides you would understand. Reading random post in some thread would only give you fractions of the actual information, some probably out of context or missinterpreted.
On another note, heres an awesome animation on marihuana prohibition, I think it illustrates the events QUITE accuretly
On June 01 2011 03:25 aloT wrote: I do not believe that any harm-minimisation approach to tackling drug issues is good. I guess that the liberal voice is stronger on the internet, but for me the images of failed drug regulation trials (such as free needle-exchanges and the resulting surge of dumps of used needles littering open streets) are much more saddening than anything else.
I am strongly in favour of taking increasingly punitive measurements to tackle drug use, and I do not encourage people to sign this unless you have spent an exhaustive amount of time studying this subject and have an imformed opinion. Harm-reduction stratagies. Do. Not. Work.
Why would you enforce more 'punitive measures'? Why would you be allowed to dictate what I can and cannot do when it has no bearing upon your life?
1. Criminalization creates an artificial drug market. Drugs which should be worthless are now very expensive, funneling trillions of dollars into violent organized crime.
2. Powerful lobbies such as the military, law enforcement, and prison departments largely benefit from this ecosystem, creating a vicious circle.
3. Countries such as Portugal have decriminalized all drugs and are enjoying huge successes with it.
Some people may be skeptical over whether an online petition has much pull in the real world, but I must remind people that Avaaz is a very reputable organization which have made significant world-wide impacts on very important issues.
For them to target the War on Drugs is very serious, and they've chosen a rather realistic and interesting way to do so: target international politics in an unprecedented manner. These discussions have never been opened up in the United States, but finally the world can open up to them in a productive way which may greatly impact American politics and help end the war on drugs.
On June 01 2011 02:07 optical630 wrote: what good can come out of regulating drugs?
i agree with cannabis, but the hard shit like cocaine, how can that seriously be regulated?
edit; only 500k signatures? thats a laughable amount
Well the idea is that you spend less money fighting against drug smugglers becuase now it's legal to buy so the illegal market is pushed out for the most part, along with that you spend money on education of the public on the effects of drugs with that hoping that most people make the right decision not to do drugs. Ofc for the illegal markets to be pushed out the thing like coke and heroin need to be readily available meaning people need to actually be using it.
That's the only pro-legalization argument that I think is reasonable. Supporters need to use this one more and the silly ones less.
But don't you agree we would first need better understanding of how much it would cost to regulate and fiscalize that hard drugs like cocaine and crack still aren't being sold as they shouldn't? You now moved the problem from paying cops to run around town looking for dealers. To bureaucrats being paid to look for clever frauds. And if fiscalization of regulation just happen to fail. Then you'll have increase of hard drug usage. And increase in healthcare cost from more people dying of crack.
How can you be sure that these new added costs won't be even bigger than the current costs?
I'd rather be paying bureaucrats to run around fingering eachother for fraud than having criminals running around shooting eachother and getting people caught in the middle, wouldn't you?
That, of course, is assuming the black market would go away entirely, which I highly doubt.
of course there are risks that are going to come into play legalizing drus. lets use marijuana as an example. marijuana. It will be tough to regulate, at least at first. It will be exploited just like alcohol and cigarettes (like kids getting ahold of them). but even then it would get into less hands of kids that it does now. How fucking easy is it to get a bag of weed these days? just walk down a street and you'll find someone. No system is perfect. But I believe that legalizing it would destroy a black market, create new revenue. Bring about many new businesses, opportunities and also police enforcement could focus on the drugs that really give people issues. Of course there comes the issues of personal choice. As someone mentioned. Marijuana is a bread and butter drug of big drug cartels. This would not solve the U.S. fiscal problems, we have a lot of other issues to deal with, but I think overall is a better alternative than the "war on drugs."
Edit: Sorry not destroy a black market, but it would take a decent size hit.
On June 01 2011 03:28 gnatinator wrote: Signed and justice bump.
For those just coming into this:
1. Criminalization creates an artificial drug market. Drugs which should be worthless are now very expensive, funneling trillions of dollars into violent organized crime.
2. Powerful lobbies such as the military, law enforcement, and prison departments largely benefit from this ecosystem, creating a vicious circle.
3. Countries such as Portugal have decriminalized all drugs and are enjoying huge successes with it.
Some people may be skeptical over whether an online petition has much pull in the real world, but I must remind people that Avaaz is a very reputable organization which have made significant world-wide impacts on very important issues.
For them to target the War on Drugs is very serious, and they've chosen a rather realistic and interesting way to do so: target international politics in an unprecedented manner. These discussions have never been opened up in the United States, but finally the world can open up to them in a productive way which may greatly impact American politics and help end the war on drugs.
thank you for providing something positive to this thread, and thank you everyone for your awareness on this issue
On June 01 2011 03:32 KillerPlague wrote: i hardly see the use of legalizing cocaine and meth. i say continue the war until we have won. for sparta!!!!
This is something I'm kind-of iffy on as well. I do believe it would be better as a regulated substance with all the warnings/security precautions than if it was on the street, but I can't be sure.
As for the war...it can't be won, that's the point.
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
So what makes this an accurate statement? They haven't seen an explosion in drug use? Or they haven't caught an explosion in drug use cause they aren't looking for one? So if you have the herp but aren't looking for it, you don't have the herp? Yes continue to bury your heads in the sand and think this is the universe of Star Wars. "These are the droids you're looking for." Don't worry about it. You'll be ok. Well until your children get hooked on something that used to be illegal but is now just "regulated". But you will be fine. It's not your problem. Nothing is the problem of this younger new generation.
Oh, so what are these ideas to "regulate" drug usage, drug trafficking, drug smuggling, and drug money? So under this ideal it might have been possible to "regulate" Hitler's ideology and prosecution of his beliefs, right? Come on people. Hitler had to be stopped. And you know why he had to be stopped? Cause you would probably be speaking German now if he wasn't.
The people behind the drugs aren't going to sign on to have THEIR DRUGS, THEIR MONEY, THEIR POWER regulated. To think so is simply asinine and one must also believe unicorns, dragons, and Superman really exist.
Was the War on Drugs a fail fest? Yes. Was the War on Drugs properly planned, implemented, and executed for a short term and long term success? NO Was the problem the Hundreds of politicians all trying to make a name and make a mark on a policy? Yes
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
christian: I don't understand evolution it doesn't make sense!
*never reads anything on evolution ever*
I've read posts in this thread. They didn't convince me.
Didn't know I need to have MD from anything that is discussed in a thread.
Of course it doesn't make sense to me, as I said earlier, I don't understand how it could help. I didn't say it couldn't.
THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND.
atheist: I'm right.
Because by keeping them illegal we are spending billions of dollars in law enforcement. Not only that, but we are creating a black market to traffic these drugs; markets owned by dangerous, murderous drug lords. It would be much better to have regulated sale for tax revenue, sanitation and the general safety of everyone involved. Also, the money we spend keeping all these people in jail is pretty absurd.
That's assuming we wouldn't have to watch over them then. When you legalize drugs usage you are gonna have to regulate it. That's where the black market comes in.
@money: That's right. We'd get more money because we'd be "drug trafficing". I just don't believe in legalizing things for monetary reasons. For me the future we're building is more important. What do you want for your kids?
@safety: That's the thing though. What makes you think we would be living in a safer world than we are now if drugs were legal?
hard drugs (cocaine, etc) = sorry, i dont think so >.<
people seem to be just thinking of weed when they see the word "drugs", what the petition is endorsing to be legalized isn't just weed... i can't agree to that
On June 01 2011 03:32 KillerPlague wrote: i hardly see the use of legalizing cocaine and meth. i say continue the war until we have won. for sparta!!!!
Theres perfectly legal stuff that'll mess you up 10 times worse than LSD, like salvia divinorum, and theres shit in some foods that I'm quite certain are far hazardous to your health than pure cocaine or heroin. You don't seem to be that vocal about those.
I'm not saying drugs aren't dangerous, they are, some very much so. Theres dangers all around us but that doesn't mean we have to start a war on everything that can get you high or is bad for your health or is addictive. The only way to protect people from that kind of stuff is infact to inform so they can make the descission for themselves.
The war on drugs is like trying to put fire with napalm, you just make matters worse.
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
So what makes this an accurate statement? They haven't seen an explosion in drug use? Or they haven't caught an explosion in drug use cause they aren't looking for one? So if you have the herp but aren't looking for it, you don't have the herp? Yes continue to bury your heads in the sand and think this is the universe of Star Wars. "These are the droids you're looking for." Don't worry about it. You'll be ok. Well until your children get hooked on something that used to be illegal but is now just "regulated". But you will be fine. It's not your problem. Nothing is the problem of this younger new generation.
Oh, so what are these ideas to "regulate" drug usage, drug trafficking, drug smuggling, and drug money? So under this ideal it might have been possible to "regulate" Hitler's ideology and prosecution of his beliefs, right? Come on people. Hitler had to be stopped. And you know why he had to be stopped? Cause you would probably be speaking German now if he wasn't.
The people behind the drugs aren't going to sign on to have THEIR DRUGS, THEIR MONEY, THEIR POWER regulated. To think so is simply asinine and one must also believe unicorns, dragons, and Superman really exist.
Was the War on Drugs a fail fest? Yes. Was the War on Drugs properly planned, implemented, and executed for a short term and long term success? NO Was the problem the Hundreds of politicians all trying to make a name and make a mark on a policy? Yes
Why would you think that the best way to make your point is to diss other people and patronize them? Also, your analogy is the worst I've seen and I've been known to make shitty analogies, so I know one when I see one.
Your argument also has no proof nor statistics to back them up, and hence no value whatsoever. Come back with statistics on drug use in those countries before you accuse me of believing in unicorns. And lastly, do not make random logical deductions with obvious fallacies, they just make you look like a dumb conspiracy theorist.
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
christian: I don't understand evolution it doesn't make sense!
*never reads anything on evolution ever*
I've read posts in this thread. They didn't convince me.
Didn't know I need to have MD from anything that is discussed in a thread.
Of course it doesn't make sense to me, as I said earlier, I don't understand how it could help. I didn't say it couldn't.
THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND.
atheist: I'm right.
You didn't understand because you're not aproaching the subject with an understanding attitude. If you do research, read a lot of articles on the issue and examine the arguments from both sides you would understand. Reading random post in some thread would only give you fractions of the actual information, some probably out of context or missinterpreted.
On another note, heres an awesome animation on marihuana prohibition, I think it illustrates the events QUITE accuretly
I'm trying to form an opinion from ones presented in here. It's not my fault their arguments aren't convincing enough. Most people signing it from here seem pretty sure about it (otherwise why would they vote about something like that without doing research).
If it could be argumented to be better for our species I don't see why I wouldn't support it.
On June 01 2011 03:41 dogmode wrote: weed = legalize it!
hard drugs (cocaine, etc) = sorry, i dont think so >.<
people seem to be just thinking of weed when they see the word "drugs", what the petition is endorsing to be legalized isn't just weed... i can't agree to that
This, exactly. I'm also a little disappointed to see that so many think it would be a good idea to leagalize those hard drugs. They are illegal because they are addicting to the point of wrecking your entire life and have serious health consequences.... this is the absolute wrong way to end the "war on drugs"....
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
So what makes this an accurate statement? They haven't seen an explosion in drug use? Or they haven't caught an explosion in drug use cause they aren't looking for one? and a bunch of garbage, eventually making a ridiculous comparison to hitler? LOL
This entire post is speculation based on the fact that he thinks they didn't do their research in saying there wasn't an explosion in drug use after legalization. Please, TL readers, don't take this ideological drivel seriously. Signed petition. We, the tax payers, are wasting money on jails while drug users are paying towards crime lords who are into crimes much worse than selling drugs (human trafficking and arms smuggling?).
Theres perfectly legal stuff that'll mess you up 10 times worse than LSD, like salvia divinorum, and theres shit in some foods that I'm quite certain are far hazardous to your health than pure cocaine or heroin. You don't seem to be that vocal about those.
what is this i dont even
foods?
also real lsd fucks you up way more than salvia, back in the day owsley stuff
legalize weed legalize lsd legalize ecstasy hell legalize mescaline why not keep most of the rest illegal sorry cocaine and opium products are very powerful there are things that more powerful than your body and they are among those things.
you dont think you can handle a thousand pound rock being dropped on your head just because you want it to be that way it's the same way with drugs that have a really powerful and deleterious effect on your body.
Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public.
You also can't say cocaine,meth,Heroine, and every other "hard" drug is bad but Weed is fine. The stoner imagery so popularized in film exists for a reason I've seen it, you've seen it and it's really kinda sad when you think about it.
Instead of ending a War of Drugs, why not actually have a real drug enforcement policy. Users need to be treated, sellers need to be jailed, and producers need to realize it's not profitable for them. You do that by removing the userbase and making it too expensive to produce due to the risks involved.
Of course that'd require efforts that's about as likey as an internet campaign ending the War on Drugs in the first place.
Theres perfectly legal stuff that'll mess you up 10 times worse than LSD, like salvia divinorum, and theres shit in some foods that I'm quite certain are far hazardous to your health than pure cocaine or heroin. You don't seem to be that vocal about those.
what is this i dont even
foods?
also real lsd fucks you up way more than salvia, back in the day owsley stuff
legalize weed legalize lsd legalize ecstasy hell legalize mescaline why not keep most of the rest illegal sorry cocaine and opium products are very powerful there are things that more powerful than your body and they are among those things.
you dont think you can handle a thousand pound rock being dropped on your head just because you want it to be that way it's the same way with drugs that have a really powerful and deleterious effect on your body.
I haven't actually done acid. But from what I hear Salvia and acid are both powerful, just different effects. Maybe LSD is more intense in huge doses. But then again huge doses of salvia are probably nuts too.
And to everyone: this is talking about ending the war on drugs. Not legalizing all drugs. The war on drugs refers to specific approach our country takes to drugs.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public.
You also can't say cocaine,meth,Heroine, and every other "hard" drug is bad but Weed is fine. The stoner imagery so popularized in film exists for a reason I've seen it, you've seen it and it's really kinda sad when you think about it.
Instead of ending a War of Drugs, why not actually have a real drug enforcement policy. Users need to be treated, sellers need to be jailed, and producers need to realize it's not profitable for them. You do that by removing the userbase and making it too expensive to produce due to the risks involved.
Of course that'd require efforts that's about as likey as an internet campaign ending the War on Drugs in the first place.
The problem is, despite everything we have been doing, it IS profitable. It's been shown over the past 50 years that spending all this money on policing isn't working. To remove the crimes lords you have to take what they sell, educate people on the risks, and sell purer products at a cheaper price. Through legalization, professionals can refine manufacturing processes to remove costs, to lower prices below crime-lords'.
I haven't actually done acid. But from what I hear Salvia and acid are both powerful, just different effects. Maybe LSD is more intense in huge doses. But then again huge doses of salvia are probably nuts too.
The main difference is how short salvia is.
well its really hard to find real, strong LSD unless you *know people* or whatever, i guess.
but i've spoken with people who were doing it back in the 50s and early 60s when it was legal and then in the late 60s and later following the grateful dead tours when and where illicit production was still going strong, and they all say that when you ate a hit back then, you were out of it, hard, maybe not exactly the same way people are with salvia today but definitely with the intensity.
As for parnage to "remove the user base" would require detaining in some fashion 4-6 million people just for frequently or habitually using drugs, which would be grossly unacceptable to the American people, when their sons and daughters and uncles and cousins and neighbors get dragged away to "remove the user base" and get "treatment" until drug-selling is no longer "profitable." And that's not even thinking about alcohol use because you can't separate the two when it comes to the treatment problem. It's crazy.
Theres perfectly legal stuff that'll mess you up 10 times worse than LSD, like salvia divinorum, and theres shit in some foods that I'm quite certain are far hazardous to your health than pure cocaine or heroin. You don't seem to be that vocal about those.
what is this i dont even
foods?
also real lsd fucks you up way more than salvia, back in the day owsley stuff
legalize weed legalize lsd legalize ecstasy hell legalize mescaline why not keep most of the rest illegal sorry cocaine and opium products are very powerful there are things that more powerful than your body and they are among those things.
you dont think you can handle a thousand pound rock being dropped on your head just because you want it to be that way it's the same way with drugs that have a really powerful and deleterious effect on your body.
Yes foods, preservatives, artificial colourants or sweeteners like aspartame that have been banned in some countries but are still used it quite a few places.
The hard stuff should not be legal and sold freely, I'm trying to say that its better to educate people rather than scare them with jail or whatever. You can probably get fucked with the right combo of dish-wash liquid, but you don't see people abusing that, because they know its stupid.
Also I believe the 200x salvia extract is more potent than acid, but I'm not expert nor have I tried LSD.
Yes foods, preservatives, artificial colourants or sweeteners like aspartame that have been banned in some countries but are still used it quite a few places.
im just saying the analogy is really really weak, that's a matter of possible biological predisposition towards bad reactions to those artificial substances and a dose of nanny-statism thrown in.
Also I believe the 200x salvia extract is more potent than acid, but I'm not expert nor have I tried LSD.
well shit man i'm sure 200 hits of acid are more powerful than 1 hit you know what i mean
It's about fucking time. You would think society would have learned from the prohibition with the mass influx of criminal control over the "Booze" Market...
Why not just make Drug purchasing/consumption require a License like a Permit.
You wanna do Smoke weed, get a Permit. You want to Quit? Revoke your permit.
All I know is, making something illegal is not an effective way of dealing with something you don't want in your publics hands....
All I know, is I am ALL for public control over anything. The way I see it, monopoly over consumer products, comes in many forms. If you parallel, corporations, the drug trade, empires. All of these bodies serve only to generate money on the back of its subjects, simply just creating rules and forcing their will.
In my mind, this is another small step towards a better human society. Al though, I really hope most common illegal drugs don't become like tabacco and exploited and manipulated for profit....
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
A lot of dangers associated with illegal drug use are associated with the uncertain quality of street drugs (cocaine cut with other substances, heroin much purer than one is used to causing overdoses, etc.) or unsafe usage procedures (dirty needles is the classic example). That is not to say that hard drug abuse (particularly chronic hard drug abuse) isn't dangerous, but acute side effects are a lot less likely with safer supplies and usage methods. By legalizing and regulating hard drugs, some of those dangers can be marginalized. Insite (safe injection site in Vancouver) has actually been found to have saved more money than it has cost to operate for instance (I would be remiss if i didn't mention that there is some debate over this, but a majority of reputable sources do seem to support Insite's efficacy).
On a semi-related note, I would really like to see anti-drug programs move from a fire-and-brimstone approach to a more educational style. A lot of people seem to completely disregard the message of DARE et al as soon as they run across drug abusers and notice that most of them are not as low-functioning and hopeless as DARE suggests. I would much rather see a lot more education on the specific dangers of drug abuse. I cannot believe how many people I have met that think they can drive on drugs, even people that would never dream of driving after drinking. Or similarly, the people that combine drugs without realizing that they could be greatly increasing their personal risk. For instance, a friend of one of my friends' sisters' died after drinking alcohol while on DXM. If he had been taught that taking two CNS depressants is absurdly dangerous, perhaps he would be still alive (at least he would have had the knowledge even if he chose to ignore it, which i think is a lot more valuable than only knowing that the instructor said drugs will ruin your life).
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
A lot of dangers associated with illegal drug use are associated with the uncertain quality of street drugs (cocaine cut with other substances, heroin much purer than one is used to causing overdoses, etc.) or unsafe usage procedures (dirty needles is the classic example). That is not to say that hard drug abuse (particularly chronic hard drug abuse) isn't dangerous, but acute side effects are a lot less likely with safer supplies and usage methods. By legalizing and regulating hard drugs, some of those dangers can be marginalized. Insite (safe injection site in Vancouver) has actually been found to have saved more money than it has cost to operate for instance (I would be remiss if i didn't mention that there is some debate over this, but a majority of reputable sources do seem to support Insite's efficacy).
On a semi-related note, I would really like to see anti-drug programs move from a fire-and-brimstone approach to a more educational style. A lot of people seem to completely disregard the message of DARE et al as soon as they run across drug abusers and notice that most of them are not as low-functioning and hopeless as DARE suggests. I would much rather see a lot more education on the specific dangers of drug abuse. I cannot believe how many people I have met that think they can drive on drugs, even people that would never dream of driving after drinking. Or similarly, the people that combine drugs without realizing that they could be greatly increasing their personal risk. For instance, a friend of one of my friends' sisters' died after drinking alcohol while on DXM. If he had been taught that taking two CNS depressants is absurdly dangerous, perhaps he would be still alive (at least he would have had the knowledge even if he chose to ignore it, which i think is a lot more valuable than only knowing that the instructor said drugs will ruin your life).
But do you think universal healthcare would be fair if taxpayers were also bearing the burden of an unavoidable increase in hospitalizations due to drug-related sickness? I'm not arguing whether or not regulated drugs are safer, or more dangerous or anything. I just want to know what effect it will take on universal healthcare. And whether or not it is fair for taxpayers to support yet another dangerous vice (first smoking, then alcohol, then hard drugs).
The consequences for drugs is far too light in order to make our current policy's work. In places such as Singapore the penalty for having [a certain amount] of drugs is death and it's a fairly low amount. I can assure you the drug rate there is next to none and a large portion of that is just because of the penalty alone.
Decriminalization for procession charges is my biggest thing, we as a country waste billions a year imprisoning non-violent "offenders" for simply having a drug on them, not bagged or scaled for resale just a small amount for personal usage. Not only is this wasting money, but you're taking these random people and turning them into harden criminals.
On June 01 2011 04:30 HansK wrote: The consequences for drugs is far too light in order to make our current policy's work. In places such as Singapore the penalty for having [a certain amount] of drugs is death and it's a fairly low amount. I can assure you the drug rate there is next to none and a large portion of that is just because of the penalty alone.
and do you think that's a fair penalty for someone who just smoked some weed? You really think thats a good penalty? "Do as we want, else we will kill you!", kinda sounds like north korea
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious.
If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway...
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious.
If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway...
Getting rid of cocaine would help. So why not?
We already have and many of them are legal with nothing more than a doctor visit.
The website says the will move towards decriminalization of drugs, but it doesn't say which ones afaik. So I can't support that. IMO, the only acceptable change in drug policy would be the regulation of marijuana, and having it be HEAVILY taxed, similar to cigarettes. However, along with this, I would make the penalty to unlicensed distribution of marijuana much harsher than it is now. That way, there would be enormous amounts of tax revenue for the government, and the black market would be severely hit. We would also save whatever the DEA's budget is.
Also, misleading title. This is by no means the world's most senseless war, other ones are costing far more and accomplishing far less.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least.
I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
A lot of dangers associated with illegal drug use are associated with the uncertain quality of street drugs (cocaine cut with other substances, heroin much purer than one is used to causing overdoses, etc.) or unsafe usage procedures (dirty needles is the classic example). That is not to say that hard drug abuse (particularly chronic hard drug abuse) isn't dangerous, but acute side effects are a lot less likely with safer supplies and usage methods. By legalizing and regulating hard drugs, some of those dangers can be marginalized. Insite (safe injection site in Vancouver) has actually been found to have saved more money than it has cost to operate for instance (I would be remiss if i didn't mention that there is some debate over this, but a majority of reputable sources do seem to support Insite's efficacy).
On a semi-related note, I would really like to see anti-drug programs move from a fire-and-brimstone approach to a more educational style. A lot of people seem to completely disregard the message of DARE et al as soon as they run across drug abusers and notice that most of them are not as low-functioning and hopeless as DARE suggests. I would much rather see a lot more education on the specific dangers of drug abuse. I cannot believe how many people I have met that think they can drive on drugs, even people that would never dream of driving after drinking. Or similarly, the people that combine drugs without realizing that they could be greatly increasing their personal risk. For instance, a friend of one of my friends' sisters' died after drinking alcohol while on DXM. If he had been taught that taking two CNS depressants is absurdly dangerous, perhaps he would be still alive (at least he would have had the knowledge even if he chose to ignore it, which i think is a lot more valuable than only knowing that the instructor said drugs will ruin your life).
But do you think universal healthcare would be fair if taxpayers were also bearing the burden of an unavoidable increase in hospitalizations due to drug-related sickness? I'm not arguing whether or not regulated drugs are safer, or more dangerous or anything. I just want to know what effect it will take on universal healthcare. And whether or not it is fair for taxpayers to support yet another dangerous vice (first smoking, then alcohol, then hard drugs).
I'm not entirely sure about how all this works in the US, but drug abusers in the UK already go to hospitals etc. I believe someone earlier in the thread referenced the Insite experiment - where due to the addicts having access to clean needles, hygiene advice and so forth, the Insite experiment saved the health care system more than it cost: by reducing the level of infection, cross contamination of dirty needles, ensuring that their drugs had not been cut with dangerous substances such as glass and so on that were putting plenty of drug addicts in hospital.
I would fully expect the strain on the health services to decrease following any form of licenced sale of drugs - look at alcohol compared to when the US had the prohibition - alcoholics would drink methanol, moonshine and so forth that would put them in far more danger than if they had just had a beer that had been quality controlled by market forces.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious.
If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway...
Getting rid of cocaine would help. So why not?
Because the cost of getting rid of cocaine is so heinous that it's just not practical at all. Our money could be spent in much better ways to achieve the same goals.
If we were making significant progress on the war on drugs, then I'd say sure let's keep it up until we've finally smothered out the problem. Based on the current track record, I'd say that's not the case.
We should investigate different approaches. The idea of regulation has a lot of evidence supporting it, and on a small scale it seems to work decently. I don't know how effective it may be if we were to try and apply it to the entire USA all at once, but we should certainly investigate the possibility. We can take all that money from the drug war and instead implement a better drug education program that aims to actually inform our youth. We can invest more into rehab clinics that will help people kick the habit for good and become contributing members of society. By boxing out the black market, we can reduce the terrible drug-related crimes and deaths, and gangs/criminal organizations will lose much of their funding.
From my perspective, the trade off looks like this. We can save lives by reducing crime and improving drug education, but we may also see an increase in hard drug usage, which could lead to lost lives as well. I can't say for sure that one is better than the other, but I believe that the increased drug usage will not be particularly significant at all.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least.
I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it.
Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us. Either way it would be a start and help many a country save some money by not having so many people in jail / out of work over petty crimes that harmed no one. Maybe if they set some better guidelines on what should make a drug illegal we in the States will follow.
NOTE: I do believe there are some drugs that should not be legal, but those drugs should be proven beyond a doubt to cause bodily harm and / or insight rage in the user.
On June 01 2011 01:36 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Thought this was going to be about the Iraq War... Or Israel's illegal occupation of, and expansion upon, Palestinian land...
But drugs. Okay, then.
Today we declare war on Mountain Dew.
Signed. Victimless crimes filling prisons while the real criminals run free? Unfair.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least.
I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it.
Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us.
On June 01 2011 04:58 ampson wrote: The website says the will move towards decriminalization of drugs, but it doesn't say which ones afaik. So I can't support that. IMO, the only acceptable change in drug policy would be the regulation of marijuana, and having it be HEAVILY taxed, similar to cigarettes.
Firstly why would it have to be heavily taxed for you to support it?
Secondly, you are against decriminalization of harmless hallucinogens like mushrooms and LSD? Perhaps with regulation but nevertheless decriminalized.
Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
There s absolutely no way anyone wants to decriminalize or legalize heroin and similar drugs
You shouldnt start to argue here. Just an advice. This Thread will turn into a pro/contra battlefield soon enough.
Just have faith in the UN they actually think about more than easy weed.
I see what you did there very witty. will touch on your wit little later.
Yeah the people who I've at least are simply mixed on it which I find the hardest to justify. some soft drugs I can understand you making the argument for but crack and heroin? whats to stop people from getting worse and worse drugs for people as long as it gives you a high thats new.
I disagree entirely with these statements. You can't for once say that theres no controversy on anything because people deny the holocost or that the CIA killed JFK. In countries with less well off governments such as south america drugs have controlled things. Its never been the drug itself which is the problem but all the things that come with it. People suffer under drugs even if they chose to do it to begin with shouldn't we try to prevent suffering even at the cost of our own freedom is the question we should be debating. That Deep wit above references the America war on drugs in south america where we fought the commie rebels that where being funded by and corrupting the country thought drugs. I'm not sure if he ment that or not but I thought it was nice.
TL hasn't had a true flame war thread with something that doesn't have to deal with the game itself but I really don't see the point of having a frankly advertiser argument about things. I really hate sites like this beacuse they only spread misinformation up and down every single day and it really hurts the debate as a whole.
This is getting out of hand. This shit is stupid as fuck.
I may not have slept for X hours but seriously, what kind of bullshit feel-good machine is this?! "Ooo i'm part of something great, i'm saving the world." Uganda - ok, fine, i suppose their cabinet doesn't read the Times and are clueless to what the world thinks so a petition makes sense, but the UN? Wtf? And these time limits? It's just... Wow.
Thank you everyone for your input, remember whether you stand against or for this, there are many people who have lost their lives on both sides of this heavily debated topic and there are always logical explanations to both sides of the coin. The discussion here is really good and I hope it continues to be productive, more awareness of this is always a step forward in society imo, there are things that our society have going for it that just have to be looked at again.
One thing I think we can ALL agree upon is that the way things are CURRENTLY handled can be IMPROVED on TREMENDOUSLY. Whether we legalize all drugs, hard and soft, or keep them illegal with certain exceptions, right NOW the roof is leaking, and the leak isn't getting any better. There needs to be solutions to the current way this is all being handled, it just isn't efficient and in the long-term provides NO solutions to anything, just a re-routing of money and arms into illegal and corrupt hands.
On June 01 2011 05:06 Valeranth wrote: Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN
What? o.O
Personally, I'm not really a fan of drugs and I'll never understand why people are so adamant about legalizing them, but whatever. Argue whatever viewpoint you want. That's freedom, right?
Maybe we can poll our fellow TLers, really interested in what the general consensus is:
Poll: Do you believe in the united nations?
No, Leave me alone (11)
41%
Yes! They care for human lives around the world and work hard! (7)
26%
I'd like to but there's not much they can do (6)
22%
I don't expect any lasting outcome out of this or anything done by them (2)
7%
It's just a scheme to make a few rich or give political levers! *tinfoil hat on* (1)
4%
27 total votes
Your vote: Do you believe in the united nations?
(Vote): Yes! They care for human lives around the world and work hard! (Vote): I'd like to but there's not much they can do (Vote): It's just a scheme to make a few rich or give political levers! *tinfoil hat on* (Vote): I don't expect any lasting outcome out of this or anything done by them (Vote): No, Leave me alone
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
The all war on drug has always made a fool of any government in my eyes. Any rational person would realize it, but i fully expect lobbies to win over the UN.
On June 01 2011 05:40 Haato wrote: Maybe we can poll our fellow TLers, really interested in what the general consensus is:
I personally don't have much faith in the UN, but being apathetic to an issue that is very real and has taken lives all over, removes good, earned money from circulation, imprisons people who aren't criminals (a strong majority over marijuana), and empowers illegal drug / arms / human trades world wide is worse.
Getting rid of an industry that is so large and established over 60 or so years will not happen. The industry governments vs drugs employs too many people and too much money has been spent. No politician or party is going to risk his/her career and reputation over this change. This falls under the same issues as trying to get rid of our dependance on the oil industry.
Meanwhile, countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
On June 01 2011 01:54 DisneylandSC wrote: So the politicians aknowledge that this is the reasonable thing to do but don't do so because they think the public does not understand? In other words they abstain from implementing sound policy because they are worried about their re-election? I thought politicians were into politics for the people, being involved etc? : D
This is the biggest problem in our modern democracies.
On June 01 2011 01:27 Morteth wrote: I know we gamers are a great community in general and this will be receptive here! Thank you TL! Live on Gamers!!
Please don't generalize like this. I'm a huge gamer and i don't want to be associated with any of you on this matter. I'm sure there is quite a lot of people with same position.
On June 01 2011 04:30 HansK wrote: The consequences for drugs is far too light in order to make our current policy's work. In places such as Singapore the penalty for having [a certain amount] of drugs is death and it's a fairly low amount. I can assure you the drug rate there is next to none and a large portion of that is just because of the penalty alone.
and do you think that's a fair penalty for someone who just smoked some weed? You really think thats a good penalty? "Do as we want, else we will kill you!", kinda sounds like north korea
I don't know if it's fair, but if our goal is to not allow anyone to do drugs by law then why not employ an effective means to make that happen rather than waste money and accomplishing next to nothing? If thats not our goal than why not legalize it and collect tax from it and so forth?
It's not so simple but clearly other places have found ways to make strict laws and still have a normal society. I assure you Singapore is nothing alike North Korea and is actually one of the best places to live on the planet.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
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.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
I'm sorry about your friend.
However, heroin, meth and similar shit is not exactly at the top of the list for anybody, who supports decriminalization of drugs (In fact, I'd argue that such drugs are not even "on the list"). The decriminalization of weed alone would be a huge step towards peace, social stability (see US prison population on weed related charges) and weakening criminal organizations. There are similar rather "harmless" and "barely addictive" drugs for which there is no rational reason to be banned (e.g. hallucinogens, ecstasy).
Personally, I'd like to see a decriminalization of soft drugs, since I believe that it would relieve the police of the expensive, unnecessary and contra-productive burden of chasing and locking up teenagers for what is essentially harmless stuff. On the other hand, I would never support the decriminalization of heroin, meth and similar poisons.
I believe this to be an interesting graph (even if it might not be 100% accurate). Please see the location of tobacco and alcohol:
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
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...
On June 01 2011 04:58 ampson wrote: The website says the will move towards decriminalization of drugs, but it doesn't say which ones afaik. So I can't support that. IMO, the only acceptable change in drug policy would be the regulation of marijuana, and having it be HEAVILY taxed, similar to cigarettes.
Firstly why would it have to be heavily taxed for you to support it?
Secondly, you are against decriminalization of harmless hallucinogens like mushrooms and LSD? Perhaps with regulation but nevertheless decriminalized.
It would have to be heavily taxed for me to support it because it is a good opportunity for the government to pull in a lot of cash as opposed to spending money to enforce a ban. And we all know the government could use more money and less spending. Secondly, I am against the decriminalization of the hallucinogens because of "bad trips" and that they affect judgement more than cannabis, so the user is more likely to hurt themselves or others while on it.
Does anyone else here actually think they should be regulating some of the stuff they put in foods? MSG is probably addictive, and I'm sure all the preservatives they spam in fast food is horrible for you.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
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...
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.
its about changing the way we approach drugs, dangerous substances included. not making heroin legal to buy in the store.
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.
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.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
Just a note: I am sick of the "Worse drugs are legal" argument. Would you let a pedophile into your house just because a serial killer is already inside? This argument sounds more like it should be to go back to prohibition than to legalize anything.
Dutch political party had a call for the exact same thing recently from the youth side of the party. Reading articles now, but i am definitely pro this idea.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
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...
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.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
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.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
I don't think it's rude or selfish to be concerned about substances that can adversely affect peoples' judgment or behavior. I'm sure most people here are sensible enough to realize that there are drugs out there that would not benefit society at all to legalize. Sure, marijuana may be fine as it has relatively low addictive potential, but I can't think of any good reason a drug like heroine or cocaine should be legal, even if it was regulated just because of their destructive nature and high potential for addiction.
The "war on drugs" certainly has taken a huge toll in lives and resources, but it can't simply be stopped because all illicit drugs just don't fall into the same category. To think so is just being ignorant of reality. At best we can try to look for more efficient methods to manage the problem, but it's not a cookie cutter problem and there's certainly no cookie cutter solution.
Also, the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is pretty weak because a person who is suffering from impaired judgment presents a potential risk not only to themselves, but also to those around them. The influence of any mind altering substance (yes, even alcohol and prescription drugs) extends beyond the user himself.
We have enough of a problem with people not following regulations when drinking alcohol (such as not drinking and driving). Given our failure to even control alcohol with regulations, what on earth would make anyone think simply regulating currently illicit drugs would encourage people to use them responsibly? And if we can't ensure that, why would we compound the problem of irresponsible behavior by allowing access to more problematic substances?
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...
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.
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit.
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs.
It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind.
Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever.
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.
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.
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.
I think a lot of the arguments presented in this thread ignore the treatment of addicts as criminals. The recidivism problems that arise because we have adopted a punishment over treatment approach leave our society with more people trapped in cyclical poverty with debilitating addictions who have no real treatment options from the state.
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.
Glad to see this going through. But this is sadly not the people getting smarter, it seems to be a new class of people using marijuana. Before the phenomenon with everyone smoking pot, including conservatives, marijuana was smoked by poor druggies and poor immigrants. Of course there were always the rich kids but they were too small to make a difference. And to give another example, in Britain, gin was banned (common drink for the poor and homeless) but whiskey was not (very expensive and fashionable drink), Then we have prohibition which passed in Congress because most of the people who had alcohol issues were immigrants Ireland or Eastern or Southern European nations which were considered scums by the normal US citizen at the time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doubt it will happen , too much money in the drug trade. Think about it , Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world opium and the USA has been there for over 10 years.They could have stopped supply pretty easily years ago if they wanted to , production is actually higher now than when the Taliban was in power...
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.
I'm fairly certain that you're way off with the .3 percent estimate. Marijuana has a significantly lower retail price than most other drugs, but it is by far the most consumed one. I don't know how reliable this source is but according to it weed makes up 60% of the Mexican drug cartels' income.
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.
I completely agree with you here. I believe that soft drugs should be legalized, but people (even at school) should also be informed that no matter how "harmless" a drug is, it still has a negative impact on a person's health.
On June 01 2011 08:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Doubt it will happen , too much money in the drug trade. Think about it , Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world opium and the USA has been there for over 10 years.They could have stopped supply pretty easily years ago if they wanted to , production is actually higher now than when the Taliban was in power...
Thats because the Taliban banned it...
Which is probably to manipulate the market price and profit from there huge stockpile...
Which obviously had no relation to our invasion...
On June 01 2011 08:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Doubt it will happen , too much money in the drug trade. Think about it , Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world opium and the USA has been there for over 10 years.They could have stopped supply pretty easily years ago if they wanted to , production is actually higher now than when the Taliban was in power...
Money is allot bigger then drug trade. Think about how many inmates wouldn't be in prison, and how many jobs that is. how many lawyers/judges/cops would be out of job? Even the tobacco industry is probably against it because they think it would steal their customers. Lobbies (money) control everything i'm afraid but we can hope!
I'm surprised some1 hasn't ridden the "War on Drug funds Terrorism" train yet honestly.
To every1 saying the UN has no power: It's MORE then just the UN.
In 72 hours, a global commission including former heads of state and foreign policy chiefs of the UN, EU, US, Brazil, Mexico and more will break the taboo and publicly call for new approaches including decriminalization and regulation of drugs
On June 01 2011 01:34 Dwelf wrote: Clearly Netherlands wins at this, maybe someday others will realise as well. In the meantime I signed.
Funny you say that. Our right wing goverment (geert wilders and his homo bunch) is going to change the whole system for smoking weed. you will need to register for weed soon, become a member of a weedhouse aka coffeeshop.
What will happen? I for one will not let me be registered as a drugs consumer. You know dutch politics are evil. your 'im a user registration' will be passed to police, employer, insurance and all that. We all know that will happen. It will be hacked by someone who will resell the databases to insurance and all those evil bastards.
I can imagine that as soon as this takes effect that 90+% of users of mature age (27+) will never get weed legally anymore. What will happen to those people (such as myself)?
I know what. people will buy from street dealers who will not ask questions, they just want your money. what will happen? more crime, more murders, even more gangs in the major cities (amsterdam, rotterdam, utrecht, the hague etc.)
I'm really afraid of our government nowadays.
every other month or so a new law is passed to further limit personal freedom, one step at a time! This is not just the Netherlands, this happens all over the western world. POLICE STATE BRO.
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
i think what you meant to say is, They are baned so ppl make more money off it regardless of any care for humanity.
The good news is there's no way that the UN would listen to a dumb online poll. especially if only half a million people in the world vote anonymously. That site is stupid anyways, wheres the equally publicized "I am against stopping the war on drugs" petition? I want to sign that, and I'd probably do it 10 times like most other people did for this one.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
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.
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.
Pardon me, you are right about me being wrong, but here are the numbers.
"With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic. This figure can be compared to estimates of more than $500 billion which are based solely on the average of minimum and maximum prices in the United States."
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion19.htm So I am wrong about the amount of money used to fund drug cartels and you are wrong about marijuana being the number once source of drug money. Yes, we both had our facts wrong and probably should do research but I think we have a good compromise on this small debate. But yes, perhaps legalizing marijuana is going to harm the drug cartels big time. Or they can move onto a legal corporate lifestyle just like some of our alcohol mafia did after Prohibition.
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
If your mommy told you that chocolate was bad and should not eat it, would you listen to her?
yeah the war on drugs is getting ridiculous. Though i dont want really addictive/dangerous drugs legalize being produce and sold like heroin or meth. just legalize marijuana and see where that goes.
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious.
You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world?
That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least.
I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it.
Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us. Either way it would be a start and help many a country save some money by not having so many people in jail / out of work over petty crimes that harmed no one. Maybe if they set some better guidelines on what should make a drug illegal we in the States will follow.
NOTE: I do believe there are some drugs that should not be legal, but those drugs should be proven beyond a doubt to cause bodily harm and / or insight rage in the user.
Uh yeah, the US is a part of the UN. The UN headquarters is in fucking New York for christ sakes. You just don't pay the membership fees.. but you're still in it... somehow. The problem in question also mainly revolve around the US, as in most other countries, possession's not a felony.
25% of all prisoners in the world are Americans, even though you only have 5% of the world population. If I were you I'd rather look at the legal system in general rather than drug regulations. Drugs don't do you any good, so I don't see the point in legalizing.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
ye, i usually get 2nd hand high from people using meth and heroin. fuckers Sarcasm aside i can't believe the comparison your trying to make.. its unfathomable.
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
I guess its gonna be hard for you now, since drugs are 'decriminalized' in Poland.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
I don't see how legalizing marihuana stops the drug war in mexico... And if those people are seriously saying kokain & heroin should be unbanned...
The free heroin in switzerland is only given to heavy addicts who would otherwise be forced into poverty and criminality due to their addiction. Reasonable solution, it is only given by governmental institutions, people are controlled and registred.
Can't compare this to what is going on in Mexico, the problems now are resulting of a lack of action earlier. Saying "well, since they own half the country by now anyway lets give them the other half, too" seems wrong to me...
On June 01 2011 08:58 Szordrin wrote: I don't see how legalizing marihuana stops the drug war in mexico... And if those people are seriously saying kokain & heroin should be unbanned...
The free heroin in switzerland is only given to heavy addicts who would otherwise be forced into poverty and criminality due to their addiction. Reasonable solution, it is only given by governmental institutions, people are controlled and registred.
Can't compare this to what is going on in Mexico, the problems now are resulting of a lack of action earlier. Saying "well, since they own half the country by now anyway lets give them the other half, too" seems wrong to me...
And hi to all conspiracy lovers...
It would have a profound effect on the drug war in mexico. A huge amount of the drugs these cartels are selling go to the U.S., and the money comes back to Mexico. If the U.S. had legal, registered shops - people would stop buying the drugs from Mexico. Duh
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
But I would kind of like to point out to the introduction to cocaine in the African American community and I guess one could argue about the Opium War in China.
Yes i just read the sources... always assumed its less marihuana and more cocain...
By the way, I support legislation that emphasizes rehabilitation, prevents becoming addicted and helps addicted people. But on the same page I think harsh measures against dealers and smugglers are necessary in order to prevent large scale organisations from operating.
Its a question how many and what sort of drugs a society wants to tolerate. Its a thin line regulators/legislators have to walk.
I think everyone would support rehabilitation for any type of addiction whether it is tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis. But the rehabilitation in America is just god awful. It can be traced back to the Health Care debates.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
But I would kind of like to point out to the introduction to cocaine in the African American community and I guess one could argue about the Opium War in China.
Alcohol and prescription drugs can and are abused to the point of hard drugs such as cocaine or heroine, sometimes ever worse.
However this "War on Drugs" isn't an effective method at all. People with drug problems aren't going to benefit society or themselves from jails.
The War on Drugs creates a whole social stigma that sometimes disallows people who have serious drug problems to avoid seeking help.
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
If your mommy told you that chocolate was bad and should not eat it, would you listen to her?
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
I guess its gonna be hard for you now, since drugs are 'decriminalized' in Poland.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
Cannabis i dont know, it probably wouldnt be too bad legalizing it, although i am still against it.
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
If your mommy told you that chocolate was bad and should not eat it, would you listen to her?
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
I guess its gonna be hard for you now, since drugs are 'decriminalized' in Poland.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
But I would kind of like to point out to the introduction to cocaine in the African American community and I guess one could argue about the Opium War in China.
Alcohol and prescription drugs can and are abused to the point of hard drugs such as cocaine or heroine, sometimes ever worse.
However this "War on Drugs" isn't an effective method at all. People with drug problems aren't going to benefit society or themselves from jails.
The War on Drugs creates a whole social stigma that sometimes disallows people who have serious drug problems to avoid seeking help.
I agree with you for the most part. But what would you say about the alcohol problem that fucked up Russia so many times in history? I guess it is environmental but a legal drug nonetheless caused lots of economic troubles.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
You've got to be kidding right? Main effects of Meth:
Aggression Paranoia Hallucinations Feelings of invincibility
And you're telling me that this only affects the user, that it has no consequences for the people around that person?
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
You've got to be kidding right? Main effects of Meth:
Aggression Paranoia Hallucinations Feelings of invincibility
And you're telling me that this only affects the user, that it has no consequences for the people around that person?
Most people on drugs do not have an urge to kill people or even harm another human being because most sober people don't have the urge to kill or harm people. When you're high, you're just high. It doesn't turn you into a violent human being.
This gives me hope to end the insanity of the war on drugs at least in the U.S. This clip is the Republican Governor of New Mexico, who is running for president, at the South Carolina republican debates (about a month ago). On Fox news no less. Not only did the Candidates answer give me hope, but the crowds reaction.
IMO users of Meth, herion, crack, cocaine, and some other "hard" drugs should NOT be treated as criminals when in possession or under the influence. They should be placed in mandatory detox for a period of time (to go through the withdraws) and the amount of detox time should increase with each subsequent infraction. Try to actually help them instead of sending them to prison and potentially turning them into monsters. Give them a chance to get clean and regain control, and not have to carry those mistakes for the rest of their lives. No criminal record, unless other crimes were committed under the influence.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say). It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
The number one danger when talking about drugs is not the drugs, ANY DRUG (except meth, that shit's just insane) can be used for good purposes.
The problem is with the ill informed/straight up uneducated/plain stupid people that TAKE the drugs.
LSD can and for most people is a life changing positive experience, but it can also be misused by people that are of the traits above, shrooms, salvia, hell coke even.
Don't even bring up heroin, if you're doing that then there is some other really messed up shit in your life that also needs addressing far more than the substance used to dull the world.
I signed, and I seriously hope this passes.
As for people that DON'T know the proper use of most (at least psychedelic drugs) drugs is in a closed environment, with few if any people, or outside isolated from public space. A massive party out in the middle of the woods on private land is NOT public space btw, pretty much just totally away from society, so that one can have an experience.
All drugs can be misused though, as can guns, cars, food, shopping, gambling, porn, sex, fighting, and I'm sure there are plenty other thing that fit. Just cause people can eat themselves to oblivion, should we outlaw or put heavy restrictions on food consumption? The notion is absurd.
On June 01 2011 09:41 Lith wrote: The worlds most senseless war is the inaction on the exploitation in turn creating poverty and lack of food and water... not drugs
Considering inaction on it's own a "War" is a really big stretch IMO. Yes, I agree it is a huge problem if not the worlds largest problem, but hardly relevant to this discussion.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
You've got to be kidding right? Main effects of Meth:
Aggression Paranoia Hallucinations Feelings of invincibility
And you're telling me that this only affects the user, that it has no consequences for the people around that person?
Most people on drugs do not have an urge to kill people or even harm another human being because most sober people don't have the urge to kill or harm people. When you're high, you're just high. It doesn't turn you into a violent human being.
Actually it does. That's what "aggression and paranoia" means.
Yea being high in your home on weed with your friends is cool and all, but that's not what we're talking about here.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
I saw a person that was really messed up on bath salts once by the way, should we launch a campaign on that as well?
You can't really put people in jail for every single thing that makes you high and its hypocritical to do so for handful of substances and ignore others. You might argue that the risk factor in the banned ones is much higher but I think we've established that thats absolute bullshit. You can poison yourself with pretty much anything you want from substances to world of warcraft. Why should heroin or cocaine be so special, can't it be common knowledge that if you take poison - you will poison yourself?
The idea I think is to tell people about it so they know the consequence of using whatever they use. And by tell I don't mean cite wikipedia but really make them understand what certain drugs do and if they still want to use them - they will, regardless of the laws.
edit* I have a feeling I need to put this here : I don't want heroin/similarly dangerous drugs to be legal, I just think there are far better ways of controlling their abuse than prohibition.
I signed. This deserved to be signed. I mainly signed regarding the cannabis usage as it does not arm at all. I'm more concerned about the future of hard drugs that i think need to be prohibited. But meeh, how can we prohibit stuff ? It'll always end on the black market but at bigger price.
i just signed it before logging on to TL this is a no brainer really, to stop all the horrible violence by the drug gangs it makes sense to legalise and regulate drugs, then the gangs will have no profits. Prison does nothing to help drug addicts, they need rehabilitation
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
If your mommy told you that chocolate was bad and should not eat it, would you listen to her?
On June 01 2011 08:26 Itachii wrote: Freedom my ass.They are banned for a reason.Drug and poison yourself if you want to, but don't make it easier for others.
I guess its gonna be hard for you now, since drugs are 'decriminalized' in Poland.
No, they are not.
Really? This says different. (and oh yeah, let me write that last post of mine again, with correction: "since drugs are soon to be 'decriminalized' in Poland.")
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
endangering the lives of others and staking their stuff isnt personal freedom
using meth ONLY AFFECTS THE USER.
addiction, segregation, having to deal with career criminals, these are the things that affect the community around a drug user.
You've got to be kidding right? Main effects of Meth:
Aggression Paranoia Hallucinations Feelings of invincibility
And you're telling me that this only affects the user, that it has no consequences for the people around that person?
Most people on drugs do not have an urge to kill people or even harm another human being because most sober people don't have the urge to kill or harm people. When you're high, you're just high. It doesn't turn you into a violent human being.
Actually it does. That's what "aggression and paranoia" means.
Yea being high in your home on weed with your friends is cool and all, but that's not what we're talking about here.
When talking about meth, you're right. When talking about most other drugs you're most certainly wrong.
First of all, violent behaviour is only exhibited by usage of a small part of all drugs (such as amphetamins). Furthermore, all the negative things you've listed are side effects! Only a small margin of people who try drugs experience them. Also, if you experience "agitation, irritability, panic, confusion", are you going to do that drug again? Probably not. You certainly won't become a habitual user. So there is hardly any harm done. I'd also like you to explain me how talkativeness or compulsive fascination with repetitive tasks is bad, harmful, or negative in any way.
We all ready have 'regulations' in place called laws against theft, property, and person. There doesn't need to be any regulations whatsoever on the production, sell, distribution, or otherwise of drugs. What we need to do is repeal all regulations not add more bureaucracy. Now, while I support the immediate end to the War on Liberty (aka War on Drugs) which produces mass amounts of violence I cannot support the means this thread advocates because the further away the institution is from the people the more tyrannical it becomes and thus, World Government and International Government is the most destructive to human liberty. The UN has horrible human rights record and has MASSIVE corruption. Why on Earth would you want to set the precedent where the UN is de-facto World Government where it can tell all sovereign Nations what policies are acceptable and which isn't. DC is corrupt enough -- no need to put the seat of power even further from the individual.
What's the old saying....think global act local. Support your local Nullification and Interposition movements. Support local independence movements (Such as Vermont State Independence and the State of Jefferson movement). Nothing good will come from the UN.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
I say every recreational drug, yes even heroin and the like, should be legal.
Enough with the nanny state BS, make everything legal, charge taxes for it and stop wasting money in armies/police/jails to enforce this nonsensical laws.
Instead, spend all that money in prevention and education, as well as rehabilitation options for addicted users, if someone still decides to destroy themselves using drugs, so be it.
I'm rather tired of my country spending my tax money, and wasting thousands of lives, just to try and stop american and western european kids from doing what they want.
Let them kill themselves if they wish it so much, and stop wasting so much money and lives in such an useless quest.
On June 01 2011 10:09 Steppen_Wolf wrote: Instead, spend all that money in prevention and education, as well as rehabilitation options for addicted users, if someone still decides to destroy themselves using drugs, so be it.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
its proven that heroin is very very harmful. so if you cant prove it for lsd why bring it up?
and possible sideffects are just possible sideffects. look at the little sheet of paper in your box of aspirin. read the sideeffects. some of them are far worse then what you just listed for lsd.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
its a drug. ofcourse some body functions will be altered or imparied. again tonsy of the freely available medication/drugs/plants out there do similar things.
i dont see your point rally. ofcourse proper drug education and information instead of "drugs are bad mmkay. they make you kill ppl and jump out of windows mmkay" is a must. but where is the argument for the current system?
On June 01 2011 10:09 Steppen_Wolf wrote: I say every recreational drug, yes even heroin and the like, should be legal.
Enough with the nanny state BS, make everything legal, charge taxes for it and stop wasting money in armies/police/jails to enforce this nonsensical laws.
Instead, spend all that money in prevention and education, as well as rehabilitation options for addicted users, if someone still decides to destroy themselves using drugs, so be it.
I'm rather tired of my country spending my tax money, and wasting thousands of lives, just to try and stop american and western european kids from doing what they want.
Let them kill themselves if they wish it so much, and stop wasting so much money and lives in such an useless quest.
i def would exclude heroin. there is pretty much no responsible use with that substance. i know people who just sometimes take other highly addicting drugs like cocain but i never heard of someone who just uses some heroin sometimes. also you can overdose to lethal levels very easily. which is impossible or easily avoidable (esp with regulated controlled production) with other drugs.
but i agree on the rest. there is so much potential money in this. taxes and no further waste of taxes could do so much good. and if they just spend 10% of that money to educate and properly deal with addicted people im sure the overall "drug situation" would get better also.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
LSD is harmless, I've done it multiple times and I can say 100% sure that being drunk is more difficult than being on a decent dose of lsd (2+ tabs).
So you're really wrong in like all aspects. The only danger of LSD is getting too wasted and hurting your self (you have friends with you? You're good to go, and alcohol does the same exact fucking thing, except you're more likely to get violent and belligerent on alcohol than you are on LSD, on LSD you're going to be happy and loving) or HPPD, which in most cases is very very minor.
If you think weed is cool and fine, but LSD is harmful, you have absolutely no knowledge of drugs what so ever. (P.S. LSD is safer than pot, and pot is safer than caffeine)
"Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death"
Oh yeah, by the way, scary thoughts are your reasoning for banning a drug that deserves to be free? This is soooooooo saddening, you really have no idea.
Also, death comes from fucking injecting lots and lots of LSD, NO ONE DOES THAT. Of course the sentence im assuming is talking about "fear of death" because you don't actually die from LSD.
Also, you earlier said weeds fine, but what the fuck do you think weed does as well?
" sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired"
Oh yeah, that. Like pretty much every single drug out there.
Also, just a little personal note.
LSD is easily the most magical and spiritual experience I have ever had, nothing but good can come from that drug. I think society as a whole would benefit if everyone had a mushroom trip, lsd trip, or some psychedelic experience.
On June 01 2011 10:09 Steppen_Wolf wrote: Instead, spend all that money in prevention and education, as well as rehabilitation options for addicted users, if someone still decides to destroy themselves using drugs, so be it.
this. /thread
how can you say that have you ever seen the numbers on how the non faith based rehabilitation programs do? Its just stupid to think that when you get drugs like heroin into the mix and how well thats going to do in a government institution.
I'm calling it now DARE 2 FTW. Do you realize how sky high the costs of health care is today and how huge it would be if we did legalize any drug at all?
Edit: I won't comment anymore on them but some of the trolls in this thread are classic or really really depressing. I really hope that the disinformation campaigns haven't been this effective.
On June 01 2011 10:09 Steppen_Wolf wrote: Instead, spend all that money in prevention and education, as well as rehabilitation options for addicted users, if someone still decides to destroy themselves using drugs, so be it.
this. /thread
how can you say that have you ever seen the numbers on how the non faith based rehabilitation programs do? Its just stupid to think that when you get drugs like heroin into the mix and how well thats going to do in a government institution.
I'm calling it now DARE 2 FTW. Do you realize how sky high the costs of health care is today and how huge it would be if we did legalize any drug at all?
Edit: I won't comment anymore on them but some of the trolls in this thread are classic or really really depressing. I really hope that the disinformation campaigns haven't been this effective.
What makes you think that people do not do heroin because it is illegal rather than they know it is a harmful substance? Obviously the illegality of an act does not really stop anyone from the activity -- if anything people are attracted to rebellious acts. I do not think the amount of people who do drugs would rise or fall too much with legalization, nor do I think this merits any consideration. People have a natural right to use their body as they wish as long as they do not violate the rights of others. Doing drugs does not violate anyone elses rights.
I also have to laugh at your horrendous utilitarian argument which you proceed to want to make everything illegal that costs money...well there goes everything fun, and there goes transportation (which kills 50,000 Americans every year on Government-roads). What's next? Fats, salt, sugar, skydiving, skateboarding, snowboarding, swimming? How about we stop socializing Health care and then it wouldn't matter what activities people engage in because you are not paying for their shit.
but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
The morality tyrants are the worst. Who the fuck cares if someone else wants to do drugs? Most people do not do drugs because they realize the harmful effects not because it is illegal, just like most people do not go around murdering others because they are opposed to the act for moral reasons not because it is illegal.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
LSD is harmless, I've done it multiple times and I can say 100% sure that being drunk is more difficult than being on a decent dose of lsd (2+ tabs).
So you're really wrong in like all aspects. The only danger of LSD is getting too wasted and hurting your self (you have friends with you? You're good to go, and alcohol does the same exact fucking thing, except you're more likely to get violent and belligerent on alcohol than you are on LSD, on LSD you're going to be happy and loving) or HPPD, which in most cases is very very minor.
If you think weed is cool and fine, but LSD is harmful, you have absolutely no knowledge of drugs what so ever. (P.S. LSD is safer than pot, and pot is safer than caffeine)
"Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death"
Oh yeah, by the way, scary thoughts are your reasoning for banning a drug that deserves to be free? This is soooooooo saddening, you really have no idea.
Also, death comes from fucking injecting lots and lots of LSD, NO ONE DOES THAT. Of course the sentence im assuming is talking about "fear of death" because you don't actually die from LSD.
Also, you earlier said weeds fine, but what the fuck do you think weed does as well?
" sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired"
Oh yeah, that. Like pretty much every single drug out there.
Also, just a little personal note.
LSD is easily the most magical and spiritual experience I have ever had, nothing but good can come from that drug. I think society as a whole would benefit if everyone had a mushroom trip, lsd trip, or some psychedelic experience.
Uh, tripping can be absolutely terrifying and difficult, far more than being drunk.
I've never met anyone who has gone from ecstatic to complete paranoia to complete ego death in a matter of minutes on alcohol, not have I seen people running around screaming and babbling incoherently while on alcohol. I haven't even been around people using hallucinogens very much, and I've seen some bizarre stuff.
That being said, I don't see any reason why it should be illegal. It's temporary, and most people don't react negatively. I've also never seen anyone get into a fight or crash their car on LSD, whereas I know several people who routinely get into fights when they're drunk, and I've know a few people who have gotten drunk and totalled their car.
Also, Travis, maybe you and your friends are smart enough not to drive on LSD, but one of my good friends does fairly often, despite me being like "wtf is wrong with you" every time. Some people are just irresponsible with drug use.
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
its definitely a possibility, alot of my friends dont try drugs because they dont know where to get it but if its just over the counter holy crap everyone would be smoking
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
its definitely a possibility, alot of my friends dont try drugs because they dont know where to get it but if its just over the counter holy crap everyone would be smoking
You're assuming again. Just because its legal doesn't mean everyone will do it or try it. There are studies out there, and countries even, that have already legalized drugs and have shown little to no growth in drug use, some have even seen a decline (i can't think of the country name currently).
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
its definitely a possibility, alot of my friends dont try drugs because they dont know where to get it but if its just over the counter holy crap everyone would be smoking
You're assuming again. Just because its legal doesn't mean everyone will do it or try it. There are studies out there, and countries even, that have already legalized drugs and have shown little to no growth in drug use, some have even seen a decline (i can't think of the country name currently).
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
its definitely a possibility, alot of my friends dont try drugs because they dont know where to get it but if its just over the counter holy crap everyone would be smoking
You're assuming again. Just because its legal doesn't mean everyone will do it or try it. There are studies out there, and countries even, that have already legalized drugs and have shown little to no growth in drug use, some have even seen a decline (i can't think of the country name currently).
Marijuana, mushrooms and LSD should be legal. My first experience with marijuana was one of the most profound and memorable things I've ever done. It would be amazing if I could try shrooms or LSD one day. Why not legalize it if it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?
On June 01 2011 10:57 Shigy wrote: more money for schools, less for prisons and law enforcement. please
Less taxes for Prisons and Law Enforcement because I want my goddamn money back. End the Income Tax! If you want Government-Schools to have more money you are free to donate to them, just do not send an armed delegate (IRS) in your place to come rob me to pay for it.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better.
So i heard that Alcohol was banned once, because you know people thought everyone was gonna turn into an alcoholic right? and what happened? I believe people just started to sell it illegally..... ohhh yeaaaah and then it was made Legal again and what fucking happened? did everyone turn into Alcoholics?...no..and what about the "criminals" who sold it?....well...No more fucking Profit for them cause you can just buy it from a fuckin store now right? why the fuck would you go up to someone whose more then likely going to rip you off, rob you, or overcharge whatever their selling you?
If it worked for Alcohol the reason it can't work for drugs is...? you're telling me, you honestly believe, that Addicts Would STILL rather buy drugs from people who are more likely to kill, or rob them Then from a fucking Store, where it has a Set Fucking Price instead of being Over Fucking Charged. Are you serious?
They are illegal because they are addicting to the point of wrecking your entire life and have serious health consequences
Arthritis, Cancer, FAS, Kidney Disease, Liver Disease, Nervous Disorders, Depression, Insomnia, Anxiety. All health risks caused by ?? Alcohol Drunk Drivers wreck their lives as well as the lives of others, as does the drug trade, it's legal ? why? Because people were getting it illegally, they made it Legal and then they made laws about it and Help Centers for people who want to stop drinking. If you make drugs regulated, guess what? You Take out the money from the illegal drug trade, and hell who knows maybe people will be more willing to go into help centers, or a fucking hospital, if they don't have to worry about going in to do some long ass fucking prison term... /end rant
Is it wrong to assume that there are people out there that ACTUALLY oppose this and actually believe that this "war" is actually accomplishing anything?
its funny how in Africa, there is a country that didn't "ban" hunting a certain species of rhinos, despite their population being low, for their horns. They enacted seasons open to hunting them because it combats the black market and poachers from illegally going out and uncontrollably killing them. By opening the market it creates competition thus no reason for poachers to go out and kill illegal amount THUS the population actually gets saved.
The point being from this is that, regulate this stuff and stop making it illegal so it doesn't give drug lords incentives to smuggle shit in.
edit:
well looking at the other posts...its not surprising people not looking at the result and using a bit of logic to see how pathetic this war is really.
BTW a LOT LOT LOT of lives have been lost because of this retarded shit. I know police officers who think this is the most retarded thing to be ever enacted.
On June 01 2011 11:10 heroyi wrote: Is it wrong to assume that there are people out there that ACTUALLY oppose this and actually believe that this "war" is actually accomplishing anything?
its funny how in Africa, there is a country that didn't "ban" hunting a certain species of rhinos, despite their population being low, for their horns. They enacted seasons open to hunting them because it combats the black market and poachers from illegally going out and uncontrollably killing them. By opening the market it creates competition thus no reason for poachers to go out and kill illegal amount THUS the population actually gets saved.
The point being from this is that, regulate this stuff and stop making it illegal so it doesn't give drug lords incentives to smuggle shit in.
I don't know if you've seen louis theroux's documentary on poaching, he's wrong i feel most of the time in that episode (he's usually good in my book) but it does show some interesting things.
Also, got to go now. Glad everyone so far has been keeping things civil!
On June 01 2011 10:45 kenwoo wrote: but if we legalize it then won't more innocent people wants to try drug because its easier to get? and get addicted and F***k up their life????????????????????????????????????????????? i dont get this at all
That's all based off extreme assumptions. What if drugs are legalized and some guy accidentally buys heroin thinking it was weed then goes crazy and shoots everyone? Silly line of thought.
its definitely a possibility, alot of my friends dont try drugs because they dont know where to get it but if its just over the counter holy crap everyone would be smoking
I kind of agree with kenwoo. We can't definitively say the reason drug violence isn't as prevalent in some countries as it is here is because they have drugs legalized. Part of the reason is that they're raised differently and their society is different--their teenagers probably don't view it as some super-fun taboo that makes them hardcore rebels. Because teens have been raised to never do these things, it's illegal here, and many teenagers have bad relationships with their family/friends and self-control problems, it'd be more likely that a lot of people would suddenly do drugs if it was legalized here, at least at first.
Granted I still think there are more benefits to ending the war on drugs in some form, but this is a possibility.
On June 01 2011 10:57 Shigy wrote: more money for schools, less for prisons and law enforcement. please
Less taxes for Prisons and Law Enforcement because I want my goddamn money back. End the Income Tax! If you want Government-Schools to have more money you are free to donate to them, just do not send an armed delegate (IRS) in your place to come rob me to pay for it.
well see, now you're getting into something way beyond the scope of this thread, but that's cool. we appreciate the enthusiasm
I'm all against the war on drugs but going against it through the UN is unacceptable. The UN is not a democratic or honest institution. If a country wants to legalize drugs it should be through democracy and not through UN treaties. Also, a UN suggestion should mean nothing to a politician when it come to things like this. Fuck what the world things. What your voters think is what should matter. I will never support the UN in any way even if they are standing up for something I believe in.
On June 01 2011 11:10 heroyi wrote: Is it wrong to assume that there are people out there that ACTUALLY oppose this and actually believe that this "war" is actually accomplishing anything?
its funny how in Africa, there is a country that didn't "ban" hunting a certain species of rhinos, despite their population being low, for their horns. They enacted seasons open to hunting them because it combats the black market and poachers from illegally going out and uncontrollably killing them. By opening the market it creates competition thus no reason for poachers to go out and kill illegal amount THUS the population actually gets saved.
The point being from this is that, regulate this stuff and stop making it illegal so it doesn't give drug lords incentives to smuggle shit in.
I don't know if you've seen louis theroux's documentary on poaching, he's wrong i feel most of the time in that episode (he's usually good in my book) but it does show some interesting things.
Also, got to go now. Glad everyone so far has been keeping things civil!
gonna have to look into that
a lot of things that America do is pretty screwed up and bad with teen pregnancy/ sex education being one
Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better.
They aren't trying to make it go away. They are accepting that while there is demand, someone will always step up to supply it. Why waste effort fighting a losing battle? It's a war that cannot be won so stop filling prisons needlessly.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote:
You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public.
Actually if you introduce standards into the production of drugs it means rednecks won't be manufacturing them while stoned in a trailer - the same rednecks who keep 50 gallons of explosive ingredients 3 feet away from open flames in badly ventilated areas. Investment could take place in production facilities with safety features.
The guy full of PCP who is rampaging now, will do so whether it is legal or not. Making PCP legal won't create an army of violent stoners any more than banning alcohol will stop drunk driving.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote:
Instead of ending a War of Drugs, why not actually have a real drug enforcement policy. Users need to be treated, sellers need to be jailed, and producers need to realize it's not profitable for them. You do that by removing the userbase and making it too expensive to produce due to the risks involved.
We have real enforcement policies. The point you seem to miss is that they are failing. As I stated elsewhere, if there is supply, people will always step in to fill it. It just raises the stakes to the extent where people are willing to kill to supply it. Imagine a supply chain where you can buy pot or w/e legally instead of from some shifty bloke whose idea of a work uniform is an ak47.
Legalising it could turn efforts to education. Lets face it, many people try drugs because of the taboo related to them. Remove that taboo and you remove a lot of the allure.
On June 01 2011 07:35 Mastermind wrote: [quote] I agree with this man. Signed.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
LSD is harmless, I've done it multiple times and I can say 100% sure that being drunk is more difficult than being on a decent dose of lsd (2+ tabs).
So you're really wrong in like all aspects. The only danger of LSD is getting too wasted and hurting your self (you have friends with you? You're good to go, and alcohol does the same exact fucking thing, except you're more likely to get violent and belligerent on alcohol than you are on LSD, on LSD you're going to be happy and loving) or HPPD, which in most cases is very very minor.
If you think weed is cool and fine, but LSD is harmful, you have absolutely no knowledge of drugs what so ever. (P.S. LSD is safer than pot, and pot is safer than caffeine)
"Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death"
Oh yeah, by the way, scary thoughts are your reasoning for banning a drug that deserves to be free? This is soooooooo saddening, you really have no idea.
Also, death comes from fucking injecting lots and lots of LSD, NO ONE DOES THAT. Of course the sentence im assuming is talking about "fear of death" because you don't actually die from LSD.
Also, you earlier said weeds fine, but what the fuck do you think weed does as well?
" sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired"
Oh yeah, that. Like pretty much every single drug out there.
Also, just a little personal note.
LSD is easily the most magical and spiritual experience I have ever had, nothing but good can come from that drug. I think society as a whole would benefit if everyone had a mushroom trip, lsd trip, or some psychedelic experience.
Uh, tripping can be absolutely terrifying and difficult, far more than being drunk.
I've never met anyone who has gone from ecstatic to complete paranoia to complete ego death in a matter of minutes on alcohol, not have I seen people running around screaming and babbling incoherently while on alcohol. I haven't even been around people using hallucinogens very much, and I've seen some bizarre stuff.
That being said, I don't see any reason why it should be illegal. It's temporary, and most people don't react negatively. I've also never seen anyone get into a fight or crash their car on LSD, whereas I know several people who routinely get into fights when they're drunk, and I've know a few people who have gotten drunk and totalled their car.
Also, Travis, maybe you and your friends are smart enough not to drive on LSD, but one of my good friends does fairly often, despite me being like "wtf is wrong with you" every time. Some people are just irresponsible with drug use.
You've not been around very many drunk people I guess. Conversely I've never really dealt with many people on LSD that beat their wives...which is an everyday occurrence with drunk people.
From a Law Enforcement point of view...I'd like nothing more than to make at the very least Marijuana legal and really everything else if I had my way. I've never been a fan of the government trying to protect me from myself. It's much like wearing a seatbelt...if some asshole doesn't want to wear a seatbelt why the FUCK should we make them do so?
The vast majority of violent crime I encounter can be directly contributed to the illicit selling of drugs. It's just so insanely profitable that people will fight over a street corner just to generate that extra income. The drug trade fuels a really stupid amount of violence, money, and annoyance.
The reason I have to deal with gangs that have semi automatic/automatic weapons is primarily because a fingernail sized baggie of crack is worth 30 dollars around here. I believe that with regulation you wouldn't have to deal with that crap....also if Alcohol is legal...yea....
hey guys! head on over to my thread! we're making a petition to legalize murder of gay people and blacks! yay! legalizing pot would be fine. Heroin, crack cocaine and all that shit is terrible
If you want violent drug-trafficking crime to end, all you have to do is legalize and subsidize the production and consumption of every drug people want. There is a reason why the mob stopped shooting people as much after Prohibition ended, and there is also a reason for the complete lack of violent crime at tobacco deals gone wrong.
Is the disappearance of drug crime worth having half your society turn into potheads, crackheads, meth-heads, and et cetera? Figure that one out for yourself.
On June 01 2011 13:57 nemo14 wrote: If you want violent drug-trafficking crime to end, all you have to do is legalize and subsidize the production and consumption of every drug people want. There is a reason why the mob stopped shooting people as much after Prohibition ended, and there is also a reason for the complete lack of violent crime at tobacco deals gone wrong.
Is the disappearance of drug crime worth having half your society turn into potheads, crackheads, meth-heads, and et cetera? Figure that one out for yourself.
Decriminalization = More people using hard drugs? I beg to differ.
About Portugal's decriminalization:
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public. .
You would stop seeing Meth Lab explosion stories because the Meth wouldn't be produced in some rednecks basement. It would be produced in a facility built with safety precautions specifically tailored to the creation of Meth and similar drugs.
That guy on PCP who goes on a rampage in public is going to do that with or without legalization, but he's one guy. The next guy to do it is also one guy. For each of these guys, there are probably 10 PCP users who never go on a rampage (i'll be back with some statistics soon). By keeping it illegal, you are punishing 10 innocent people for an idiots mistake. Throw that one guy in jail. Throw the next guy in jail. Leave the 10 guys alone.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public. .
You would stop seeing Meth Lab explosion stories because the Meth wouldn't be produced in some rednecks basement. It would be produced in a facility built with safety precautions specifically tailored to the creation of Meth and similar drugs.
That guy on PCP who goes on a rampage in public is going to do that with or without legalization, but he's one guy. The next guy to do it is also one guy. For each of these guys, there are probably 10 PCP users who never go on a rampage (i'll be back with some statistics soon). By keeping it illegal, you are punishing 10 innocent people for an idiots mistake. Throw that one guy in jail. Throw the next guy in jail. Leave the 10 guys alone.
Parnage I agree with ya wholeheartedly. I do not understand why people think legalizing these drugs will make everything better...it will only serve as a catalyst for a world in a downward spiral.
On June 01 2011 17:24 Golgotha wrote: I for one am against this. I feel like the war on drugs is a necessary evil and a better option than legalizing narcotics.
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public. .
You would stop seeing Meth Lab explosion stories because the Meth wouldn't be produced in some rednecks basement. It would be produced in a facility built with safety precautions specifically tailored to the creation of Meth and similar drugs.
That guy on PCP who goes on a rampage in public is going to do that with or without legalization, but he's one guy. The next guy to do it is also one guy. For each of these guys, there are probably 10 PCP users who never go on a rampage (i'll be back with some statistics soon). By keeping it illegal, you are punishing 10 innocent people for an idiots mistake. Throw that one guy in jail. Throw the next guy in jail. Leave the 10 guys alone.
Parnage I agree with ya wholeheartedly. I do not understand why people think legalizing these drugs will make everything better...it will only serve as a catalyst for a world in a downward spiral.
I like how you quoted me quoting Parnage, but completely neglected to comment on my realistic response.
In addition, I gave reasons, and arguments in favor of my position. I gave you a reason to "understand why people think legalizing these drugs will make everything better..." Thus far, you have provided no argument, and to me, and probably many more, your way of thought doesn't appear to be thought at all. It's just regurgitation of someone else's opinion.
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.
I signed it. I almost never do these things, even about issues I'm very passionate about, but I did toss in on this one. I've had some bad experiences with irrational and needlessly aggressive law enforcement. I don't know if internet petitions with half a million people do, and even if it influences some UN delegates, it would be instilling a largely impotent body with another idealistic and unrealistic demand of its member states. Still, it's a good idea so what the fuck. Good luck drugs!
It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
While I wholeheartedly agree with legalization, (imo, somebody wants to fuck himself up by all means let him), today's carebear politicians will never let it happen. God forbid the government let people hurt themselves without punishing them.
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths.
It's the same reason that so many people OD on heroin. As heroin is not regulated, there's no way to tell the purity of the heroin you're buying. It's roughly equivalent to people buying Vodka (roughly 40% alcohol), but actually getting Absinthe (roughly 75% alcohol, and I don't meant the hallucinogenic kind)... Well, not quite, but you get the idea.
EDIT: just realized how bad that sounds, opiates are awful for you, don't do them. But it's what happens.
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths.
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Sure if you only use ecstasy at a party every 2 weeks it's not gonna be too bad, but then you're not being objective.
Obviously "clean" ecstasy isnt as bad as the bad quality stuff, but i'm sure it's a lot worse than tobacco.
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths.
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Sure if you only use ecstasy at a party every 2 weeks it's not gonna be too bad, but then you're not being objective.
Obviously "clean" ecstasy isnt as bad as the bad quality stuff, but i'm sure it's a lot worse than tobacco.
but because you cant use ecstasy as a recreational drug you cant take it in the same dose as a cigarette. if tobacco was illegal you would see people taking massive doses quickly because thats the easiest way to take 'enough' without getting caught carrying massive amounts of it around -quickly consuming a massive dose.
if X was legal you would see people taking tiny amounts of it much regularly and they would be able to function well at work, or at home, and still 'feel good'.
Deadly, that's not a fair comparison because even while it's illegal, very few people will go on 40 year ecstasy benders, whereas I know tons of older folks that have smoked for 40 years. And you don't take ecstasy daily. This just isn't a comparison that anyone will take seriously...
The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high.
I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison.
And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy.
But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote: The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high.
I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison.
And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy.
But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
so what you are saying is that smoking tobacco has no affect on your mental state? :D
On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote: The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high.
I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison.
And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy.
But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
so what you are saying is that smoking tobacco has no affect on your mental state? :D
sure about that one?
Compared to ecstasy? Yea. Nobody smokes because they wanna get high, but that is the sole reason you take ecstasy right?
Comparing the mental effects of tobacco to ecstasy seems straight up stupid to me.
On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote: The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high.
I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison.
And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy.
But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
Actually Tobacco is considered a much deadlier drug than ecstasy by the scientific community. Ecstasy dangerosity comes from abuse and low tolerance. Harms caused by tobacco come from... simple use. From 2 packs a week to 1 pack a day.
i always thought ecstasy fucked your brain up, like stopping chunks of your brain from communicating with each other. Anyways, its apples to oranges what you guys are arguing and that graph is bullshit. how do you quantify health, is a decrease in memory equilvelent to an increase risk of kidney failure?? Thats why its bullshit.
No, I don't *think* people are high when they smoke cigarettes, they *are* high. They have consumed chemicals that are not naturally produced in the human body increasing their alertness and reactions. Of course it's stupid to drive while on E. But it doesn't follow that cigarettes don't get you high. I'd agree that you aren't "intoxicated" the same way you are on most recreational drugs, but you keep creating unfair parallels through anecdotal situations that just don't really make a lot of sense.
I think you're missing the overarching idea of ending the "War on Drugs". I think it should be pretty obvious that we aren't all of a sudden going to be going on 40 year E benders or driving while on E. It has always been illegal to drive while intoxicated. What we want is to focus on drug use risk education and legalization so we can refine production methods to create purer (read: safer), and cheaper drugs than the crime lords can offer.
The objective of the war on drugs has always been to take away the user base and pushers so the crime lords starve out. But they haven't for 50 years and the illegal drug trade continues to fund much worse crimes such as human trafficking, arms dealing, etc. By taking their products, making them cheaper, and safer, and educating people on use and abuse, we'll effectively be taking their user base and putting the money towards legitimate business growth and taxes (additionally less tax money will go into unnecessary policing and jail time).
On June 01 2011 21:50 Deadlyfish wrote: If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Thats about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Tobacco is much worse than pure ecstasy, especially in long term use.
Its what I've been trying to say all along, people like you need to know about these stuff rather than "just know its bad" and be ok with wasting resources on senseless campaigns.
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.
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
Lung cancer,Kidney Cancer, Laryngeal cancer,breast cancer, Esophageal Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, Stomach Cancer, lowers your life span by 13.7 years, male or female. The List Goes on, it's even worse for people exposed to Second Hand Smoke. saying Tobacco is worse then Ecstasy? (MDMA) YES. Health Effects of MDMA? Hyponatremia, whic is not caused my mdma BY ITSELF it's a result of drinking too much water after consuming MDMA, and guess what else? it also happens natural to marathon runners/bodybuilders. and the other health risks? Hyperthermia, which is ( I believe the major cause of death amongst ecstasy users)....so Yes Tobacco smoking is more harmful then ecstasy.... "Due to the difference between the recreational dose and the lethality dose, it is extremely rare for a death to be accredited just to the consumption of MDMA"
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Ecstasy may kill you lonng before tobacco does, but Does ONE PERSON using ecstasy carry the risk of x people getting cancer from Second hand use? what about ALL the other health conditions they CAN develop JUST from being around someone that smokes? As for going psychotic from mdma, if you don't know anything you should not talk about it imo. the only proven Long-Term effects of MDMA that affect a person psychologically is that it could lead to subtle decreases in learning, memory, attention, executive function, mood, and decision making. did you see "Psychosis" anywhere in there?...me either.
On June 01 2011 22:59 Albrithe wrote: No, I don't *think* people are high when they smoke cigarettes, they *are* high. They have consumed chemicals that are not naturally produced in the human body increasing their alertness and reactions. Of course it's stupid to drive while on E. But it doesn't follow that cigarettes don't get you high. I'd agree that you aren't "intoxicated" the same way you are on most recreational drugs, but you keep creating unfair parallels through anecdotal situations that just don't really make a lot of sense.
I think you're missing the overarching idea of ending the "War on Drugs". I think it should be pretty obvious that we aren't all of a sudden going to be going on 40 year E benders or driving while on E. It has always been illegal to drive while intoxicated. What we want is to focus on drug use risk education and legalization so we can refine production methods to create purer (read: safer), and cheaper drugs than the crime lords can offer.
The objective of the war on drugs has always been to take away the user base and pushers so the crime lords starve out. But they haven't for 50 years and the illegal drug trade continues to fund much worse crimes such as human trafficking, arms dealing, etc. By taking their products, making them cheaper, and safer, and educating people on use and abuse, we'll effectively be taking their user base and putting the money towards legitimate business growth and taxes (additionally less tax money will go into unnecessary policing and jail time).
The problem is, you cant just make everything legal just because it is a cause of crime. Guns/drugs/bombs/whatever. You can just say "oh well, i guess we'll just sell it ourselves and that way get rid of the crime".
The reason it was a crime in the first place wasnt just because they thought it would be fun. There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. A good reason. (hint, medical experts/police decide this stuff). You think they just made it illegal for some random reason?
I dont get the logic that "oh well we cant stop people from using heroin, might just sell it at walmart then". (yes i am exaggerating )
It's about sending a message to people, and i agree that the "war on drugs" isnt as efficient as it should be, and that there may be another approach. But the right approach isnt to make it legal.
I refuse to argue about whether tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i view it as common knowledge that smoking a cigarette and taking a pill of ecstasy are widely different. Apparently some people think otherwise, and we wont get anywhere discussing it. None of us are doctors and it just turns into amateur hour where people google stuff and copy paste it, so whatever.
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...
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.
I think we'll get to 750k, let's see I'm really hoping for the best on this. It isn't often I vote or participate on something like this but we need resolve.
I just wish people would be smart enough to not poison themselves with all variants of crap so we wouldn't need to waste time and resources trying to figure which drugs should be legal and which drugs shouldn't. Just stop being stupid and don't harm yourself, problem solved.
i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it).
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?"
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."
On June 02 2011 02:06 Morteth wrote: i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it).
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?"
I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it?
People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be.
On June 02 2011 02:06 Morteth wrote: i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it).
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?"
I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it?
People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be.
I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid.
People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that.
On June 02 2011 02:06 Morteth wrote: i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it).
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?"
I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it?
People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be.
I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid.
People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that.
That's the whole point, it's more complicated than that. Being dumb is just one of the many problems that make people use drugs. You cannot fix a person's economic, social and genetic problems with education. You cannot just tell someone "Be smarter, don't be born poor, stop having an unfortunate life". We can just close our eyes and hope education will magically solve the problem. Junkies won't just disappear if we teach them it's bad.
On June 02 2011 02:06 Morteth wrote: i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it).
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?"
I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it?
People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be.
I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid.
People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that.
ah, a refreshing message that people need to remind their selves of
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.
im sorry but, have you ever actually consumed ecstasy? do you even smoke? some of your posts are quite confusing.
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).
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
Alcohol can be a pretty terrible drug and comparing the regulated alcohol that is sold and random street Ecstasy that is cut with an assortment of other drugs isn't a fair comparison. The number of people who have died due to Ecstasy is much lower than deaths from alcohol and tobacco and these deaths are, as far as I know, all caused from drugs cocktails, which would be far lass common if you could buy it pure, or from misuse, which would also be decreased if the war was shifted more to educating people.
Nobody has ever died from just using cannabis, although there will have been deaths from intoxication in the same way there is with alcohol.
I don't smoke, and I occasionally use MDMA (ecstasy), so I guess I would prefer using ecstasy over smoking even though you can't really compare them because even the most hardcore ecstasy user probably won't be taking it more than once or twice a week.
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
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 : /
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.
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 ^^
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 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.
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 03:15 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?
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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”
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 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
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.
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 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.
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!
On June 02 2011 03:37 VIB wrote: ]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?
There are plenty of people who don't want tobacco to be illegal it's quite a radical notion to say it is wrong to smoke tobacco. It's unhealthy but we are allowed to have unhealthy things and we don't need to legislate that something is illegal for being unhealthy especially since making tobacco illegal wouldn't "solve" any problems but would create many new ones in the form of cigarette smuggling.
Also what on earth are you talking about when you say racial double standard.
On June 02 2011 04:58 xarthaz wrote: 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 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.
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!
I think it's hard to argue that things like extasy, meth, heroin etc. are not bad for you. Only a few weeks ago there was an article here in the news about a study which showed that extacy caused the hippocampus area of your brain, responsible for your memory, to shrink alarmingly.
I live in Holland so weed is 'legal' here but I still think anyone who does it is stupid.
Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
Yeah and 9/11 was and inside job and NASA faked the moon landing. Be my guest if you want to use that stuff but don't use that twisted logic to convince yourself you're not gonna get fucked up.
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
If you want to argue conspiracy theories, you need credible sources and decent arguments to back it up.
While pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol corporations certainly do have a vice grip hold on the drug industry (in fact forms of illegal drugs are prescribed regularly), that doesn't mean heroin, meth, cocaine, and other such drugs aren't dangerous when mis-used:
What is really needed is debate and reason in the classroom. Not shoving facts and misinformation down children's throats; not scare tactics; teach them biology and chemistry, show them the drugs structure, give them case studies and peer-reviewed journals showing the truth behind these drugs. It needs to be taught that mis-use of drugs is bad;
I'm fairly this site does nothing except profit from these little "petition sign ups" and it counts for nothing, but I do agree with ending the war on drugs. In countries where drugs have become legalized their use has actually dropped and it is much easier to treat addicts and thousands of wrongly jailed citizens would be free to live their lives.
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.
Is it also your personal freedom to drive drunk or to steal from people? Drugs are just as harmful to those around you as they are to yourself. Unless you want to try and argue that using meth or heroin only affects the user?
What about Salvia or Cannabis or LSD? What about using drugs in the privacy of your own home?
What about that?
Well i'm not a doctor, and obviously there needs to be some drugs that are legal and some that arent, but about those 3...
I could list all the side effects of salvia/LSD but the list is probably too long. Basically you see stuff that isnt real. Would you want someone driving on LSD? Or or owning a gun?
No... what is your point? Do I want someone blackout drunk to drive a car? No. Is it legal? No. Would it be legal to drive on LSD? No. Is it more likely than someone driving blackout drunk? No.
I dont know what to say, as i said i'm not a doctor. But no, i dont want drugs that make people hallucinate made legal.
and yet you can't provide an argument as to why
And you cant make a law that says that "you can only use drugs in your own home". Either drugs are legal or they arent. I dont care if you use them at the parking lot or in your own house.
There already are laws like that. And even if there weren't, they certainly could be made. But there are. So you're wrong.
oh and btw, I would love to see this long list of salvia/LSD side effects. Or even a short list. Plz, inform me.
Ok, would you want heroin made legal? As in everyone could buy it, anytime, anywhere? No. (if you say yes then idk what to say).
no. I never said anything about heroin, afaik we were never talking about Heroin, I brought up specific other drugs.
It's the same reason i dont want LSD made legal. Everyone draws the line somewhere, i'm just a lot more apprehensive than you are.
What reason? You don't have one, that's why you aren't giving one. The reason to not make heroin legal would be that it's extremely harmful and addictive. LSD is not. So how does that reasoning apply to LSD
Sure it's illegal to drive drunk, but people still do it right? And it kills thousands of people each year. I wouldn't want the same to happen with LSD.
First of all, no one on LSD would want to drive. Secondly, if someone wanted to drive on LSD they can do it regardless of whether or not LSD is legal. Thirdly, no one would eeeeverrrr want to drive on LSD.
About the "using drugs in your home thing", we're talking about making it legal to buy drugs right? How does that have anything to do with "only do it in your own house"? There are already places where it's legal to use drugs, places that are setup by the government for that purpose.
Are you suppose to be refuting what I said? Yes, we are talking about making it legal to buy drugs. And if you were worried about people doing said drugs out in public, it could be made so it's only legal to do them in your homes. I don't know what you are talking about.
You can just google the side effects of LSD/salvia, but i can copy paste a few if you'd like...
I did google it just to make sure I was right that there were almost no known side effects that last after the usage. You're about to spout a bunch of unsourced B.S., and/or give me side effects that no one cares about because they happen DURING the trip. Everyone knows you can have bad trips, it's a risk oftaking the drug. But does it have lasting effects, that's what people care about. Salvia has NO known lasting effects, and the only known lasting effect of LSD is that some people can sometimes have flashbacks from strong trips.
It may be that in some very very rare cases hallucinogens can cause mental/psychotic breakdowns but I would expect that has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
psychological or emotional effects such as anxiety, depression, dizziness, disorientation and paranoia.
physical effects such as dilated pupils, lowered body temperature, nausea, vomiting, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate; and convulsions
prolonged anxiety and depression after use of the drug is stopped
changes in mood and sensory perception
Ok. You say you dont want heroin legalized because it is harmful and addictive. That's why i dont want LSD legalized as well. (not addictive, just harmful). You say it isnt harmful, ok. I disagree. You want me to prove it's harmful? I cant. And you cant prove it's not harmful. I can list all the side effects but in the end it just comes down to that you disagree that the side effects arent harmful.What do you want me to say to that?
Under the influence of LSD, the ability to make sensible judgments and see common dangers is impaired
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
From drugs.com/lsd
I think that these side effects is enough reason not to legalize it, you dont.
I dont know if you're gonna say that isnt a reliable source, looks legit to me
Anyways, i gotta sleep now, so i guess i'll just agree to disagree
Some LSD users also experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death
I'm afraid of death when I'm sober. Can we outlaw sobriety ?
On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote: i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . .
better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting.
On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:
On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote: It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
Would you care to name a few?
I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences.
Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh
Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs.
We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places.
I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless.
Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on.
Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true.
Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
I'm not a doctor either, but I KNOW that alcohol is worse than ecstasy. See what I did there ?
Also, yes, I like to take LSD and MDMA, but I never drink alcohol nor smoke anything. Sometimes I bake hash in cookies but I never smoke it.
You know what I love most about taking MDMA instead of smoking ? I can hike, run, climb, swim, bike, ski or work out and my lungs don't collapse after 15 seconds of exercise.
You know what I love most about taking LSD instead of alcohol ? My mind is still as sharp as it was when I was 20. Wanna take a guess what 10 years of alcohol does to your brain ?
On June 02 2011 07:45 xarthaz wrote: Thats all corporatist propaganda to make people keep buying their "designer" drugs. Yeah pay the big corporations for their alcohol n tobacco and help fund their research to "prove" that other drugs are bad.
If you want to argue conspiracy theories, you need credible sources and decent arguments to back it up.
While pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol corporations certainly do have a vice grip hold on the drug industry (in fact forms of illegal drugs are prescribed regularly), that doesn't mean heroin, meth, cocaine, and other such drugs aren't dangerous when mis-used:
What is really needed is debate and reason in the classroom. Not shoving facts and misinformation down children's throats; not scare tactics; teach them biology and chemistry, show them the drugs structure, give them case studies and peer-reviewed journals showing the truth behind these drugs. It needs to be taught that mis-use of drugs is bad;
The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
Moron: Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed.
Sanity: I'm done talking to you.
If you think the war on drugs is a good thing you should be denied the right to vote and possible be sterilised. Cruel, but fair.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.
The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.
On June 01 2011 03:25 aloT wrote: I do not believe that any harm-minimisation approach to tackling drug issues is good. I guess that the liberal voice is stronger on the internet, but for me the images of failed drug regulation trials (such as free needle-exchanges and the resulting surge of dumps of used needles littering open streets) are much more saddening than anything else.
I am strongly in favour of taking increasingly punitive measurements to tackle drug use, and I do not encourage people to sign this unless you have spent an exhaustive amount of time studying this subject and have an imformed opinion. Harm-reduction stratagies. Do. Not. Work.
Please give me evidence that these strategies do not work. When I was a child I used to see needles laying around in alleyways in my city all the time. Since the advent of a needle exchange program nearly 10 years ago I have seen a drastic reduction in these, In fact I have yet to see a publicly disposed needle in the last 2+ years. Furthermore in Saskatoon Canada, Which has one of the greatest per capita HIV/AIDS infection rates in all of north america, there has been an almost 80% decrease in the number of new cases of HIV/AIDS reported per year since the introduction of needle exchanges. In Vancouver Canada, the introduction of safe inject sites where users are provided clean needles and inject under the supervision of trained nurses has reduced the number of overdoses and new HIV infections drastically in those neighborhoods.
Please don't talk out of your ass when you have no idea whatsoever about the facts of the situation, harm-reduction strategies have been overwhelmingly successful, regardless of the propaganda you spew. Please take your trash somewhere else.
Yeah, gosuMalicE is correct. While this specific article is a little old, it's still relevant: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2008/03/17/ot-needle-080317.html I've read many CBC articles reporting successful needle exchange programs all across Canada. aloT is simply spreading disinformation.
When a thread gets this long, oh how to reply to it all First off, i am a legalization supporter. The most basic essence of being alive is choice. You make good choices, you prosper. If people want to use things in their body, they will have to deal with the consequences. I don't approve of my 3 daughters being FORCED to be drug tested at school randomly. It makes my jaw clench personally.
The real trouble issue for me comes from the nature of prohibition, and the hypocracy it has spawned. Prohibition doesn't just work for criminals. It works for government as well.
Gov outlaws substance A. Intelligence agency and Military start production traffic ring Gov in essence outlaws which it sells so it profits better from sale of Sub A, gets to tax population to incarcerate it's own customers. I could elaborate better, but that's the reality of it in America.
Keywords: CIA drug Trafficing Micheal Ruppert, US Army/ Opium growing.
I find it hilarious that Ron Paul mentions John Kerry as 'heading the investigation'. No wonder it went nowhere. Heh
I did not sign
Edit: I found this for all you prohibition supporters... go BANANAS
The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
BOOM holy shit most well said opinion on this ever. You win Dapper_Cad
On June 02 2011 10:14 Dapper_Cad wrote: The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
Moron: Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed.
Sanity: I'm done talking to you.
If you think the war on drugs is a good thing you should be denied the right to vote and possible be sterilised. Cruel, but fair.
You're as closed minded as the people who you say shouldn't be able to vote and sterilized. Some people choose not to do drugs because they are illegal, can you blame them for being law abiding citizens? There is nothing wrong with either your opinion or the opinion of the "moron" you quote. Except the moron probably won't ask for you to be sterilized.
On June 02 2011 10:14 Dapper_Cad wrote: The war on drugs is perhaps the most ridiculous policy of our time. To be honest I'll miss it if it ends as it's such a crystal clear indicator of the complete corruption, lack of rational thought and short sightedness that it's a go to debate to find out if you're talking to a moron.
Moron: Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed.
Sanity: I'm done talking to you.
If you think the war on drugs is a good thing you should be denied the right to vote and possible be sterilised. Cruel, but fair.
You're as closed minded as the people who you say shouldn't be able to vote and sterilized. Some people choose not to do drugs because they are illegal, can you blame them for being law abiding citizens? There is nothing wrong with either your opinion or the opinion of the "moron" you quote. Except the moron probably won't ask for you to be sterilized.
He's not close minded. The "morons" don't even have their own opinion because they don't have the facts straight. They're just zombies spouting other peoples opinions as facts.
Law abiding citizens is touted as being a good thing with positive connotations, but we all know from all the racist laws that we've had in the past and the unjust anti-drug laws of today that in those situations law abiding citizens should be synonymous with "idiot", not with "good". This is one of those situations.
And its not as if he was serious about sterilization, but that's how pissed off people get about injustice.
On June 03 2011 02:54 Barrin wrote: My brother showed me this video a few days ago
It's sort of a documentary/interview with Jack Herer, the "Emperor of Hemp" and author of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". It's really good, I recommend for anyone who can think for themselves to watch it.
It's kinda funny because when he was younger he was in the armed forces and thought that all of those hippies were the most un-american people he's ever seen. He thought marijuana was a big waste of time and all that jazz... then one day he actually smoked it. This came to that and he learned more about it and how awesome of a plant it can be (not just for recreational use) and eventually one day he decided to spend most of his time doing whatever he could to legalize the Hemp plant.
Anyways my main point for showing this is that I learned something very interesting while watching it.
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.
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
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.
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.
ryanAnger indeed. Did VIB kick your dog or something?
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.
ryanAnger 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.
I don't believe there's anything wrong with current policy really. If you want to do drugs you can. You will become a less productive member of society and because of that, you rightly take the risk of being punished by the authorities for your drug taking. It's a good status quo.
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
Less drug use in these areas because of less poverty/better living standards. US has so much poverty, such a massive lower class (disprapportionately made of blacks) who cause a large amount of drug related crime. Legal weed would have a massive take up rate with blacks in America compared to the relatively wealthy Dutch.
And not all drugs are the same. Sorry but you got your head up your ass if you think legal heroin/pcp/crack/ice is a good thing.
Fix your poverty and you'll fix your drug problems. Legalising drugs will not reduce drug use, but will shift the wealth from from criminal organisations to governments and corporations. The criminal organisations are not a problem. Drug cartels generally don't cause problems for people not involved in drugs. It is not in their interest to harm normal civilians. Stay out of their business and they keep away.
The real problem is the drug users because: A. They can be violent and cause increased crimes. Alcohol makes people violent too, but at a lower rate (most adults drink alcohol but not many commit alcohol related crimes, not many adults do drugs but a lot of those who do commit crimes).
B. They are less productive members of society. Imagine if everyone on earth smoked weed. Nothing would ever get done. We want less of these people, not more.
The best solution would be to legalise one drug which isnt addictive, produces a high and euphoric bot no psychosis effect, has no negative physical or mental side effects, and doesn't stop the user from being a productive member of society. Preferably something that increases the users energy, so they can actually become more productive. Something like speed or exctacy. And ration it at a dose of 1 per week.
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.
ryanAnger 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 03:05 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
On June 03 2011 14:14 saxonhamish wrote: I don't believe there's anything wrong with current policy really. If you want to do drugs you can. You will become a less productive member of society and because of that, you rightly take the risk of being punished by the authorities for your drug taking. It's a good status quo.
Meanwhile, *countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use* that proponents of the drug war have darkly predicted. Instead, they have seen significant reductions in drug-related crime, addiction and deaths, and are able to focus squarely on dismantling criminal empires.
Less drug use in these areas because of less poverty/better living standards. US has so much poverty, such a massive lower class (disprapportionately made of blacks) who cause a large amount of drug related crime. Legal weed would have a massive take up rate with blacks in America compared to the relatively wealthy Dutch.
And not all drugs are the same. Sorry but you got your head up your ass if you think legal heroin/pcp/crack/ice is a good thing.
Fix your poverty and you'll fix your drug problems. Legalising drugs will not reduce drug use, but will shift the wealth from from criminal organisations to governments and corporations. The criminal organisations are not a problem. Drug cartels generally don't cause problems for people not involved in drugs. It is not in their interest to harm normal civilians. Stay out of their business and they keep away.
The real problem is the drug users because: A. They can be violent and cause increased crimes. Alcohol makes people violent too, but at a lower rate (most adults drink alcohol but not many commit alcohol related crimes, not many adults do drugs but a lot of those who do commit crimes).
B. They are less productive members of society. Imagine if everyone on earth smoked weed. Nothing would ever get done. We want less of these people, not more.
The best solution would be to legalise one drug which isnt addictive, produces a high and euphoric bot no psychosis effect, has no negative physical or mental side effects, and doesn't stop the user from being a productive member of society. Preferably something that increases the users energy, so they can actually become more productive. Something like speed or exctacy. And ration it at a dose of 1 per week.
Oh hey some nice lies in this post, you're a pretty elaborate troll! Just kidding.
"They are less productive members of society. Imagine if everyone on earth smoked weed. Nothing would ever get done. We want less of these people, not more."
Had me laughing for a good minute! Silly lying propaganda.
On June 03 2011 14:14 saxonhamish wrote: The best solution would be to legalise one drug which isnt addictive, produces a high and euphoric bot no psychosis effect, has no negative physical or mental side effects, and doesn't stop the user from being a productive member of society. Preferably something that increases the users energy, so they can actually become more productive. Something like speed or exctacy. And ration it at a dose of 1 per week.
Well I agree with ryananger... hemp seed is one of the healthiest and most complete food sources on earth. For some reason VIB just ignores what ryan is saying.
Signed it. I found it depressing that drugs like cannabis aren't regulated yet. The war against drugs has hurt enough people already. Hopefully we will see a change in the near future.
There is absolutely no good reason to prevent anyone from taking whatever substance they wish on private property. Well maybe if it causes strong violent temper or something, but even still they should be able to take it provided they stay within the property for the duration of the short term effects to expire.
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.
ryanAnger 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 03:05 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
Perhaps you should reread my post. I was not talking about Marijuana, or any other drug, for that matter. I was talking about Hemp, which can be produced with virtually no THC, CBD, or CBN. The poster you initially replied to was also talking about Hemp, specifically, and not necessarily Marijuana. The statement you made about potatoes allowed my logical mind to infer that you were also talking about Hemp.
In regards to your counter-arguments about the topic I wasn't even part of for my previous post:
- I agree, the "it's natural" argument is stupid, because there are a lot of things that are natural that are bad for your health. That said, there has not been a SINGLE study (please disprove me with credible sources) suggesting that responsible ingestion of Marijuana (and the active ingredients involved) has ever directly resulted in an individual's bodily harm.
- Three wrongs don't make one right. Perhaps this is true, but history has also shown (repeatedly, I might add, and even recently) that prohibition of any substance causes more harm than it does good.
- In regards to Portugal (and similar countries, but I'll use Portugal as my prime example): No, they didn't legalize, but they did decriminalize it, making possession and consumption of any drug a petty crime, punishable by fines, etc. (no jail time.) Dealers and Producers are still subject to greater punishments. Decriminalization was implemented in 2001, and since that time the number of deaths from HIV, and new cases of HIV has plummeted. ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 )
The statistical indicators suggest that since the decriminalization in July 2001, the following developments have occurred: • Increased use of cannabis. • Decreased use of heroin. • Increased uptake of treatment. • Reduction in drug related deaths.
- In regards to drug cartel and junkie violence: It is very difficult to accurately gather statistics about the former, so I can't pretend to know which of the two is more prevalent. Despite this, however, I firmly believe that junkie violence is the lesser of two evils, and if we have the means necessary to eliminate the greater evil, then it is our duty as good people to do so.
- In regards to conspiracy theories: I understand your hesitation, and believe me, sometimes I see them and laugh, as well. However, there are some "theories" that are fact. In the event that Marijuana (and Hemp) were legalized, many of the nations leading industries would be hurt significantly after a certain amount of time, primarily, the tobacco, alcohol, paper and plastic industries. It is also factual that many of our leading politicians receive "donations" from certain leading industry members. Logic implies that certain "political" agendas have corporate and industrial reasons.
On June 03 2011 15:32 travis wrote: Well I agree with ryananger... hemp seed is one of the healthiest and most complete food sources on earth. For some reason VIB just ignores what ryan is saying.
Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
There are hundreds of ngos trying to reduce poverty and hunger with much better plans than "distribute hemp to everyone". But none of those achieve much because of the same barrier: lack of political and economic interest.
edit: ryan just saw your post, but I'm tired. gonna sleep now, I'll read it tomorrow, gnight ^^
On June 03 2011 15:32 travis wrote: Well I agree with ryananger... hemp seed is one of the healthiest and most complete food sources on earth. For some reason VIB just ignores what ryan is saying.
Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
There are hundreds of ngos trying to reduce poverty and hunger with much better plans than "distribute hemp to everyone". But none of those achieve much because of the same barrier: lack of political and economic interest.
edit: ryan just saw your post, but I'm tired. gonna sleep now, I'll read it tomorrow, gnight ^^
I agree, in part, but I think we might see differently here, because I speak of the United States in particular. I think this political and economic interest is the part of the problem that we need to fix. You say it yourself, it is corrupt. The current stance on Hemp (and Marijuana) is a result of that corruption. It is our duty as "we the people" to weed out (pun intended) the corruption, for Marijuana users, Hemp farmers, and everyone else who might be affected by it.
I will also conclude by saying this: I don't care so much about the Hemp or the Marijuana as I do about the ideals surrounding their illegality. Legal or no, I will use Marijuana and will most likely never be punished severely for it, so it makes no difference to me. What bothers me most is the fact that they are banned for no good reason other than the above political and economical corruption.
If there were perfectly valid reasons for their criminalization, I would keep my mouth shut, and continue, quietly and harmlessly, my criminal behaviors.
On June 03 2011 15:32 travis wrote: Well I agree with ryananger... hemp seed is one of the healthiest and most complete food sources on earth. For some reason VIB just ignores what ryan is saying.
Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp.
wait wait what? we are talking about a plant that is currently illegal grow that produces tons of useful products, en masse, with less harm to the environment than much of what we currently grow. how exactly is this irrelevant. and funny that you mention political and economic corruption.
There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet.
lol, says who? hemp is grown all over the world. it's not grown here despite interest because it's ILLEGAL. wtf are you talking about!
Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much.
except it isn't "almost complete", it IS complete(well as far as protein goes). There is a good chance humans would be able to survive only eating it. Like it should even matter, you don't even have a point here. You haven't provided an argument why it shouldn't be legal.
You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables. There are hundreds of ngos trying to reduce poverty and hunger with much better plans than "distribute hemp to everyone". But none of those achieve much because of the same barrier: lack of political and economic interest.
I am not going to debate whether or not it would help reduce hunger, since I never even saw Ryan talking about that, and it isn't even an issue to me.
If your post was SOLELY speaking of reducing world hunger than this whole discussion is pretty irrelevant, but then I have to wonder why you addressed entire posts when that wasn't the focus of them.
Don't know if this has been posted, but I signed this petition yesterday, then today found a spam email from them advertising red bull.
I blocked them with spam blocker, but just a warning to others to avoid this marketing scheme.
On June 03 2011 16:10 VIB wrote:Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
If ROCKS were edible, then we would still have world hunger? If not, then I don't see how a crop that is cheap/plentiful, easy to maintain and able to survive in a variety of climates/conditions is irrelevant to the discussion of world hunger/poverty. Not saying that's what hemp is as I am ignorant about the plant, but dismissing it as irrelevant is a poor argument.
@Travis, VIB is a poster who relies 100% on logical fallacies and likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Just look at his posts in other threads.
It's wasn't exactly spam Ocedic, but yeah, I got that too. It was about the Formula 1 Red Bull team, pull off a potential Bahrain Grand Prix because of the ... w/e is going on in there. It was supposed to be Round 1 of this year's calendar, but was canceled due to demonstrations vs. their government. Unsubscribed from their mailing list helped me out in this
On June 03 2011 17:38 Ocedic wrote: Don't know if this has been posted, but I signed this petition yesterday, then today found a spam email from them advertising red bull.
I blocked them with spam blocker, but just a warning to others to avoid this marketing scheme.
On June 03 2011 16:10 VIB wrote:Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
If ROCKS were edible, then we would still have world hunger? If not, then I don't see how a crop that is cheap/plentiful, easy to maintain and able to survive in a variety of climates/conditions is irrelevant to the discussion of world hunger/poverty. Not saying that's what hemp is as I am ignorant about the plant, but dismissing it as irrelevant is a poor argument.
@Travis, VIB is a poster who relies 100% on logical fallacies and likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Just look at his posts in other threads.
world hunger doesn't exist because there's not enough to eat in the world, but because of economic reasons. so if rocks were able to get eaten from day 1, it probably wouldn't change a thing because it would still be considered scarce enough that people wouldn't have enough money to buy it.
Well they had their say which was ignored by the majority of governments out there. Only response so far has been from the organizations that have big budgets to loose if anything changes. Of course they all think legalization in this direction is insane and counter productive to the progress they are making. They go about business as usual saying drug use is going down with one hand to calm the sheep and asking for more money/larger budgets to curb increased drug smuggling and use with the other hand..
On June 03 2011 17:38 Ocedic wrote: Don't know if this has been posted, but I signed this petition yesterday, then today found a spam email from them advertising red bull.
I blocked them with spam blocker, but just a warning to others to avoid this marketing scheme.
On June 03 2011 16:10 VIB wrote:Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
If ROCKS were edible, then we would still have world hunger? If not, then I don't see how a crop that is cheap/plentiful, easy to maintain and able to survive in a variety of climates/conditions is irrelevant to the discussion of world hunger/poverty. Not saying that's what hemp is as I am ignorant about the plant, but dismissing it as irrelevant is a poor argument.
@Travis, VIB is a poster who relies 100% on logical fallacies and likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Just look at his posts in other threads.
world hunger doesn't exist because there's not enough to eat in the world, but because of economic reasons. so if rocks were able to get eaten from day 1, it probably wouldn't change a thing because it would still be considered scarce enough that people wouldn't have enough money to buy it.
Uhh, ever heard of supply and demand? If there is more than enough to eat at a price point, the market doesnt clear and the price drops.
And this is a general theme often seen with leftists/liberals: they do not grasp somewhat more abstract concepts of human mind like law of diminishing marginal utility, and the law of supply and demand that it implies. Hence their likeliness to fall for the fallacies of government demagogues.
On June 03 2011 17:38 Ocedic wrote: Don't know if this has been posted, but I signed this petition yesterday, then today found a spam email from them advertising red bull.
I blocked them with spam blocker, but just a warning to others to avoid this marketing scheme.
On June 03 2011 16:10 VIB wrote:Because it's irrelevant. Poverty and malnutrition are consequence of political and economic corruption. We can produce enough food to feed the world without hemp. There just isn't enough short term economic interest in feeding the planet. Adding one more almost complete legume to the already vast pool of almost complete legumes that already exist, doesn't help much. You solve world hunger by reducing corruption and industrializing remote areas. Not by adding hemp to the list of edible vegetables.
If ROCKS were edible, then we would still have world hunger? If not, then I don't see how a crop that is cheap/plentiful, easy to maintain and able to survive in a variety of climates/conditions is irrelevant to the discussion of world hunger/poverty. Not saying that's what hemp is as I am ignorant about the plant, but dismissing it as irrelevant is a poor argument.
@Travis, VIB is a poster who relies 100% on logical fallacies and likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Just look at his posts in other threads.
world hunger doesn't exist because there's not enough to eat in the world, but because of economic reasons. so if rocks were able to get eaten from day 1, it probably wouldn't change a thing because it would still be considered scarce enough that people wouldn't have enough money to buy it.
Uhh, ever heard of supply and demand? If there is more than enough to eat at a price point, the market doesnt clear and the price drops.
And this is a general theme often seen with leftists/liberals: they do not grasp somewhat more abstract concepts of human mind like law of diminishing marginal utility, and the law of supply and demand that it implies. Hence their likeliness to fall for the fallacies of government demagogues.
Because, as we all know, our real world economic situation satisfies all the axioms assumed by the economic theory you learned in econ 101.
Its not the laws that are keeping me from doing heroin. And even the hardcore drugs are not that big of deal that people seem to think. And if they were commercially produced, clean and uniform, they would be infinitely more safe. Not to mention getting rid of (or lessening) the biggest problem, social exclusion.
And this is a general theme often seen with leftists/liberals: they do not grasp somewhat more abstract concepts of human mind like law of diminishing marginal utility, and the law of supply and demand that it implies. Hence their likeliness to fall for the fallacies of government demagogues.
I'm not quite sure | understand your post. If you are implying the law of supply and demand is infallable or even close to it then you are mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy Just read that for some of the factors you need to account for. Farmers paid not to farm. Corn that would feed millions being blended into fuel. Lets not even talk about derivitives and how the market is manipulated. In short, I'm a believer there is enough food to go around, its just that organisations and governments hide this fact quite well behind smoke and mirrors.
Anyway, this is way far off topic. Wasn't the subject drugs?
On June 08 2011 09:06 LeperKahn wrote: I can't even imagine a world where drugs are legal. It would be such a beautiful place. All I can do is hope.
You might wanna move to the Netherlands .
But kidding aside the Netherlands perfectly show that legalization is not going to leave a doped up nation of neanderthals in its wake. The percentage of people taking cannabis in the Netherlands is in fact lower than in its neighboring states. I can perfectly understand that, seeing as how I never took cannabis in my life and I don't plan to, even if it's legalized.
The reason why the majority of people isn't high 24/7 has nothing to do with it being legal or not.
Sorry, but I can't leave this thread in the state that it's in, there simply is no rational defense for the war on drugs that I've heard here or anywhere else. I wrote a lot likely because this specific issue is one of many in the western world in which people are browbeaten into a point of view by a torrent of propaganda which benefits power centers at the cost of the populous. It's also one which is easily exposed as a lie. The main thrust of my argument occurs at the end, responses to specific posters are spoilered just to keep things semi-readable.
"for me the images of failed drug regulation trials (such as free needle-exchanges and the resulting surge of dumps of used needles littering open streets) are much more saddening than anything else."
That's not a strategy to do anything, that's a needle exchange.
"I guess that the liberal voice is stronger on the Internet,"
No, centralised distribution of information is weaker on the Internet so over a given length of time surfing teh interwebs you hear/read a broader array of views from the hundreds of individual voices than those that can possibly be expressed by a few monolithic media outlets. Now you may believe that these organisations do a good job of representing the broader population's views, I don't.
"I am strongly in favour of taking increasingly punitive measurements to tackle drug use, and I do not encourage people to sign this unless you have spent an exhaustive amount of time studying this subject and have an informed opinion. "
Have you done an exhausting amount of research on the subject? Given the evidence you have presented I would estimate no, but I can understand how you would miss your own hypocrisy here. Concision has the disturbing effect that people come to believe that agreeing with the status quo means you need present no evidence to support a position while when disagreeing with it you need mountains of evidence. Where in fact in rational debate all positions require an evidence based approach.
"You're as closed minded as the people who you say shouldn't be able to vote and sterilized."
Don't take me seriously when I say that individuals should be rendered infertile because of an opinion, I was joking in poor taste. Do take me seriously when I call you a moron for agreeing with the statement "Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed."
"Some people choose not to do drugs because they are illegal, can you blame them for being law abiding citizens?"
No I don't blame them, however if they try then to stop other people taking drugs by throwing them into overcrowded jails then I might have a problem. No one who is worth listening to is seriously saying everyone should take drugs or that drugs are "cool".
"I don't believe there's anything wrong with current policy really. If you want to do drugs you can. You will become a less productive member of society and because of that, you rightly take the risk of being punished by the authorities for your drug taking. It's a good status quo."
So your position is that "unproductive members of society should be punished with jail time." Does that mean that if a person's net input and output is balanced at zero they should be jailed at the cost of society? Of course not. So you are assuming that people who take drugs tend to take more from society and give less back than people who don't. Even then the real PRACTICAL answer is to weigh the cost of the current war on drugs, which we all must agree is huge, against the cost of the increased drug use after decriminalisation which the vast majority of statistical evidence seems to agree is virtually zero. Unless of course your real position is actually: "Drugs are bad and should be illegal, drug takers and dealers should be pursued and jailed." which if you took the time to think about it a bit, it is.
"Less drug use in these areas because of less poverty/better living standards."
The point is a comparison of before and after not between societies. Unless you mean that in rich societies everyone that wants drugs can get them anyway but in poorer societies lots of people don't do drugs because of the possibility of punishment which we'll set aside as an interesting opinion. "Legal weed would have a massive take up rate with blacks in America compared to the relatively wealthy Dutch." Ah yes, you do seem to be saying just that, if I can translate you mean roughly "poor black folks who are desperate for drugs just can't get them right now because of all the law enforcement, but give sambo a legal high and he'll be all up in that like white on rice." Which once more I'll set aside under the label "interesting".
"And not all drugs are the same. Sorry but you got your head up your ass if you think legal heroin/pcp/crack/ice is a good thing."
This seems to be the opinion of the US government, just like you they have no reasonable grounds for it other than... "Yea but they get you SUPERDUPER HIGH plus they are addictive ... like prescription medicines, sugar, alcohol, gambling, video gaming and stuff."
"Legalising drugs will not reduce drug use, but will shift the wealth from from criminal organisations to governments and corporations."
Key mistake here, money doesn't just vanish into thin air once criminal organisations get hold of it, a great deal of it ends up in the hands of governments and corporations through campaign contributions, the stock market and arms sales to name a few.
"Drug cartels generally don't cause problems for people not involved in drugs. "
I wouldn't know, however the massive policing effort that does nothing to stop drug use costs taxpayers.
"The real problem is the drug users because: A. They can be violent and cause increased crimes. Alcohol makes people violent too, but at a lower rate (most adults drink alcohol but not many commit alcohol related crimes, not many adults do drugs but a lot of those who do commit crimes)."
It was at this point I stopped reading due to fear over becoming infected with dumb. If you can't work out the glaring assumptions in this statement you should probably just stop having strong opinions about anything.
There's a decent troll in the thread named VIB, being fed by a gang of evangelists for rope, who sets a big old straw man in the form of millions of pro decriminalisation web sites, his observations are not entirely inaccurate but they all misleading or irrelevant.
"- it's natural so it can't possibly be bad"
Retarded.
"- three wrongs make one right. Aka tobacco and alcohol are also bad."
50 wrongs, there's a lot of recreational drugs that are pursued in the drug war other than pot, they should all be decriminalised.
"- points to country that didn't legalize but claim they did anyway: portugal, netherlands, switzerlands are popular targets"
Yep not legal, decriminalised; an end to their drug war which is what this thread is about. "In July 2001, Portugal became the first European country to formalize decriminalization of drug possession for personal use, when they introduced Law 30/2000. The law decriminalized the use, possession and acquisition of all types of illicit substances for personal use, defined as being up to ten days' supply of that substance." So in portugal if you have a few grams of heroin on you the police don't care. I would argue that this isn't the same as the policy in the U.S. and that as such it represents an alternative to the war on drugs and that data comming out of portugal about changes in drug use is relevant to the discussion.
"- points out violence of drug cartels, but forgets about violence of drug junkies"
Yep, because people high on opiates are all about the getting out there and doing the robbing and the murders. (Please PLEASE note the sarcasm of that previous statement. You ever been with someone while they are high on opiates? Perhaps in a hospital environment, how much get-up-and-go did you observe in them?) Also don't forget the violence of the prison system jammed with people who committed crimes to fund an addiction to a substance the price of which was wildly inflated by tax payer funded law enforcement.
"- talks of conspiracy theories of prisons who wants to profit of arresting junkies, but ignores lobbies of billionaire drug lords"
Are you implying that a billionaire drug lord would prefer decriminalisation? The drug lord who made his Billions under the current system?
On June 03 2011 14:14 saxonhamish wrote: The best solution would be to legalise one drug which isnt addictive, produces a high and euphoric bot no psychosis effect, has no negative physical or mental side effects, and doesn't stop the user from being a productive member of society. Preferably something that increases the users energy, so they can actually become more productive. Something like speed or exctacy. And ration it at a dose of 1 per week.
I like how the White House rep only shows statistics that are vague or only involve the use of cocaine. I guess it's not all that surprising. -.-
There is actually an interview on the BBC in which one of the reports authors - Former president of Colombia, Cesar Gaviria - rebuts these statistics specifically.
If you can get this whereever you are the response is about 45 seconds in. If not I'll quote for you:
"They are talking of the very high consumption of the 80s, not the last 20 years... if you look at 20 years that hasn't happened. The other argument is methamphetamines in the us; more addicts to methamphetamines than to cocaine, so people move from one drug to the next, if they find difficult to consume a drug they just look for another drug"
The primary problem facing this debate is that those who support the war on drugs assume that the way things are is the "Neutral" position, synonyms are "Natural", "Sensible", "Centerist". Where in actual fact the neutral position -a position which is closer to the positions of the vast majority of societies throughout recorded history- is ignoring drug use all together. Imagine we are living in a society in which the state does not interfere in any way with drug sales and use or treatment, where there are literally no laws covering recreational drug use. That's where you start any thought experiment from which you would like to receive a clear answer.
So from this new neutral position we have our fictional society introduce a "war on drugs" for the following reason -of course I made this reason up here but I think it's a reasonable approximation to the rational behind the war on drugs, if you have another one you can slot it in here, it doesn't make a huge difference as long as you base it on some sort of cost / benefit analysis- :
"People who take drugs harm society because the drugs make them lazy, reckless, violent and stupid. This war on drugs will cost a lot but this will more than be balanced out by the reduction in the number of people taking drugs and the profit society makes from that"
What we are left with is the question of whether or not the drug war is drastically more effective at reducing the number of people taking drugs, than doing absolutely nothing. We are also left asking the more difficult question "Is there a differing strategy which might have done a better job by the same standards?" for example one that put resources into education about drug use and treatment for drug addicts. As a few societies break ranks and abandon the drug war we have some actual real live grounded-in-data answers to these questions, and things aren't looking good for the pro war camp.
The reason the above thought experiment is useful is because it tries to avoid moralization, it's a quantitative approach to the problem which contains real questions which might render real answers as opposed to statements like "Drugs are bad and bad things should be illegal" which you can neither rationally argue for or against.
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.
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.
Almost every one of your arguments have been addressed with thought out logical facts in this thread. Please read the whole thing!
Also, on your little bit about how if someone will stop selling drugs, they'll automatically do another illegal activity is ridiculous to say the least, and you KNOW it.
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 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.
ryanAnger 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 03:05 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 06:03 ggrrg wrote: - drugs that couldn't possible be used responsibly (like heroin, meth) should not be decriminalized/legalized.
What evidence do you have for this rather arbitraty line drawing? Recreational drugs are recreational drugs are recreational drugs. Are you assuming that because a certain substance causes someone to make worse decisions on average than another drug that noone can possibly take it responsibly? What about if they arrange an environment where decisions are unlikely to have longer term effects, like say their apartment with friends rather than the drivers seat of their car. Or are you assuming that because a substance is more addictive that it can't be used responsibly? That presupposes that it's literally impossible to take meth once. What have I missed?
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.
Why shouldn't legal substances be just as readily available as alcohol?
- drugs that couldn't possible be used responsibly (like heroin, meth) should not be decriminalized/legalized.
-As the poster above said, what evidence do you have that lets you make such a statement truthfully?
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.
I agree with this statement, I can't see many people getting up in arms over protecting medication and prescription pharmaceuticals. Problem is if someone wants to take oxicodone recreationally, there needs to be a way to protect doctors and the healthcare industry as well.
Maybe a recreationally branded opiate, and then seperate opiates still only available as a doctors 'script.
- other drugs can be made available depending on how dangerous they are (more like weed or more like heroin).
Same as earlier... what are you using to justify this statement?
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.
I'm confused by your first sentence. If we end the war on drugs is that not essentially the same thing as making drugs legal? Because from what other people are saying they want the cops to stop arresting people for possession, but the only way that can happen is if it's not against the law to be in possession, else the cops aren't doing their jobs. So to stop arresting people for possession we have to make possession LEGAL.
My hypothesis is most likely correct. Consider that people are running drugs because it's illegal which is the sole reason they can make A LOT of money off it. As soon as that goes away what the hell do you propose they are going to do with their lives? Become saints?
I don't even know what you're talking about with the "one one side..." arguments so I'm not even going to address them.
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.
I'm confused by your first sentence. If we end the war on drugs is that not essentially the same thing as making drugs legal? Because from what other people are saying they want the cops to stop arresting people for possession, but the only way that can happen is if it's not against the law to be in possession, else the cops aren't doing their jobs. So to stop arresting people for possession we have to make possession LEGAL.
My hypothesis is most likely correct. Consider that people are running drugs because it's illegal which is the sole reason they can make A LOT of money off it. As soon as that goes away what the hell do you propose they are going to do with their lives? Become saints?
I don't even know what you're talking about with the "one one side..." arguments so I'm not even going to address them.
Possession when talking about drug use is different from intent to supply. You don't arrest people with enough drugs for themselves, that's an end to the war on drugs as it stands which is, effectively, a war on an underclass.
The question of what drug dealers do when prices fall is a good one, an enormous amount of jobs could be created by the money saved by ending the war. You seem to be conflating "wanting to make lots of money" with evil, which is pretty silly when you think about it.
The fact that you won't address evidence is a problem, again, we would all be a lot better off if people looked more at evidence and less to their own gut feeling when talking about social issues.
so has any one got any updates on this??? a co worker just told me that one of our state just legalized everything not too sure which state though but if this is true dun dun dun !!!!! lol
EPT
Netherlands you have the best legal policy out there and brought us Nils Christie, best country ever in terms of forward effective legal legislation. 
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
even ecstasy. ![[image loading]](http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201003/gl201003_p5f1.jpg)
