|
Anyone who's looked into it seriously favors drug legalization on some level, while people who don't know what they're talking about (or have some ulterior motive, as in the case of lobbyists/government officials) say things like, "drugs are bad so they should be illegal".
At this point, there's really no more debate to be had; the world just needs to smarten up and legalize (and control) that shit. Unfortunately, the problem is people like your girlfriend, who have been borderline brainwashed and refuse to see the facts. If a large majority of the population favored legalization, reforms on a federal level might be possible, but I don't think this will happen for at least a decade or so, considering the rampant ignorance prevalent in some parts of the country.
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different.
I think he is trying to choose drugs that have shown to be potentially harmful to others like hallucinogens causing you to harm others. I don't know if this argument really has place though as the decriminalization serves to promote awareness and treatment which would reduce the use of these drugs.
On March 08 2012 10:45 Baobab wrote:
Anyone who's looked into it seriously favors drug legalization on some level, while people who don't know what they're talking about (or have some ulterior motive, as in the case of lobbyists/government officials) say things like, "drugs are bad so they should be illegal".
At this point, there's really no more debate to be had; the world just needs to smarten up and legalize (and control) that shit. Unfortunately, the problem is people like your girlfriend, who have been borderline brainwashed and refuse to see the facts. If a large majority of the population favored legalization, reforms on a federal level might be possible, but I don't think this will happen for at least a decade or so, considering the rampant ignorance prevalent in some parts of the country.
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs".
|
On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different.
Well, legalized for general consumption. I guess there's medical usage to both which I'm fine with. mehhh
I'm ok with decriminalization of drugs. Not so much ok with making them the next consumer product you can buy at the gas station across the street.
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 10:46 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized. Two drugs could not be more different. Well, legalized for general consumption. I guess there's medical usage to both which I'm fine with. mehhh I'm ok with decriminalization of drugs. Not so much ok with making them the next consumer product you can buy at the gas station across the street.
Neither am I and I don't believe that is the way we are going. However I don't think you could have a suitable argument against the fact that removing barriers that block open awareness or discussion or treatment of drug use would help to lessen the harmful effects. I don't believe I would be ok with such easy use as you describe either. Portugal for example did not really "legalize" but just made drug use acceptable and not a criminal offense.
|
On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example.
i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons."
i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc.
|
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal.
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc.
First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself.
Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide.
|
On March 08 2012 10:45 AbstractVoid wrote:
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs".
I used to have a subscription actually, but I can't get it here in Korea so I'm a sad panda. Actually I named myself after the baobab tree itself, known as the tree of life in Africa... wikipedia it when you're bored, it's a pretty badass tree (if trees can be badass haha)
|
On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required.
Same here lol.
"I have a sad story about my girlfriend. Her mom is a conspiracy theorist, my girlfriend isn't *that* bad, and TAKE A LOOK AT THESE GORGEOUS GRAPHS."
OP: You're more right than your girlfriend, but a relationship is built on compromise (and trust). Figure out if you can both compromise on issues. If you can: great! If you can't: find someone else 
I agree with your opinions when it comes to the drugs too 
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 10:54 Baobab wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:45 AbstractVoid wrote:
Agreed first off I like your name lol ^_^ have you read the economist? One of their regional blogs is your name. Also yes I do believe that people who have researched will share a similar position to mine, but the problem is people basking in their ignorance and bolstering the lobbyists who are profiting from the "war on drugs". I used to have a subscription actually, but I can't get it here in Korea so I'm a sad panda. Actually I named myself after the baobab tree itself, known as the tree of life in Africa... wikipedia it when you're bored, it's a pretty badass tree (if trees can be badass haha)
Haha yeah one of the influences on my ideology is a former United Nations worker and he got me interested in the economist and it's a great tool for information about international affairs. Also yeah the baobab tree is pretty awesome 
On March 08 2012 10:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Same here lol. "I have a sad story about my girlfriend. Her mom is a conspiracy theorist, my girlfriend isn't *that* bad, and TAKE A LOOK AT THESE GORGEOUS GRAPHS." OP: You're more right than your girlfriend, but a relationship is built on compromise (and trust). Figure out if you can both compromise on issues. If you can: great! If you can't: find someone else I agree with your opinions when it comes to the drugs too
We do trust each other more than enough as far as being committed to each other and in the end we will respect each others views. She will not convert to my side anytime soon and I will never convert to hers. If we just avoid talking about these issues it will cause no problems and we will be alright. I am confident this won't harm our relationship at all except for make her mad for like 10-20 minutes (I don't get mad at all so it's funny to see her get more mad at me not getting mad and it is really confusing because I don't understand the feeling of anger all that well :D)
|
On March 08 2012 10:51 N3rV[Green] wrote:
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal.
But but but Dihydrogen Monoxide is lethal! It should be banned!
alright, i changed my mind. Drugs can all be legalized. BUT there's still problems with regulation and healthcare and a multitude of other problems related to drugs that will appear (DUI, AA, disappearing paychecks, etc.) I think there's always going to be stupid people, no matter how much awareness about drugs is out there.
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 10:59 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:51 N3rV[Green] wrote:
It's just so so so so so so so simple.
Drugs aren't a legal problem, they are a health problem.
Overeating is technically worse for you than smoking weed everyday, but food remains legal. But but but Dihydrogen Monoxide is lethal! It should be banned! alright, i changed my mind. Drugs can all be legalized. BUT there's still problems with regulation and healthcare and a multitude of other problems related to drugs that will appear (DUI, AA, disappearing paychecks, etc.) I think there's always going to be stupid people, no matter how much awareness about drugs is out there.
Agreed lol wasn't expecting to change anyone's mind but I suppose good job for being able to respond to rational reasoning and at least acknowledge another opinion that is a skill that most people seem to lack. Yes we do have healthcare and regulatory problems right now and people will always be ignorant but the least we can do is try to reform our system and try our best to educate people. Pretty much anything is better than the status quo.
|
On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide.
taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know....
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know....
Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track.
|
On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track.
the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries.
|
On March 08 2012 10:40 Fishgle wrote:
I voted no on the poll because I see no reason why LSD or Meth should ever be legalized.
Yeah, a few others too, but weed not being legal is really dumb in my opinion. Also never done any of them either
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries.
This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them.
|
On March 08 2012 11:13 AbstractVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thought it would be a girl blog, turned into drug debate. sad panda.
opinion on drug use - shouldnt use them unless doctors tell you to use them. even non-prescription drugs, and especially illegal drugs.
major problem - addiction, side effects.
legalization - your question is overly broad. no, they should not be legalized in general. there may be some arguments for specific drugs if medical uses are identified (e.g., marijuana), but doctor involvement should still be required. Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others? im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries. This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them.
so, you only refer to the portugal study, the DEA refers to various studies, and you accuse them of cherry-picking. interesting. i don't disagree you have to consider the reporter's agenda, but that includes considering your agenda.
|
United States127 Posts
On March 08 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 11:13 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 11:05 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 11:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:53 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:40 AbstractVoid wrote:On March 08 2012 10:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2012 10:23 AbstractVoid wrote:
[quote]
Sorry for the disappointment I was going to focus on the girl issue but it got dwarfed by the whole ideological debate. What is your argument to counter the fact that tobacco and alcohol and even caffeine are legalized but marijuana is not? Where is the proof that those drugs are any less harmful than marijuana (there is no proof) why does it make sense to be selective? Why do we have to baby our citizens? Shouldn't they be able to make their own choices on what they put into their bodies? Why is it our concern as long as they are responsible and don't endanger others?
im not really all that interested in getting into this huge debate over drug legalization, but i'll answer your questions briefly. personally, i don't take any drugs that are unnecessary because of health concerns (liver <3), including non-prescription and prescription drugs. just a personal choice. so, that is where i am coming from. i dont see why marijuana is banned, but alcohol and tobacco arent. i have no argument to support or deny it, because i really dont care. if it was on the ballot, i am not sure i would even vote, because i dont care. proof? i love how you ask a question and answer it in the same question. makes me think there is no point in even discussing it. another reason i am not that interested in getting into a debate. baby our citizens? because the average citizen is a moron. they would pour pesticides all over their yard if we didnt ban it. then they would sue the pesticide manufacturers. should they make their own choices? yes, as long as i don't have to pay for their health care. so, get rid of universal health care, other related social services, and then im on board with them fucking up their own lives. our concern? see answer above. don't make it my concern, and i won't be concerned. I understand the health reasons for not doing them and I personally don't do them so I understand and respect that decision. Well yeah I can see how people who aren't involved wouldn't care at all and that is probably why nothing will ever be changed as most people don't care enough and if they do they are on the negative side for religious/family reasons. The average citizen is indeed in need of some information, but I don't see the point in further supporting ignorance by attempting to become a nanny state. Look at SK trying to limit gaming time, this should be a personal or parental choice not something that government needs to intervene on. What increases your costs more when you think about it rationally addicts being stuck without treatment or awareness until it is too late and they need help badly and all the injuries, violence and loss of life caused by trafficking or having available and regulated sources and having open discussion and treatment centers and awareness programs? I do understand that people are wary of the potential costs of us "paying for people fucking up their lives" but how is this any different from people already sitting at home collecting social security while spending their money on booze and cigarettes? The Social Security system is already in dire need of revision and this problem isn't limited to my example. i find it annoying that you keep pigeonholing people who oppose your view on drugs. i am sure people oppose it for more than just "religious/family reasons." i'm all for less government involvement. but you need to have it across the board. we can decriminalize drugs and users can have all the drugs they want, but i don't want to have tax money used for their health care, education, etc. use drugs in your home and if i never have to see it or be impacted by it, i dont care. the problem is some people cant control their shit, and it spills over into the streets, etc. First off I apologize that you are getting the impression that I am belittling the opposition. I agree that here is many more valid reasons for opposing drugs and I will clearly state I don't find these people to be "stupid" or "idiots" just because of their position on this issue, I would not reward ignorance with ignorance from myself. Also I do agree that using tax money for healthcare of drug users would be a concern, but you mention problems on the streets that is because of trafficking and could only be improved by legalization. Also as far as a money standpoint we could gain money through treatment programs or taxing on the drugs themselves that would more than pay for any healthcare costs we provide. taxes on tobacco companies will pay for health care costs..... thats what they said.... little did they know.... Yes you bring up a good point there needs to be some restructuring of our healthcare system regardless of the drug issue, but if legalization discourages use and lowers numbers of users as it did in Portugal we could be on the right track. the DEA article you cited in your OP said that decriminalization led to increased drug use; not only in America, but also other countries. This is where you bring in common sense and knowledge of the reporter's agenda (IE consider the source). Would the DEA use facts that showed that decriminalization had a positive effect (as all other independent news sources did) or would they cherrypick results to gain support for their cause? They picked facts based off number of users that could increase simply as population gained and the percentage could actually decrease. They also showed not much information that their actual policy was the gamechanger instead of just culture. I merely included that article as consolidation that other views exist and that conflicting opinions are valid in some cases and I didn't want to simply dismiss them. so, you only refer to the portugal study, the DEA refers to various studies, and you accuse them of cherry-picking. interesting. i don't disagree you have to consider the reporter's agenda, but that includes considering your agenda.
That's fair I will acknowledge that anyone who has an opinion will have a bias and therefore I am included. Also there is much more studies based upon the policies or Portugal or the Netherlands just search yourself, I stand by my position that the DEA facts are less than savory in their content or scientific merit. A company or department would not acknowledge any facts that would in any way decrease their funding or popularity, but what does a news company have to lose? They just want to report the facts and get people to read their articles they are much less likely to have bias.
|
Your poll doesn't list enough options.
Legalize ALL or NONE? Where is the option to legalize some particular drugs but not others. Heroin and meth in my opinion should not be legal, for good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
