Debunking the Drug War

I dont see why everyone here isnt actually listening to what I have to say, and is instead putting everything into their own words. Everyone seems to think I believe that these drugs should remain illegal. I DO NOT THINK THAT. I certainly believe the laws make the situation a hell of alot worse, and I already stated this a bunch of times in my posts, you just seem to skim over that piece of information. Because your right - its the MONEY that causes all the problems with crime (money being the root of all evil all over again). Obviously the desire to do the drug plays a part in that, but I still totally agree, if it were legal, the problems would be severely decreased. However, dont think that just because you dont have to struggle for money to buy it, you wont have any negative effects from doing lots of cocaine or meth or heroin or whatever the hell your drug of choice is.
In response to this statement:
"People who are going to misuse recreational drugs are going to misuse them no matter if they are legal or illegal. "
I couldnt agree more. However, like you said, they are probably setup for this through genetics. And thats why its the first line you snort thats where all the real risk is. Because you simply dont know beforehand whether your genetics are this way or that way, unless maybe someday they might be able to test your fucking DNA or something. But, either way, before you first try it, your always going to think youll just use it responsibly, on special occasions and weekend parties and whatnot. Thats exactly how I was, I was all for responsible use. I'm simply saying, drugs can and will probably change the way you think - alot of the time its positive, but dont think they cant change it negatively. At the time, stealing and beating people up for money to get drugs just doesnt seem that bad, and your fiending too much to give a shit anyway. I decided to just stop doing it period, and now I'm just sticking to weed E and shrooms and etc....but I dont know, I'm not trying to get into too much about myself, I was just trying to use myself as an example. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who use responsibly, because I've met them myself. But I also know plenty of people, my self included, who although they started off "using responsibly", things changed fast. And its not a matter of the drugs being "good" or "bad", its a matter of them simply having the potential to be very powerful and have alot of that power over you. I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything, because I honestly think they should be legal. It would eliminate alot of problems for me and people I know, but for the time being, drugs ARE illegal, and theres not much we can do about it...and while they are illegal, they can easily cause you lots of problems. You can bitch about your problems being caused by the fact the drug is illegal all you want, because that is the truth. But just because you can keep in mind the fact that theyre caused by a moronic government doesnt mean they'll just go away.
 
Invalid Usename said:
Freedom is having the right to shoot yourself in the foot. :)

Indeed it is, but just because thats true doesnt mean you should act like shooting yourself in the foot is no big deal because the people against you shooting yourself in the foot are only making the bleeding worse.
 
Real_Illusion,

Who is saying that it is not a big deal? I'm not saying that at all, nor am I drawing a contrast to the notion of shooting yourself in the foot in relationship to those who wish to have control over you.

These are both separate issues. :)

Freedom is not defined by its relationship to resistance, it is defined by its ability to remain fluid.
 
lifeisforliving said:
Not if you live in a socialist society and I (we, the taxpayers) have to pick up the bill! :D

Instead of criminalizing it just because it costs money to society, personally I would rather have some kind of tax applied to guns in order to compensate for the monetary losses caused by this certain device.

Similarly, most drugs cause harm to society in some way or the other. This could be accounted for by taxes so for instance meth would be taxed harder than marijuana.
 
redeemer
Originally posted by lifeisforliving
Not if you live in a socialist society and I (we, the taxpayers) have to pick up the bill!
---

Instead of criminalizing it just because it costs money to society, personally I would rather have some kind of tax applied to guns in order to compensate for the monetary losses caused by this certain device.

Similarly, most drugs cause harm to society in some way or the other. This could be accounted for by taxes so for instance meth would be taxed harder than marijuana.

I agree.

Since "drugs" aren't going away we, society, need to come to terms with their availability. We did it with alcohol and tobacco (and prescription drugs).. it will eventually happen with the other drugs - or simply better drugs with less side-effects will take their place.

Tax.

Regulate.

Treat the drugs and the resulting addiction/dependency as an illness, not a crime.
 
lifeisforliving said:
I agree.

Since "drugs" aren't going away we, society, need to come to terms with their availability. We did it with alcohol and tobacco (and prescription drugs).. it will eventually happen with the other drugs - or simply better drugs with less side-effects will take their place.

Tax.

Regulate.

Treat the drugs and the resulting addiction/dependency as an illness, not a crime.

Couldnt have said it better myself.
 
If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts...Among people who have sampled alcohol, 60 percent had a drink the previous month

Thats the silliest definition for an addict. They do say broad, but come on, they can do better than that.
 
Top