Would you legalise drugs?

[Eyeronie]

How^^

Show me one reason why cannabis should be illegal, then apply that same reasoning to alcohol and see if it should be banned as well. The best danny could come up with is, "But then we'd have to ban cologne!". If you can do better, shoot.

And most of what you said as to what "isnt true on any level" can't be proven. There are almost always exceptions to any situation both sides can think of.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but i'll try. I was referring directly to Danny's blanket statement that drug addiction is genetic, and that (in his words) "Once it has been established, the majority of people will have a life-long problem and never be able to recreationally use a substance."

This isn't a matter of finding exceptions since neither of us is talking in absolutes. Since nature/nurture issues rarely end up with that simple of an explanation, and since they've never been able to pinpoint a certain "addiction" gene and study those afflicted with it, i'm calling bullshit. The vast majority of users of any substance (something like 85 percent) never develop dependency and addiction problems. Cigarrettes are the big exception to that.

I know there are lifelong addicts and genetics play a part, like in, well, everything else in life. Saying the majority of people with some unknown gene will never be able to overcome their addictions is still irresponsible and unrepresentative of how things play out in the real world.

 

[human]

Well then why were they there?

Some of them didn't want to go to jail. Others saw that they had a problem with the habits they were developing and decided to seek professional help.

Isn't rehab for people who have chronic problems with drugs?

Not specifically, no.

And if one goes to rehab and it actually works, why would that person go back to the same habit with the same substance? Wouldn't that just promote a life-long cycle of use?

Obviously rehab didn't work. Maybe it kept em clean for a while, but that doesn't mean it worked.

Treatment is manditory simply because people do not recognize addiction themselves.

I have absolutely no problem with mandatory treatment. I think any drug user can benefit from it in some way, if they put at least a little effort into it. But fuck man, if you're down for mandatory treatment don't expect to walk into a rehab clinic to see life-long addicts. Realize that many of the people there may not even be addicts.

I'd rather see manditory treatment rather than jail time.

Given those two options and those two options only, I fully agree with you.

Making it non-manditory will just let the probem grow until someone (or several people) is hurt and is just as messy of a situation.

Now you're just assuming that all drug users are addicts waiting to happen. Not even close to true.

You don't have to be programmed, it's a behavioral pattern in our genetics.

Evidence please. Postulate all you want, but I won't believe it without some kind of proof. I know there was a news story somewhat recently on finding a specific gene marker or someshit in addicts, but...I dunno, I don't think the conclusion you're making can scientifically be made yet. We've heard it before, there was a big news story some time in the 90's all like OMG ALCOHOLISM GENE FOUND!!! and then later "oh no, our bad, print correction on page 13". There is a great pressure to discover a gene for addiction beacuse then the disease has a physiological basis, which leads to more insurance coverage.

Once it has been established, the majority of people will have a life-long problem and never be able to recreationally use a substance.

Eh, genetics may direct behaviors, but they certainly don't control them. People can use recreationally if they really want to, but if there is a genetic basis for addiction then those who are predisposed to it are likely to have a tougher time of doing so, and maybe they would need help in doing so. But I don't think that a certain portion of the population will never ever be able to use whatever substance recreationally. It's all about how much they want it.

And the alcohol comparisons aren't valid like I said. If we were to ban alcohol, then you have to ban perfumes, colognes, flavor extracts, OTC medicines and suspensions, hand sanitizers and wipes, alcohol based cleaners and wipes, mouthwash, hair sprays and gels, aftershaves, etc....

Look, you're the one comparing alcohol to illegal drugs. I was just explaining what I thought you may have overlooked. Additionally, this point has already been adressed. Opiates are banned, but it's not like cancer patients don't get hooked up.

And as far as insurance goes, consider the fact that the $1000 or whatever it was that my insurance paid for me going to treatment would be almost fully subsidized by the government in a legalized scenario.

 

[Cyrus]

Show me one reason why cannabis should be illegal, then apply that same reasoning to alcohol and see if it should be banned as well. The best danny could come up with is, "But then we'd have to ban cologne!". If you can do better, shoot.

It IS illegal. I don't have to come up with a reason.

 

[qwedsa]

^could you please explain yourself?
...hehe this may be entertaining

 

[Cyrus]

He asked for a reason cannabis should be illegal, it already is, the governments reasonings is probably enough to do so. It GOVERNS us, though we decide as a people what should be done and what shouldn't (or in the least most of the time) congress decides in the end.

How entertaining was that? You should've thought about it a little longer.

 

[human]

^^God damn that's lazy. If he just asked "Show me one reason why cannabis should be illegal." then you may have a point. But you're completely disregarding the second half of his statement.

Oh, it's already illegal, the government's reasonings are probably enough to make it so. (just rephrased what you said)

Yeah, the reasons are enough to make it so (obviously, as it is illegal), but are they logical or right?

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

wow this is sad,
but anyway...
DJDannyUhOh i feel like your argumentation show that you believe that humanity is shit, and im shure that its because you feel like shit (in your heart).
i dont think you actualy understand the issue at all !!!
and you completly hijack the thread

but do you understand what regulation can actualy mean ???
we dont know what legalisation might bring, we dont !
but we shure know how the situation is right now !
------- its shit ! --------
so what CAN we do about it ?

this is how i view it, we live in a
Plutocracy ($) in our head, a
Theocracy (god) in our heart and a
Democracy as our sex, but with no balls

so drug were made illegal in the first place because of racism,
drug are illegal now because of religious fascism,
and they are keep illegal for $$$ (war, politic and organise crime = $)

but that is just my point of view,
its not about my point of view,
its about HOW WE CAN deal with this shit !
together, by finding common goal !

since drugstore and prescription drug already exist...
my view on regulation is that drugstore should have the responsability.
ALL drug should be put in their hands, simple no ?
this mean drug should not be sold at grocery store or on the streets
since alcool is already so much in our culture we cant really do that with her
(i mean we wont take alcool out of grocery store, but we would with cigarette, cause they are too many death related to them )
the thing is that you would need a i.d. (for every drug)
the result is that those who wiches to stop cigarette say so to their doctor
so they now cant buy cigarette with their i.d.
the "new law" would affect only those with i.d.
so your doctor can always cut you out if he think you (or your body) cant deal whit drug "x"
and special clinic could open to use certain drug
like a psychotherapist place for entheogene exploration
oh and you might need your i.d. to buy beer at the bar
but then we might find a efficient way to stop drunk driving

it shure wont work like magic, but its better than shit !
so whats your idea of regulation DJDannyUhOh ?

 

[Eyeronie]

He asked for a reason cannabis should be illegal, it already is, the governments reasonings is probably enough to do so. It GOVERNS us, though we decide as a people what should be done and what shouldn't (or in the least most of the time) congress decides in the end.

Can't respond to this really, since you bypassed the question. Bringing up the marijuana example, i'm just trying to get you guys to concede something. By defending every aspect of our current policies you end up sounding like apologists for the drug war rather than people who have a clear view of how they think society should approach psychoactive drugs and why. You're certainly not going to change anybody's mind with quotes like the above.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

Basic Facts About the War on Drugs
by Clifford A. Schaffer

Why were the laws against drugs passed in the first place?
The first American anti-drug law was an 1875 San Francisco ordinance which outlawed the smoking of opium in opium dens. It was passed because of the fear that Chinese men were luring white women to their "ruin" in opium dens. "Ruin" was defined as associating with Chinese men. It was followed by other similar laws, including Federal laws in which trafficking in opium was forbidden to anyone of Chinese origin, and restrictions on the importation of smoking opium. The laws did not have anything really to do with the importation of opium as a drug, because the importation and use of opium in other forms -- such as in the common medication laudunum -- were not affected. The laws were directed at smoking opium because it was perceived that the smoking of opium was a peculiarly Chinese custom. In short, it was a way of legally targeting the Chinese.

Cocaine was outlawed because of fears that superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiends" or "Cocainized Niggers" (actual terms used by newspapers in the early 1900's) take large amounts of cocaine which would make them go on a violent sexual rampage and rape white women. There is little evidence that any black men actually did this, if only because it would have been certain death. The United States set a record in 1905 with 105 recorded lynchings of black men. At the same time, police nationwide switched from .32 caliber pistols to .38 caliber pistols because it was believed that the superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiend" could not be killed with the smaller gun.

Dr. Hamilton Wright is sometimes referred to as the "Father of American Drug Laws". Dr. Wright was the Opium Commissioner at the time and had previously become famous because he had "scientifically proved" that beri-beri was a communicable disease. Beri-beri is a vitamin deficiency.

The Harrison Act which "outlawed" these drugs was, on its face, a simple licensing law which simply required sellers to get a license if they were going to handle the opiates and cocaine. As the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs has said, it is doubtful that very many members of Congress would have thought that they were passing what would later be regarded as a general drug prohibition. The law even contained a provision that nothing in the law would prohibit doctors from prescribing these drugs in the legitimate practice of medicine.

In fact, even the people who wrote the Harrison Act and the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 agreed that a general prohibition on what people could put into their own bodies was plainly an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberties. For comparison, see the history of the constitutional amendment which was required to prohibit alcohol. There is no fundamental reason why a constitutional amendment should be required to prohibit one chemical and not another.

The trick was that the bureaucrats who were authorized to issue licenses never did so, and there was a heavy penalty for not having the license. This heavy penalty required that the enforcing bureaucrats needed more staff and, therefore, more power, which, in turn required tougher laws. Over the years, through a series of court rulings, they gradually got the courts to change what had been well-established constitutional law. Specifically, they got the courts to accept the notion that it really was a tax violation when people got arrested for drugs, and that the fact that the government would not issue any licenses was not a defense. They also got the courts to bypass the old issue of whether the Federal Government had the right to control what an individual puts into their own bodies by creating the fiction that whatever the person puts into their bodies must have come as a result of some form of interstate commerce, which is regulated by the Federal Government in the form of taxes and licenses and, therefore, since the Federal Government is allowed to levy a tax it is -- by rather indirect logic -- allowed to regulate what anyone may put into their own bodies.

Marijuana was outlawed in 1937 as a repressive measure against Mexican workers who crossed the border seeking jobs during the Depression. The specific reason given for the outlawing of the hemp plant was its supposed violent "effect on the degenerate races." (Testimony of Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, in testimony before Congress in hearings on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937). The American Medical Association specifically testified that they were opposed to the law. When the supporters of the law were asked about the AMA's view on the law on the floor of Congress, they lied and said that the AMA was in favor of the law because they knew the law would never pass without the AMA's endorsement. The law passed, and the AMA later protested, but the law was never repealed.

In both cases, newspapers across the country carried lurid stories of the awful things that these drugs did to racial minorities, and of the horrors that people of racial minorities inflicted on innocent white people while they were under the influence of these drugs. Later research has shown that not a single one of the stories used to promote these laws could be substantiated.

There never was any scholarly evidence that the laws were necessary, or even beneficial, to public health and safety and none was presented when the laws were passed.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

this is stolen from me...
"good" music would not exist if "drugs" where "bad"

if music made by "drug" people did not exist
or should i say "green" people
you know, like black people
but its not about a race, but about a choice (base upon your belief)
but its the same
black = slave
green = criminal
(and time = change......)

sorry ,,,
so if music made by green people did not exist
humanity (in my opinion) would suffer
music is the food of the soul (like they say)...
music makes people high (oups)
music is art and it define us as human being,
its a way, we dance, we sing, we smile,
its a langage, a form of expression that make us feel good
real good..!!

if the beatle are using spice to make music with more taste
should they be put in jail
( to protect humanity from ther satanist message : All YOU need is LOVE )
salt is not healthy, but its legal

why would cigarettes be illegal
but lets say weed is more toxic, and that nobody ever died from cigarettes....
why would weed be illegal

cause i feel like its a lot more "toxic" to live in jail than to smoke pot
if "those" people are "possessed by Satan" shoudnt they be "exorcise"
i realy dont think "this" has anything to do with science
science as medecine, you know Helping people,
as oppose to punishment, sentences

so why would a medium be illegal and not what YOU do with it ?
Guns... and poison,, are legal !!!

they call "this" : War on drugs
but do they take the drug and put it in prison or the human being who use the drug..???

so the war on drug is unconstitutional, and we are there... doing what!?
speading (as oppose to the " just say no ") information (not misinformation)
We are the one taking drugs and we are friends with people who take drugs,
this is our community, this is a war againt us, me, you !
And i need to fight "this"
and i hope some are with me
cause i think we shoud create our futur, in the present
now

when i was young, i burn myself
but then i learn
you cant stop a child to try
if its bad he wont touch it again
if ther is something to it, he will go back,
if that something is a addiction, we should help him get rid of it
but we cant stop our own child, how can a goverment think he can stop EVERYBODY to try,
well they cant, thats why we have a war
but we did not vote for that war,
cause at first it was againt the "outside" people
it was "protecting" us,
but now its againts "us"

(maybe we should call ourself the "brown"people, it would sound racist,
and most wont want to be associated with racisim,
so we would also have help from people who have tv in there head,
( instead of being the center of their own mandala) and think for themself..)
(or the blue-people, from the blue-right community)

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

DJDannyUhOh i feel like your argumentation show that you believe that humanity is shit, and im shure that its because you feel like shit (in your heart).
i dont think you actualy understand the issue at all !!!

Are you high? Is that your problem? I don't think humanity is shit, but humanity has shown that it cannot handle a good thing, especially something good that requires extra responsibility. If you believe that every drug store or pharmacy should carry every drug, you wouldn't even draw the line at PMA? GHB? That's dangerous stuff and it's more dangerous in the hands of certain people. Everyone has rights as human beings but things change a bit when we're binded by a larger society. Unless you choose to live on an island by yourself, everyone around you affects what you do.

I understand the inefficiency of the drug war and wasted money but the truth is that legalizing all drugs across the board will create even more problems with larger long-term ramifications, health effects being the largest. It's basically choosing the lesser of two inefficient scenarios. If anyone had a comprehensive and more efficient policy towards legalizing all drugs, they sure aren't stepping forward into the public spotlight.

Suppose we did legalize all drugs. Then you would have to legalize all subscription drugs and all substances that make up their subcomponents. You basically would have to legalize all consumable substances, including known poisons. You think people are going to agree with that? Do you have a comprehensive way to deal with the physician/health plan/HMO vs. financing and insurance fallout in terms of prescription drugs when that occurs?

I believe we should have full control of what we put in our bodies, but I don't feel strong enough about it to the point that I would have to move somewhere else and start my own society. Besides, despite my own unhealthy habits here and there, I'm not going to "openly" promote an unhealthy activity where the risks far outweigh any benefit.

I love drugs just as much as anyone else here does. I've had some of the most fun in my life with drugs, but the fact is that there's more to life than drugs. They just do not play a big enough role in my life that would make me stretch reality far enough to justify any positive health effects of making all drugs legal across the board.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

"good" music would not exist if "drugs" where "bad"

I mentioned before. I have nothing against the drugs. It's the people I have a problem with.

 

[Cyrus]

^^God damn that's lazy. If he just asked "Show me one reason why cannabis should be illegal." then you may have a point. But you're completely disregarding the second half of his statement.

Oh, it's already illegal, the government's reasonings are probably enough to make it so. (just rephrased what you said)

Yeah, the reasons are enough to make it so (obviously, as it is illegal), but are they logical or right?

In their eyes, it is right, and the sad truth is until anyone unifies people and says otherwise it will never change.

I would honestly like to see everything legalised, and have everything black and white and simple pure and good. It's a nice dream in my eyes, but I don't think it's going to happen in any of our lifetimes. Like DjDanny said too many of the bads outweigh the goods when it's applicable to real life. Most of you are only thinking of how "addiction wouldn't be too much of a trouble" "crime would decrease." "War on drugs is bs (In a sense it is, I agree.)" Then criticize us and think of us with negativity as we explain the obvious that since drugs are not safe, and the overall health of the human community should be taken in effect in this situation, they should not be legal. Money and accessability is also a problem, accessability to coke will LOWER problems? I honestly don't enjoy talking to people who are coked out or addicted to coke. When all they talk about is cokecokecoke. Humans can ruin alot of things. There are also brilliant minds that can make things better. I can conclude that we are taking your opinions into consideration, and as danny explained earlier, it's the people. People will ruin it for us, I've said one bad apple will spoil the bushel, it'll go on and on.

It's like the kindergardeners and their "priveledges" that the teacher gives them. One kid ruins it, it gets taken away.

...hehe this may be entertaining

What is that? Be mature. I'm sure you are capable of it instead of demeaning my intelligence and then chuckling like you were a freshman in highschool picking on a middleschooler.

And Everyonie, I bypassed the question? I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer, go into it and think. You have a great mind, indeed, and are capable of using it to understand as to what I mean.

Another thing i'd like to bring up, is as to why they'd just simply illegalise something without having motive. I actually want to see the government outlaw pants and when people ask why they say "Just because." More or less I'd believe theres always a reason behind it as to why they outlaw things.

Perhaps it is you who need to actually think about our situations that we give you, because I'm not too sure if you are.

 

[pin]

Fuck legalization, who wants the government taking away our profits?

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

"Are you high? Is that your problem?"
hehe, no
its simple, you might understand someday...
i will try again...
the problem is people like you who dont belive human can create a new way of dealling with this issue
see i was clear, i ask you a question and you didnt answer,
then you proceed to repeat the same crap...
if you could actualy belive that you can create something new
you would have answer to these
cause this was what i would have cared to read about :

do you understand what regulation can actualy mean ???
so what CAN we do about it ?
so whats your idea of regulation DJDannyUhOh ?

so in big it was :
wtf can YOU do about it ???

if you cant answer or cant do anything, well why the fuck are you still trolling
this is the Thought and Awareness, not the im right your wrong
to repeat again :
its about HOW WE CAN deal with this shit !
together, by finding common goal !

( sorry if im mean, but its not funny to be conscider a criminal in 2006 because at 27 thinking for myself and making my own decision is not yet allowed, wearing a diaper is not my cup of tea, but thanks to you for presenting us with the latest fashion in diaper fetishism)

 

[human]

drugs are not safe

No shit. But safety is relative, and people do all kinds of unsafe things. While the consequences of unsafe drug use can be both rapid and permanent, only a small small portion of all drug users experience such events. Some drugs, such as the classical psychedelics and cannabis, have very good safety profiles. With no remotely significant amount of death related to direct toxicity and the very rare freak out, there is no reason that these drugs should be outright prohibited under all circumstances.

Basically you say "Drugs should be illegal because they're not safe." But you see, one serious contributing factor to drugs being unsafe is the fact that they're illegal. Seems you know how to beg the question.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

"its about HOW WE CAN deal with this shit !"

(from canada...)
The pharmacist has your ecstasy ready
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=250366

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Basically you say "Drugs should be illegal because they're not safe." But you see, one serious contributing factor to drugs being unsafe is the fact that they're illegal. Seems you know how to beg the question.

If this is directed towards me, I never said they should be illegal because they aren't safe. I do not see the need to legalize them into an open market because of the health issues.

Before I mentioned the feasibility of a (personal) licensure system but that would cost too much and produce too little regulation. Legalizing some drugs, maybe but only under the tightest of measures. More so than prescription drugs. And even if society DID allow elected officials to go through with such legislation, then there's the debate on which drugs to legalize. You certainly cannot legalize all of them for the reasons I mentioned above. I would also like to see some sort of limits set within time frames. Maybe you only get a certain amount of pills or grams of coke per month. It may sound silly to some people, but the fact is that if everybody were to have free reign on unlimitless amounts of hard drugs, what stops us from quickly dissolving into a nation of dumb-shits with useless brains? Take a look at how uneducated the average American is. Now imagine that half of the people in this country are more stupid than that!

As for doing my part, I mentioned before that I switched to education rather than a primary care setting. I can do my part by education on drugs as well as nutrition. While I won't openly promote drugs use, I can share with people knowledge and explain behavioral patterns that will (hopefully) not lead them to misuse. Until we start changing the collective consciousness of society, we cannot just legislate a simple law that would make drugs legal.

And speaking of collective consciousness, I had just come back from a 8 day stay in Japan last week. They have beer vending machines every 3 feet, there's no concrete legal drinking age, and you can drink out in public just about anywhere, yet there isn't nearly the problems we have here in America related to alcohol. Why? Japan is a very discipline society - exponentially more than America. They hold the values of honor and trust probably much higher than we hold freedom here. Japan is probably the closest example of a society that would be able to handle a few legalized drugs.

 

[Eyeronie]

If these quotes are true...

I would honestly like to see everything legalised, and have everything black and white and simple pure and good. It's a nice dream in my eyes, but I don't think it's going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

I believe we should have full control of what we put in our bodies

Then you guys should consider being more open minded about society taking smaller steps in the direction of legalization, even if you can't support going all the way.

Our current contradictory system is proof that this isn't true...

Suppose we did legalize all drugs. Then you would have to legalize all subscription drugs and all substances that make up their subcomponents. You basically would have to legalize all consumable substances, including known poisons. You think people are going to agree with that?

We apparently can cherry pick which substances we want to allow people access too, so I don't belive this slope is as slippery as you claim.

This appears to be the greatest fear of the prohibitionist...

It may sound silly to some people, but the fact is that if everybody were to have free reign on unlimitless amounts of hard drugs, what stops us from quickly dissolving into a nation of dumb-shits with useless brains?

Perhaps a good compramise is taking baby steps into the direction of freedom over safety. If you guys truly see the folly and destructive side of the drug war, you'd be open to some changes in our current policies - perhaps the decriminalization of marijuana?

Maybe we need to go drug by drug, state by state to show you guys and the rest of the American public that the sky isn't going to fall once people have greater access to these chemicals. It makes more sense then simply banning each new recreational chemical as it gains noteriety, as we do now.

Start with decriminalization of pot. Then move on to shrooms, then maybe LSD. Give society time to absorb this new freedom into our culture and give people time to assess the consequences. Then maybe we could test legal opiates in certain areas and see if it has any positive effect on crime, overdoses, and the spread of disease. From there, who knows?

About this you are absolutely right Danny...

And speaking of collective consciousness, I had just come back from a 8 day stay in Japan last week. They have beer vending machines every 3 feet, there's no concrete legal drinking age, and you can drink out in public just about anywhere, yet there isn't nearly the problems we have here in America related to alcohol. Why? Japan is a very discipline society - exponentially more than America. They hold the values of honor and trust probably much higher than we hold freedom here. Japan is probably the closest example of a society that would be able to handle a few legalized drugs.

This is what we need to achieve in America! You need to bring the drugs above ground so that people have a chance to become educated about them and so that society can build social norms around the use of them. By keeping drugs underground you alienate the millions of people that participate in this activity. The drug war pushes these people outside of mainstream society and it's norms, and surrounds them with an underworld that often encourages using these chemicals in the most destructive way possible (heroin culture for instance).

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

" Until we start changing the collective consciousness of society, we cannot just legislate a simple law that would make drugs legal." - DJDannyUhOh

great quote !

and your doing it by education : "I can do my part by education on drugs as well as nutrition. "

great !

and then we could :
" just legislate a simple law that would make drugs legal "
so that we could :
"start changing the collective consciousness of society" (in a even bigger way !)

wow, so we can and we will get there...