|
On September 04 2012 08:50 cordrann wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 08:31 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 08:25 cordrann wrote:On September 04 2012 08:06 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote:
Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population. I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn. You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements. 1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place) Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless. Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be. My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts. People who are victimized clearly deserve empathy and support and I would never argue they do not. That is why we have families, police and charities. I wasn't speaking in absolutes when I made my initial statement and I think that may be part of the misunderstanding. There are gray areas and exceptions in everything obviously. If your initial consumption of drugs is of your own free will you deserve what you get. That is just basic personal responsibility. While I pity these people for the clear mistakes they have made, I personally feel that going out of our way to help people who do this just fosters a culture of decadence, but that is with me having had several drug addicts in my family, so I may be somewhat biased.
I see where you're coming from. I just thought those particular words were a bit harsh in the context of drug addiction. But I do believe an adult who freely takes drugs, having been warned and educated about what will happen, needs to bear responsibility for what happens to his life. I've seen studies saying that treatment is much more effective than incarceration for reducing the amount of drug addicts, and while most of me agrees that's the way to go, it is frustrating to think that so many should have to bear the financial burden of treating someone who may just be an irresponsible fuck up.
|
Sure, that would be great for us!!! (Latin countries).
We could export our fine drug dealers sorry, business men (as called per Discovery and history channel). To populate your lovely country. Not that there aren’t many already living with you…
At least we would no longer have to pay with lives your addiction to weed, crack, and coca... sorry for that too... recreational drug.
Please do so. We are tired of dismantling supply chain after supply chain just for you to offer the job to someone else. After all where there are consumers there is a need for a producer.
Don't worry our business men are really cooperative, they will surely abandon their old habits and surrender their weapons... sorry, just the bad habits... after all it is legal to have weapons (in the US)
Oh, well I guess I support legalizing drug... out of Mexico. This way, consumers will get direct supplies from the manufacturers... no broker in between!!! (Should be cheaper) And of course it makes competition easier, when getting a job. You can cross out your fellow colleagues that are addicted to weed.
Hey I got a million dollar idea… happy (weed) meals.
GL HF.
(Problems do not get legalized… they get encouraged)
I have heard the bullets mere 210 yds, of "business men" trying to free their bosses from our Army. There is a lot of cleaning to do, but as long as there are consumers. It will never stop. The most we can hope for is that de business men migrate to another country... Will that country be yours?
Give me a favor... don't do drugs and don't promote them. They are a waste of money and time.
Haha, I hear some people complaining of products because they come from India or China and yet they support drugs. Think about it. lots of people die on a daily basis because of this cancer. Don't promote it.
|
On September 04 2012 09:23 acidfreak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 08:31 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 08:25 cordrann wrote:On September 04 2012 08:06 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote:
Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population. I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn. You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements. 1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place) Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless. Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be. My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts. Is eating a bar of chocolate one day and wanting to eat more another day because you like it eroding your free will? Because that's how wanting to smoke another joint after initially smoking one is. And you know how eating too much chocolate makes you sick and you don't want to eat it again for a period? Yep, weed is exactly the same. This isn't "should heroin be legalized" thread, it's about god damn weed. It's "addictive" because it's fucking good, not because you don't feel good if you don't consume it (a la heroin and tobacco for that matter).
the post I was responding to said all drugs should be legal, which is what I was responding to. I get that this is a weed thread but because this seems to be a relatively common view, I responded to it.
I'm sorry..... Buy ya a drink?
|
On September 04 2012 08:40 Weson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 08:24 EiBmoZ wrote:On September 04 2012 08:23 Ballistixz wrote:On September 04 2012 08:21 EiBmoZ wrote:
if no ones died from it, then how can it be bad????????? does it make me grow gills or somethign? dude. do u know how to read? or are u high? if i was high i'd be playing sc2 right now an i wouldn't have posted on this thread at all today it doesn't do anything harmful to the body, it's natural you can keep trying to fool yourself all day You sound like a typical ignorant stoner to me. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation because your are blind to the negative effect of the drug. I'm pretty sure i've heard that smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer. I'm pretty sure I just the other day read that teens that were smoking had lower IQ then the non-smokers.
Smoking anything can increase your chance of getting lung cancer (I'm not sure you can call this causal; people who have never smoked get lung cancer). There are no limits on how much Tobacco you can smoke; why are there limits on smoking any pot at all?
And yes, doing drugs (alcohol, marijuana, anything) is risky as a teenager during developmental stages. Those same studies that demonstrated an 8~ point IQ loss over the years (an issue on its own, to be honest, both with how serious they took the testing and the test writing itself) also demonstrated no similar loss of IQ results in Adults. [I'm talking about this one: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/31/cannabis-use-in-teenagers-and-the-long-term-risk-to-iq/ not sure why you don't link any references]
I'm pretty sure I've read that marijuana can help a person develop Schizophrenia.
If you're inclined towards it, then yes. Should eggs be illegal because some people are sensitive to skizophrenia? Is alcohol illegal because pregnant women can drink it and cause FAS?
If parents leave it lying around when it's legal, why are they less likely to do it when it's illegal?! They are more likely to be careful with it if it has warning labels etc..
I despise the suggestion that pot should remain illegal, or that there is even a shred of logic behind it's current status. People still have easy access to the drug, and the money from it's sale goes to drug dealers/gangs instead of healthcare and rehab for more serious drugs. In comparison to alcohol and tobacco, I see no basis for it's illegality.
I see no benefit to it's illegality, and little added cost after legalization (at worst, more users, but I doubt it will be anything but a substitute).
|
Whatever helps to destroy the inhumane drug traffic system is a good thing.
|
Obviously cannabis should be legalized. You'd have to be braindead or personally benefiting from the game to want the status quo.
|
On September 04 2012 09:45 maki_mtz wrote:
Sure, that would be great for us!!! (Latin countries).
We could export our fine drug dealers sorry, business men (as called per Discovery and history channel). To populate your lovely country. Not that there aren’t many already living with you…
At least we would no longer have to pay with lives your addiction to weed, crack, and coca... sorry for that too... recreational drug.
Please do so. We are tired of dismantling supply chain after supply chain just for you to offer the job to someone else. After all where there are consumers there is a need for a producer.
Don't worry our business men are really cooperative, they will surely abandon their old habits and surrender their weapons... sorry, just the bad habits... after all it is legal to have weapons (in the US)
Oh, well I guess I support legalizing drug... out of Mexico. This way, consumers will get direct supplies from the manufacturers... no broker in between!!! (Should be cheaper) And of course it makes competition easier, when getting a job. You can cross out your fellow colleagues that are addicted to weed.
Hey I got a million dollar idea… happy (weed) meals.
GL HF.
(Problems do not get legalized… they get encouraged)
I have heard the bullets mere 210 yds, of "business men" trying to free their bosses from our Army. There is a lot of cleaning to do, but as long as there are consumers. It will never stop. The most we can hope for is that de business men migrate to another country... Will that country be yours?
Give me a favor... don't do drugs and don't promote them. They are a waste of money and time.
Haha, I hear some people complaining of products because they come from India or China and yet they support drugs. Think about it. lots of people die on a daily basis because of this cancer. Don't promote it.
I pity the situation of your country. But honestly and unfortunately: You absolutely don't get it. You first of all should be pro legalising it.
The only reason there is so much money in it, is because it's illegal! Illegal activities with lots of money to be made attract whom? Gangsters. What if there wasn't any money to be made? If marijuana would be legalized in the "western world" the mexican syndicates would loose a vast part of their income. It's a plant which everyone could grow everywhere!
Of course it's little more complicated and the syndicates won't disappear in an instant, but the point you make is, with all respect, stupid. Sorry mate.
edit: hm, misread your post maybe, not sure. read it again, still not sure. You saying, exporting your gansters was my motivation: No money to be made in illegal activities, no gansters, that's what i wanted to say. I should get some sleep.
|
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt
|
|
|
On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt
Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves.
|
On September 04 2012 10:30 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves.
It would also eliminating the costs of incarcerating, prosecuting marijuana users. Did you factor taxable revenue of marijuana growers/importers in or just sales?
|
On September 04 2012 10:36 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:30 McFeser wrote:On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves. It would also eliminating the costs of incarcerating, prosecuting marijuana users. Did you factor taxable revenue of marijuana growers/importers in or just sales?
Sales. But taxable revenue will be at most 30 billion (And that's if you believe some of the more dubious claims about the size of the market); realistically it should be less. Either way, the government isn't going to make alot of money especially because the revenue is going to be split amongst the State and the Feds. Also if you take away the cost of prosecuting/incarcerating marijuana users, the government still needs to spend money on regulating it. Regulating it will be a lot cheaper and the government will certainly have more money in its coffers, but not enough to really make a difference.
|
Personally, I like if a state is being really strict with drugs.
Yea, many people might be able to deal with using drugs responsibly. But some people are irresponsible.
My parents constantly smoked (cigarettes) in my presence when I was a child and I never stopped hating it. Whenever they drank alcohol they got fucking stupid ideas or fought over nothing. I just hate drugs with a passion.
I don't even know if there are any 'passive smoking effects' with weed, but if there are any such effects, gods be thanked it isn't legal.
Cigarettes and alcohol might be worse drugs than weed, but why allow another drug that doesn't do any good?
I get that legalizing cannabis might be good for the economy or whatever, but legalizing something (bad) because there are criminals is a really retarded concept.
I realize I sound intolerant and like I don't want other people to have fun; but actually I just don't want society to deteriorate more and protect uninvolved people, be it children who can't defend themselves or victims of "stoned-driving".
|
On September 04 2012 09:45 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:23 acidfreak wrote:On September 04 2012 08:31 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 08:25 cordrann wrote:On September 04 2012 08:06 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote:
Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population. I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn. You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements. 1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place) Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless. Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be. My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts. Is eating a bar of chocolate one day and wanting to eat more another day because you like it eroding your free will? Because that's how wanting to smoke another joint after initially smoking one is. And you know how eating too much chocolate makes you sick and you don't want to eat it again for a period? Yep, weed is exactly the same. This isn't "should heroin be legalized" thread, it's about god damn weed. It's "addictive" because it's fucking good, not because you don't feel good if you don't consume it (a la heroin and tobacco for that matter). the post I was responding to said all drugs should be legal, which is what I was responding to. I get that this is a weed thread but because this seems to be a relatively common view, I responded to it. I'm sorry..... Buy ya a drink?
All drugs should be decriminalized. Because they are health issues and we want people coming forward with their health problems without fear of being put into prison. This is what they did in Portugal and it's worked wonders on lowering drug use rates (people actually stopping their addictions). Distribution of harder drugs can be illegal and punished, of course. That's fine.
|
On September 04 2012 10:47 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:36 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 10:30 McFeser wrote:On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves. It would also eliminating the costs of incarcerating, prosecuting marijuana users. Did you factor taxable revenue of marijuana growers/importers in or just sales? Sales. But taxable revenue will be at most 30 billion (And that's if you believe some of the more dubious claims about the size of the market); realistically it should be less. Either way, the government isn't going to make alot of money especially because the revenue is going to be split amongst the State and the Feds. Also if you take away the cost of prosecuting/incarcerating marijuana users, the government still needs to spend money on regulating it. Regulating it will be a lot cheaper and the government will certainly have more money in its coffers, but not enough to really make a difference.
Yeah, screw it dude. I don't think the tax money would be all that big either. For me it's more of a liberty thing. If someone wants to smoke a joint or ten in the privacy and safety of his home, I say let him.
Edit: the money would be at least a slight bonus though, particularly since it is coming out of the pockets of illegal traffickers. They would likely find another niche, but still.
|
On September 02 2012 11:20 Noro wrote:
Absolutely not. There's no reason behind this. And it is dangerous. Weed is and will always be a gateway drug. My friend recently died from drug use.. and where did it start? One day in highschool smoking weed.
Legalizing it would mean "controlling" it. And if anyone thinks this would get rid of illegal sales of weed, you're very mistaken. There will always be underground illegal operations. It would be the biggest mistake ever to legalize it.
No, and no offense but your friend was probably an idiot. Also, you're using a logical fallacy - it's not a slippery slope for smoking weed. You can still make a choice after smoking weed whether or not. The fact that most people reason that marijuana didn't hurt them so they should do harder drugs is only because a fault in the person's thinking.
Most people in my opinion who are taught that marijuana is a gateway drug and dangerous when they're younger, then do it when they're older are probably the ones more likely to do harder drugs. If our education system made drugs like marijuana and alcohol more neutral instead of telling them it's along the lines of heroin or cocaine, I think the amount of people doing these harder drugs would decrease over time.
I'm mainly speaking from experience here. The first time I smoked marijuana after being Mormon for most of my life and believing that most drugs were bad, I thought to myself "If this isn't as bad as they made it seem, what else isn't....?" Luckily, I'm smarter than most people and can recognize the destruction in another's life and see that I may head the same way. I also have a brother who's a heroin addict, so that keeps me from doing a lot of the stupid shit he did.
The point I am getting at though is that marijuana isn't for everyone but it's not a "gateway" drug anymore than the first video game a video game addict played is the "gateway" video game. You make a choice to do harder drugs, just like you make a choice to smoke weed, just like you make the choice to believe in God, just like you make the choice to get up every morning and do whatever it is you do. Life is a choice.
|
On September 04 2012 10:56 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:47 McFeser wrote:On September 04 2012 10:36 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 10:30 McFeser wrote:On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves. It would also eliminating the costs of incarcerating, prosecuting marijuana users. Did you factor taxable revenue of marijuana growers/importers in or just sales? Sales. But taxable revenue will be at most 30 billion (And that's if you believe some of the more dubious claims about the size of the market); realistically it should be less. Either way, the government isn't going to make alot of money especially because the revenue is going to be split amongst the State and the Feds. Also if you take away the cost of prosecuting/incarcerating marijuana users, the government still needs to spend money on regulating it. Regulating it will be a lot cheaper and the government will certainly have more money in its coffers, but not enough to really make a difference. Yeah, screw it dude. I don't think the tax money would be all that big either. For me it's more of a liberty thing. If someone wants to smoke a joint or ten in the privacy and safety of his home, I say let him. Edit: the money would be at least a slight bonus though, particularly since it is coming out of the pockets of illegal traffickers. They would likely find another niche, but still.
Yeah, I agree with you on the liberty thing and I hate weed. 20 billion (or however large the market is) isn't that big of a deal to the government but it is a big deal to drug traffickers, so it would be a good thing to take that away from them.
Edit: oh and part of that "Liberty thing" is that in my opinion weed should be taxed very, very little. I don't like the idea of the government legalizing something so that they can make us overpay for it.
|
On September 04 2012 10:54 Dyme wrote:
Personally, I like if a state is being really strict with drugs.
Yea, many people might be able to deal with using drugs responsibly. But some people are irresponsible.
My parents constantly smoked (cigarettes) in my presence when I was a child and I never stopped hating it. Whenever they drank alcohol they got fucking stupid ideas or fought over nothing. I just hate drugs with a passion.
I don't even know if there are any 'passive smoking effects' with weed, but if there are any such effects, gods be thanked it isn't legal.
Cigarettes and alcohol might be worse drugs than weed, but why allow another drug that doesn't do any good?
I get that legalizing cannabis might be good for the economy or whatever, but legalizing something (bad) because there are criminals is a really retarded concept.
I realize I sound intolerant and like I don't want other people to have fun; but actually I just don't want society to deteriorate more and protect uninvolved people, be it children who can't defend themselves or victims of "stoned-driving".
More people smoking weed would probably result in less people drinking alcohol which, imo, would be a great benefit to society.
People really need to look into the positives and negatives of marijuana use before having an opinion on this issue... Most of the people who are against it clearly have no idea what the effect are of marijuana and are pretty much just spout DARE's bullshit propaganda. It's pretty much impossible to be against legalizing weed with any amount of research or though put into the matter.
|
On September 04 2012 10:47 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 10:36 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 10:30 McFeser wrote:On September 04 2012 10:16 Synergy wrote:
All I know is it would make the U.S. a shit ton more money considering that we're grossly in debt Liquor is a twenty billion a year industry. If they taxed every one of those dollars that would barely make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. So I ask, how do you think that Marijuana is going to produce considerable tax revenue when it's competitor does not? Does money grow alongside marijuana leaves. It would also eliminating the costs of incarcerating, prosecuting marijuana users. Did you factor taxable revenue of marijuana growers/importers in or just sales? Sales. But taxable revenue will be at most 30 billion (And that's if you believe some of the more dubious claims about the size of the market); realistically it should be less. Either way, the government isn't going to make alot of money especially because the revenue is going to be split amongst the State and the Feds. Also if you take away the cost of prosecuting/incarcerating marijuana users, the government still needs to spend money on regulating it. Regulating it will be a lot cheaper and the government will certainly have more money in its coffers, but not enough to really make a difference.
Despite the fact that I agree it won't actually budge the deficit, it could be one of the band aids, but you're acting like it is some small time game. If someone wants to think the worlds richest man in Mexico made his money all from telecom and stock market plays, then they're welcome to, but I don't think you become the worlds richest man that quickly without having your hand in a bigger market(drugs) than the telephone company of Mexico. And with that his total net worth is supposedly not even close to accurate with what he owns, he could be worth up to 100+ billion
|
On September 04 2012 10:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 09:45 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 09:23 acidfreak wrote:On September 04 2012 08:31 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 08:25 cordrann wrote:On September 04 2012 08:06 Zahir wrote:On September 04 2012 07:57 cordrann wrote:
Without a victim there can not be a crime. You can not victimize yourself, by definition you consent to your own actions. All drugs should be legal. Let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves and remove their inferior genes while decreasing the surplus population. I dislike arguments like these because they ignore reality. The reality is a lot messier. By your logic we should let everyone do whatever they want. Let docs abuse their patients trust and get them hooked. Let dealers sell drugs to kids. Or a person that was injected by a gang or pimp against their will and is now a junkie. When they buy drugs is it because of their inferior genes? You seem to think every addict has it coming and we shouldn't give a damn. You are being illogical. It being legal would completely change the dynamics of how it is acquired. A lot of the negativity and victimization surrounding drugs is in fact created by the fact that it is illegal. By keeping these things illegal we create more profitable markets for criminal elements. 1. That would be a crime by the doctor. 2. I never said it should just be sold on the street like candy. It should be like alcohol obviously. 3. That would be a crime by the gang or pimp. (if its legal there wouldn't be much motive for them to do this in the first place) Every single example you provide involves a clear violation of a persons right to free will. Your examples are meaningless. Drugs erode free will whether your initial consumption was an act of free will or not. Addiction is addiction. Also I don't think my examples are meaningless because they happen. Your statement "let those too weak to control themselves destroy themselves" only applies if reality is a nice tidy place where kids and others in vulnerable positions are not exploited. Unfortunately they are. I don't think acknowledging that fact is meaningless just because it contradicts your vision of how things should be. My issue is not with your legal stance, which we in fact agree on (legalization with regulations). It's your lack of empathy for drug addicts. Is eating a bar of chocolate one day and wanting to eat more another day because you like it eroding your free will? Because that's how wanting to smoke another joint after initially smoking one is. And you know how eating too much chocolate makes you sick and you don't want to eat it again for a period? Yep, weed is exactly the same. This isn't "should heroin be legalized" thread, it's about god damn weed. It's "addictive" because it's fucking good, not because you don't feel good if you don't consume it (a la heroin and tobacco for that matter). the post I was responding to said all drugs should be legal, which is what I was responding to. I get that this is a weed thread but because this seems to be a relatively common view, I responded to it. I'm sorry..... Buy ya a drink? All drugs should be decriminalized. Because they are health issues and we want people coming forward with their health problems without fear of being put into prison. This is what they did in Portugal and it's worked wonders on lowering drug use rates (people actually stopping their addictions). Distribution of harder drugs can be illegal and punished, of course. That's fine.
I see nothing wrong with that. Im not familiar with portugals case, but i did some research on marijuana for a paper and saw plenty of research to support treatment over criminalization. A hairier issue is to what extent the state should support treatment programs, because, even though they are effective and beneficial overall, I am somewhat dubious about forcing everyone to pay for the irresponsible decisions of the few. It's really not fair to those who live responsibly to pay for others' stupid mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
