EPTPrejudice Against Drug Use? - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44271 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:16 ikh wrote: "drugs can ruin your life" is not the point of the movie, rather that substance abuse shows itself in many forms, and to precisely humanify addicts as actual people. i do agree with you on the latter as a separate statement though. that's because i believe DARE has done more harm than good to the american youth by lying to them. due to being perceived ineffective and unscientific, the DARE program has been ineligible for federal grant money since the late 1990's. Yeah, it's a government program... it has to keep up its agenda, but it can't even do that well. (The war on drugs is just silly as a whole, but that's a whole other can of worms.) | ||
|
ikh
United Kingdom251 Posts
buprenorphine on the other hand, situated smack in the middle in the david nutt graph in terms of addiction potential and health risks, is the most abused drug in finland, and in most of scandinavia i believe. it replaces heroin in the area due to heroin's tough availability (which results in poor quality and high prices). both are very strong opiates but ironically bupe was designed as a drug to wean people off H - and arguably for big medical companies to get the H addicts' money off criminal organizations and in their pockets. amphetamine comes second in harm due to plenty of it flowing through from russia and the baltic states. i believe the most imporant factor in determining addiction potential of a drug is its status and supply in a certain group or area. On October 18 2011 09:26 PraetorialGamer wrote: Drugs are harmful, and I have seen people hollowed out, and physically sick, due to drug addiction. If a friend came up to me and told me that they were on drugs, I would either try to convince them to quit, or if that failed, report them to the campus police. ... which would do much more to ruin his life than any drug alone likely would since you're not going to control his life nor is the police, but he is. either a) you'll lose a friend who confided in you something you likely wouldn't have noticed at that moment b) you'll get him in trouble with the law c) both none of those options are even remotely likely to change his opinion on drug use, responsible or not. which one of the three would end up with you having acted like someone's friend instead of enemy? | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:18 ghrur wrote: I think there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced against drug users. The fact is that 99% of the drugs out there have some form of physical damage, some form of detriment or side effect that will damage your body. A stigma will cause people to think twice before trying something possibly addictive and necessarily harmful. It creates a great disincentive to trying drugs for most kids. That means a healthier, smarter population. That means lessening the burden on our health industry. That means creating more and saving more for calling out recreational drug use for what it is: a detriment to society. We lose nothing by it, so why not? Are you including alcohol, tobacco and marijuana in your list of drugs? If so, then I feel sorry for you, it must be tiring work hating on most of the population. Plus, hating on someone doesn't remedy the problem, it just makes them hate you back. As for the health industry, well........ Half of the drugs doctors give out are addictive and harmful and don't actually solve the problem. Watch Louis Theroux's 'America's Medicated Kids' | ||
|
haffy
United Kingdom430 Posts
| ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree with you completely. They certainly aren't the same as marijuana (even though nearly every time "illegal drugs" are mentioned in this thread, everyone seems to ignore nearly every drug but pot lol). Well most people in jail in the USA for drug related crimes are there for marijuana possession.. | ||
|
PaqMan
United States1475 Posts
If the person is smart and isn't an ignorant ass, then I have no problem with people using it. However, I think there are just certain drugs that I would definitely choose to not hang around while people are using them such as cocaine, crack, pain killers or any kind of pills, and all that other serious shit. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
Personally I couldn't care less what substances anyone puts into their body and I think it's abhorrent that the government (or any other body) has any influence on restricting this in any way at all. | ||
|
Kraidio
China133 Posts
Of the four or five drug users I've met in my life, I've only continued talking to one of them. The rest are incredibly mean-spirited and cynical people; and if that's the kind of person drug use creates I don't want to be involved in that myself or those who choose to involve themselves with it. I understand that for many drug usage is a lifestyle choice, and I won't bother to stop any of them if they choose to do so, but from my own experiences I've only seen drug usage cause problems and therefore I am highly judgmental of their usage. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:18 ghrur wrote: I think there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced against drug users. The fact is that 99% of the drugs out there have some form of physical damage, some form of detriment or side effect that will damage your body. A stigma will cause people to think twice before trying something possibly addictive and necessarily harmful. It creates a great disincentive to trying drugs for most kids. That means a healthier, smarter population. That means lessening the burden on our health industry. That means creating more and saving more for calling out recreational drug use for what it is: a detriment to society. We lose nothing by it, so why not? The physical damage from recreational drugs doesn't come until you've been using for a long time. That's not what kids will see; they will see their friends who have only just started doing it and they'll want to try. Are you prejudicial towards drug users personally? Do you think you are better than them? Substances are already legal (alcohol, tobacco) that are way worse for you than some illegal drugs. Why shouldn't those be legalized, or why shouldn't alcohol and tobacco be made illegal? I say make everything legal. The government doesn't need to legislate morality. Doing cocaine every day is more healthy than being incredibly obese. Should we have a stigma against fattening foods too? The burden drug users create on our health industry is ridiculously small compared to the burden the war on drugs has put on the prison system. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world yet still significantly higher crime rates than nearly all other first world countries (it varies a ton depending on which areas and cities in the US, obviously) That's because of the war on drugs. A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs). Also, healthcare costs because of currently illegal recreational drug use would be much lower if they were legalized. There would be far less overdoses because people would be able to buy specific quantities of their drug. The way the system is currently set up, people have to buy drugs on the streets that are likely cut with other stuff, therefore they don't know the purity and can accidentally overdose even after years of experience. The price for illegal drugs would go way down if they were legalized. This is simple capitalism; they are incredibly inflated because of their legal status. There's no way a kilogram of cocaine would be able to sell for $30,000 (a lot more if it's sold in many small quantities) if it was legal. Addicts wouldn't have to spend all their money on getting their fix. Therefore they wouldn't have to resort to crime to fund their incredibly expensive addictions. I'm sure someone is going to argue that they will resort to crime anyways because they'll lose their jobs because of their addiction. That's not true for everyone, many addicts can hide it. Also, legalization will reduce crime, not completely eliminate it. It's still a way better scenario than the current one. Another thing legalization of all drugs would do is take away power from organized crime organizations. These organizations, like the Mexican cartels, are largely funded by the illegal drug trade. There is no way they could compete with actual companies who don't have to worry about hiding from the law, so if drugs were legalized they'd be out of business. There is no underground market anywhere close to the size of the drug trade, so it is evident that legalization would cause a massive blow to these organizations. Please tell me how a theoretical world where illegal drugs are all legalized would be worse than the current one we are in. The money wasted on the war on drugs is beyond ridiculous. Just look how alcohol (one of the more dangerous drugs out there) prohibition worked out and how alcohol is in our society today. Why couldn't it be like that for all drugs? | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:54 Kraidio wrote: Drug use does indeed negatively shade my opinion of a given person, but as with most others who have posted in this thread, it's more based on my personal experiences with drug users than anything else. Of the four or five drug users I've met in my life, I've only continued talking to one of them. The rest are incredibly mean-spirited and cynical people; and if that's the kind of person drug use creates I don't want to be involved in that myself or those who choose to involve themselves with it. I understand that for many drug usage is a lifestyle choice, and I won't bother to stop any of them if they choose to do so, but from my own experiences I've only seen drug usage cause problems and therefore I am highly judgmental of their usage. That's the thing about stereotypes and prejudice. They may seem true the majority of the time, but there are always exceptions. It's not fair to the exceptions to be automatically assumed to be things they aren't. A perfect situation analogous to yours would be someone who, as I did, lived in an area with very few people of African heritage. I hear a lot of people say "I don't mean to be racist, but all the black people I meet are just like the stereotype" around here. It may seem true a lot of the time, BUT there are exceptions, there always are. It's not fair for them to be stigmatized. In the end it's pretty simple. It comes down to whether you want to give everyone a chance to prove to you who they are, or if you want to make presumptions about people based on what groups you perceive them to belong to. | ||
|
crawlingchaos
Canada2025 Posts
That said, I don't think harboring personal prejudice against someone who uses/does ANYTHING (doesn't even need to be substance abuse, repeated annoying or singularly fixated behavior pisses me off just as much, if not more) in excessive amounts or frequency is the worst thing in the world. Most people I've met who meet this criteria use alcohol or pot. I'm inclined to say the hardcore stoners are more annoying, but I'm biased because I smoke myself, and meet more stoners than booze hounds in general. But unless the person is loud/actively annoying when they're "intoxicated," or talking about their awesome experiences, I don't really care. I mean, as long as it doesn't affect me, I believe in live and let live. Certain people just should NOT ever get drunk though, lol... In fact, OP, I think you should've included alcohol in the 2nd poll; just because it's legal doesn't make obsessive behavior stemming from its (ab)use any less egregious. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Please tell me how a theoretical world where illegal drugs are all legalized would be worse than the current one we are in. The money wasted on the war on drugs is beyond ridiculous. Just look how alcohol (one of the more dangerous drugs out there) prohibition worked out and how alcohol is in our society today. Why couldn't it be like that for all drugs? It should really be noted that alcohol is essentially harmless if taken in moderation. You can drink 3 drinks a day until the end of time and unless you have some odd genetic condition it isn't going to harm you physically, mentally, or emotionally. You can smoke three bowls of weed a day and it's the same amount of risk, if not less, than smoking cigarettes. You can't do 3 lines of cocaine or 3 stamp bags of heroin a day, it will wreck you sooner or later. I smoke weed every day and I love the various hallucinogenics and MDMA, but you're never going to convince me that cocaine, heroin, and the various amphetamines and smorgasbord of research chemicals can be safely legalized. If you want to see what would probably happen if all drugs were legal, look at how prescription drug abuse has soared ever since opiate painkillers started being widely prescribed again in the early and mid-90s. There are substances that are more powerful than your body and your mind, I don't think they should be legalized beyond prescriptions from a legit doctor. There is a distinction between a drug that has been used and studied for decades or centuries or millenia; there's a difference between chewing a coca leaf and snorting cocaine or smoking crack, created by a chemical process to make the drug infinitely more concentrated and addictive. I don't think that research chemicals whose only "research" is a few entries in Pikhal or Tikhal should be legalized. LSD-25 was studied for almost a decade before it started to be prescribed, for example. | ||
|
SolidusR
United States217 Posts
Although personal experiences are understandably influential in your opinions, please try to remain open minded to the idea that there are people out there who can use drugs and still maintain happy and healthy lives. Unhappy people often use drugs and drugs can make a bad situation worse, but drugs do not necessarily create unhappy and unhealthy people. Add that reality to the incredible waste that is first world drug policy and you begin to realize that it may not be morally unjust to judge people for drug use, but there really aren't any logically sound arguments justifying it either. I am friends with people who don't use drugs at all, and they have developed much more liberal views on drug use using my lifestyle as an example. I'm rather proud of that. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On October 18 2011 09:32 oldgregg wrote: Are you including alcohol, tobacco and marijuana in your list of drugs? If so, then I feel sorry for you, it must be tiring work hating on most of the population. Plus, hating on someone doesn't remedy the problem, it just makes them hate you back. As for the health industry, well........ Half of the drugs doctors give out are addictive and harmful and don't actually solve the problem. Watch Louis Theroux's 'America's Medicated Kids' Who said anything about hate? Prejudiced against simply means I associate them with something negative. Furthermore, my argument is in support of a population associating drugs with a negative stigma. It doesn't say anything about my personal opinion on drug users, therefore why do you bring me into the equation at all? And I never mention the drugs doctors give out being any LESS harmful. Don't strawman and read the argument. The point is simple: Drugs currently have a negative stigma in society, therefore this drives kids away from them, therefore less people are addicted/damaged/etc. by them, therefore it benefits our society. I don't need your pity. I need you to address my argument. + Show Spoiler + On October 18 2011 09:55 Voltaire wrote: The physical damage from recreational drugs doesn't come until you've been using for a long time. That's not what kids will see; they will see their friends who have only just started doing it and they'll want to try. Are you prejudicial towards drug users personally? Do you think you are better than them? Substances are already legal (alcohol, tobacco) that are way worse for you than some illegal drugs. Why shouldn't those be legalized, or why shouldn't alcohol and tobacco be made illegal? I say make everything legal. The government doesn't need to legislate morality. Doing cocaine every day is more healthy than being incredibly obese. Should we have a stigma against fattening foods too? The burden drug users create on our health industry is ridiculously small compared to the burden the war on drugs has put on the prison system. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world yet still significantly higher crime rates than nearly all other first world countries (it varies a ton depending on which areas and cities in the US, obviously) That's because of the war on drugs. Also, healthcare costs because of currently illegal recreational drug use would be much lower if they were legalized. There would be far less overdoses because people would be able to buy specific quantities of their drug. The way the system is currently set up, people have to buy drugs on the streets that are likely cut with other stuff, therefore they don't know the purity and can accidentally overdose even after years of experience. The price for illegal drugs would go way down if they were legalized. This is simple capitalism; they are incredibly inflated because of their legal status. There's no way a kilogram of cocaine would be able to sell for $30,000 (a lot more if it's sold in many small quantities) if it was legal. Addicts wouldn't have to spend all their money on getting their fix. Therefore they wouldn't have to resort to crime to fund their incredibly expensive addictions. I'm sure someone is going to argue that they will resort to crime anyways because they'll lose their jobs because of their addiction. That's not true for everyone, many addicts can hide it. Also, legalization will reduce crime, not completely eliminate it. It's still a way better scenario than the current one. Another thing legalization of all drugs would do is take away power from organized crime organizations. These organizations, like the Mexican cartels, are largely funded by the illegal drug trade. There is no way they could compete with actual companies who don't have to worry about hiding from the law, so if drugs were legalized they'd be out of business. There is no underground market anywhere close to the size of the drug trade, so it is evident that legalization would cause a massive blow to these organizations. Please tell me how a theoretical world where illegal drugs are all legalized would be worse than the current one we are in. The money wasted on the war on drugs is beyond ridiculous. Just look how alcohol (one of the more dangerous drugs out there) prohibition worked out and how alcohol is in our society today. Why couldn't it be like that for all drugs? I'll address your post the same way. Read my argument. Read your first paragraph. I NEVER talk about legalization nor government intervention. Where are you going? Why do you quote me at all? Do you read my point? It has NOTHING to do with legalization. Neither does the thread. My point is attaching a negative stigma to drugs, not whether or not drugs should be legalized. So, good strawman. Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help:
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. | ||
|
SpaceToaster
United States289 Posts
On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote: Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help:
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. | ||
|
zakmaa
Canada525 Posts
And it depends on the circumstances: when and how often they use which drug. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On October 18 2011 06:24 Ayabara wrote: How is that any different than old people thinking anyone who plays video games or is immersed in gamer culture is brainwashed? I can't even believe this guy. So now he's prejudice against anyone that even makes a reference to pot? It's people like Millitron that make the world a shitty place. Also, I don't think it's hypocritical to be judgmental of others for providing evidence that they are judgmental of others at first glance. I'm the kind of individual who waits a bit to get to know someone before I decide if they "completely lack any value as a human being." Granted, I was raised in an atheist household, so I might be more inclined to think things through more often than others. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote: I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society. | ||
| ||
