Would you legalise drugs?

[Cyrus]

^^It may be an accident.

And kitty, when it comes to the means of safety you have to think about it in a certain way.

My opinion per say happens to be (using fireworks as an example) that with fireworks, your hundreds of feet away, watching an amazing spectacle happen safe and sound as they go off and make the familiar sounds we all know. With illicit substances, you are putting your own body at risk by intaking a dangerous substance (irregardless of purity and if it matters) and then accepting as to what will happen, which could be anything from an odd interaction, the behavior accompanied by it (Tripping on railroad tracks on LSD, thinking water is pudding and going to have a swim in it.) and then the after effects on your wallet.

Also, qwedsa, this is a discussion. No one wins or loses.

In general, could we keep this thread's overall beligerency down?

 

[ebola?]

>>Good luck convincing 51% of the American workforce of that notion. I have a right NOT to be held responsible for someone's actions.>>

You may have that right, but this does not change the reality that the tax payers foot the tremendous bill for a drug war and regime of incarceration that is largely a failure. The above fact must be taken into account when possible options are weighed.

ebola

ebola

 

[qwedsa]

Who says anyone lost? Who says anyone won? This isn't 2nd grade kickball. I'm glad you posted that because it just shows your arrogant and immature view of the situation. I'm not here to win or lose. I'm hear to point out the most likely consequence of legalizing all drugs at once

my point was that you had to look pretty funny with that post. you completely abandoned arguing the cost/benefits and just attacked me personally, making several assumptions about my character in the meantime

Who lost? Replace "drugs" with "fast food," "alcohol," or any other vice and you'll see that that argument is completely futile.

i wasnt supporting what i was quoting

 

[Gldm]

Your "my taxes pay for you" argument is flawed. In the US we don't have nationalized health care. It's privatized. At best, your INSURANCE fees are paying for someone else. If you have issues with this, take it up with your insurance company or change to a health provider that drug screens and tests people.

Oh and if you're going to throw the whole "Oh you're biased as a user!" thing in my face, you lose. I was advocating legalization at 19, having never tried any drugs, or alcohol, or tobacco. Even after my best friend died of drug related complications following a transplant at 21. I didn't try any at all until 28. So bite me.

I'm surprised nobody jumped on the guy trying to ban gay sex as "useless for anything but the pleasure of those involved" and a public health threat. Let's just ban all sex out of marriage and birth control as long as we're at it. Hell if it's going to be for reproduction only, why risk anything? Ban all sexual contact, and perform all fertilization in labs, with implantation. Hetero sex transmits disesase to millions every year, we should put a stop to it! We're an advanced society that has no need of personal pleasure, we can achieve superior results through technology, right?

While we're going nuts, the majority of sports are dangerous physical activities that generate billions in healthcare costs every year! They're even funded by our taxes via government programs that actually MANDATE such dangerous activity in public schools! Everyone should be confined to a chair except when moving to and from work or school to prevent injury. Also, all personal vehicles should be banned, and replaced with rails based automated transit systems to minimize accidents and harmful pollution that burden us uneccesarily with costs related to their health effects.

Freedom? Personal rights? Who needs that when we can save some cash?

 

[ebola?]

>>I'm surprised nobody jumped on the guy trying to ban gay sex as "useless for anything but the pleasure of those involved" and a public health threat.>>

That's because he was trying to use the example to show how ludicrous banning drugs on the basis of personal harm is.

>>Your "my taxes pay for you" argument is flawed. In the US we don't have nationalized health care. >>

I assume DJDannyUhOh advocates nationalized healthcare.

ebola

 

[DoubleTrouble]

I just read through this entire thread...

and although I have quite a bit to say on this issue, I'm going to bite my tongue for now and just applaud the intelligent debate that's going on from both sides. I'm currently in the midst of a lengthy research project on Drug Policy where I have to write two separate 10 page papers with opposing viewpoints on said topic. This thread has certainly given me some ideas on where to direct my research and what sorts of rhetorical devices to incorporate in my papers. I'll definitely post them here when I'm done with them. Keep up the good discussion!

 

[Cyrus]

You know what, lets all just kill ourselves because basic living is DANGEROUS IN TOTAL. YES, END ALL HUMAN LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. WE SHOULD BE NOTHING BUT QUADRIPLEGIC CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME. Because, life is dangerous and so is drugs, RIGHT?? :D YEAH, definetely.



However, the legalisation of all drugs is merely a dream on both ends. I don't believe it will ever happen, and most likely because of people. The points you all provided we're great and valid, but the thing is some people won't look at it. Usually, those some people are narrow-minded politicians that make the laws.

So would you legalise drugs? Lets bring it back to a yes or no question.

 

[Able Danger]

You know what, lets all just kill ourselves because basic living is DANGEROUS IN TOTAL. YES, END ALL HUMAN LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. WE SHOULD BE NOTHING BUT QUADRIPLEGIC CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME. Because, life is dangerous and so is drugs, RIGHT?? :D YEAH, definetely.



However, the legalisation of all drugs is merely a dream on both ends. I don't believe it will ever happen, and most likely because of people. The points you all provided we're great and valid, but the thing is some people won't look at it. Usually, those some people are narrow-minded politicians that make the laws.

So would you legalise drugs? Lets bring it back to a yes or no question.

personal freedom is indeed a dream on this earth.

 

[ebola?]

>>However, the legalisation of all drugs is merely a dream on both ends. I don't believe it will ever happen, and most likely because of people.>>

Things change.
Maybe not drastically within our lifetimes, but things do change.

ebola

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

>>Good luck convincing 51% of the American workforce of that notion. I have a right NOT to be held responsible for someone's actions.>>

You may have that right, but this does not change the reality that the tax payers foot the tremendous bill for a drug war and regime of incarceration that is largely a failure. The above fact must be taken into account when possible options are weighed.

ebola

ebola

And we arrive at yet another moment of clarity by ebola.

I honestly forgot about this angle of the discussion. I am a retard!

Thanks again ebola. This, atleast for me, definately shifts my viewpoint.

 

[turnandburn]

^ I do think the war on drugs is a waste of money. And the current mandatory prison sentences for possession is a joke. I am for reform, but not for legalization.

Face it, living isn't about having all the freedom to do whatever we wish. We can't speed down the road at whatever speed we feel like or have total disregard for traffic laws; we can't talk yell about a bomb on an airplane; we can't even take our own life (legally). Life isn't about just doing whatever we want when we feel like it for the sake of "personal freedom." Because when our personal freedom begins to affect others, it's not our sole decision anymore.

If you don't want to put unknown chemicals and/or doses into your body, then don't do it! If you don't want to overdose, then don't take it!

I have to go to class; no time to edit hope it makes sense!

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

^ I do think the war on drugs is a waste of money. And the current mandatory prison sentences for possession is a joke. I am for reform, but not for legalization.

Face it, living isn't about having all the freedom to do whatever we wish. We can't speed down the road at whatever speed we feel like or have total disregard for traffic laws; we can't talk yell about a bomb on an airplane; we can't even take our own life (legally). Life isn't about just doing whatever we want when we feel like it for the sake of "personal freedom." Because when our personal freedom begins to affect others, it's not our sole decision anymore.

If you don't want to put unknown chemicals and/or doses into your body, then don't do it! If you don't want to overdose, then don't take it!

I have to go to class; no time to edit hope it makes sense!

I am more for decriminalization than legalization. Although, I don't feel informed enough to push this issue onto anyone.

I will admit I am not as informed about this as I thought I was.

Time to do some better research.

 

[redeemer]

We can't speed down the road at whatever speed we feel like or have total disregard for traffic laws; we can't talk yell about a bomb on an airplane; we can't even take our own life (legally)

Of course we can't drive down a road at any speed we like, we would be endangering other people's lifes. That's not responsible. Free speech doesn't cover threatening people by claiming you are carrying a bomb. As to your last point; because our government takes away a right in this area we should just accept it taking away other rights?

Life isn't about just doing whatever we want when we feel like it for the sake of "personal freedom." Because when our personal freedom begins to affect others, it's not our sole decision anymore.

Me using drugs does not infringe on your rights.

If you don't want to put unknown chemicals and/or doses into your body, then don't do it! If you don't want to overdose, then don't take it!

That's not very good advice for people who are curious to use drugs (as we've seen since the installment of drug prohibiton), and drug users can't use this for anything at all.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

This used to be posted all over my U.S. Government class back in Virginia:

“When they took away the Sixth Amendment, I said nothing because I wasn’t a criminal.

When they took away the Fourth Amendment, I said nothing because I had nothing to hide.

When they took away the Second Amendment, I said nothing because I didn’t own a gun.

Now they’ve taken the First Amendment, and I can say nothing at all.”

 

[turnandburn]

Me using drugs does not infringe on your rights.


[QUOTE\]

It may not directly infringe on my rights, but it may affect my life, and the lives of those people doing drugs. We have enough dead beat alcoholic parents who don't give a shit about their kids and now we are going to add another problem to the equation? Enough people with enough addictions and now we are going to put hard drugs in the mix? People may endanger my life and others through their drug use does affect my life and that of others. I think someone already mentioned people who are not in their right mind on drugs like tripping out on LSD on railroad tracks, etc there are a variety of ways in which people get into trouble like that on drugs.

Look at ephedra. It was legal, people still had the tendency to OD, people died, it became illegal. People have died from taking "pure" doses of mdma through hyperthermia and hyponatremia. People will still OD and people will still die. People will still do stupid shit while on drugs ( I know I have, and everyone I know has some story to tell).

Anyway I'm back in school and don't have time to go on with this. I think the point I'm trying to make is that drug use has implications beyond that individual. You might be a safe responsible user, but that doesn't mean others will be.

 

[Gldm]

Since you're back in school, perhaps you'd care to look up what happened to general useage in the population during prohibition. If you want to reduce the number of people doing drugs, your best bet is to make them legal.

Additional info in 3... 2... 1... http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

 

[qwedsa]

We have enough dead beat alcoholic parents who don't give a shit about their kids and now we are going to add another problem to the equation? Enough people with enough addictions and now we are going to put hard drugs in the mix?

you're implying that it is impossible or hard to care about your kids when you're an addict. i suppose it's better to take the parents away from these kids, or at the very least, make them spend every minute of their time coming up with enough money for inflated drug prices?

People may endanger my life and others through their drug use does affect my life and that of others

considering that alcohol is the ONLY recreational substance that commonly induces aggressive behavior, and is one of the strongest drugs in terms of making you irrational (most of the illegal ones are more passive drugs, except the stimulants), i assume you'll want to illegalize alcohol as well?

Look at ephedra. It was legal, people still had the tendency to OD, people died, it became illegal. People have died from taking "pure" doses of mdma through hyperthermia and hyponatremia. People will still OD and people will still die. People will still do stupid shit while on drugs ( I know I have, and everyone I know has some story to tell).

the point of those in support of legalization is that there will be LESS ODs/deaths. no one is saying they'd dissapear. there would be less because people would be more likely to have accurate knowledge on drugs, or at least less likely to have misinformation, and in a legal atmosphere, the problems that may arise dont fester underground, with people fearing to get treatment, and the people with problems can live normal lives

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Themselves, presumably. Most people don't wish to die, hence they check the dosage of the drug they are taking.

People who overdose don't "check" the dosage. They abuse it to the point where they are too comfortable with the drug. They push the envelope while thinking they're just doing an everyday, harmless activity.

my point was that you had to look pretty funny with that post. you completely abandoned arguing the cost/benefits and just attacked me personally, making several assumptions about my character in the meantime

Assumption? You clearly indicated your desire for someone to "lose" this discussion, did you not? And whether I appear to "look pretty funny" isn't something I care about. Seems that you're judging people. That's not a characteristic I need to assume - you're selling yourself pretty good. And I refuse to agree with the assumption that releasing large amounts of harmful and arguably therapeutically useless substances into the general public for mass consumption is somehow going to ease the health care crisis.

>>Your "my taxes pay for you" argument is flawed. In the US we don't have nationalized health care. >>

Last time I heard, emergency services are funded by the tax payers. And when someone cannot pay that bill, guess who eats up that cost?

 

[Gldm]

Last time I heard, emergency services are funded by the tax payers. And when someone cannot pay that bill, guess who eats up that cost?

Last time I heard, most legal drugs (alcohol, cigarettes), were heavily taxed and an enourmous source of revenue. You're assuming that other drugs wouldn't be given the same treatment?

 

[kittyinthedark]

And I refuse to agree with the assumption that releasing large amounts of harmful and arguably therapeutically useless substances into the general public for mass consumption is somehow going to ease the health care crisis.

You also refuse to provide any hard data or even a logical explanation as to why you have the beliefs that you do. Instead of simply replying piecemeal to individual arguments, why don't you spend 10 minutes writing out your rationale? It will help us all out, including yourself

Last time I heard, emergency services are funded by the tax payers. And when someone cannot pay that bill, guess who eats up that cost?

I know exactly who eats up that cost. PRIVATE DONORS along with paying patients! Not you. Hospitals rely VERY heavily on fundraising to function. When they can't make enough money to fund their operations, they close down! This is why we have almost zero small hospitals or specific emergency care facilities anymore outside of huge cities. Why do you suppose every hospital out there has the Smith Lobby and the Jones ICU and Johnson Cardiovascular Wing. Why don't you try researching your own questions before putting your foot in your mouth? Then again, you seem to enjoy doing it. Do your feet taste like candy or something?