The Legalization Of All Drugs

[Kaz The Original]

All drugs (from marijuana to heroine) should be legally availible, in the manner that Alcohol is in Canada (through a government agency).

It would not increase drug use. In the Netherlands, when marijuana usage got legalized, there was only a slight increase in usage, which can be explained by "overflow" from other nations travelling there to use. Drugs, at the moment, in Canada (and I assume the United States) are not difficult to obtain, for anyone who goes to highschool, or heads out to a bar, or goes to a local park.

The benefits of legalizing drugs are that it will take money out of the hands of criminal organizations, allow easier treatment of addicts, and the health of drug users will be protected. Most overdoses come from getting drugs which are "too pure" and a user takes their normal dosage, which is too much for them because they are used to taking cut product.

Thoughts?

[Broken Glass Can]

So you support:

1) Government intimately involved in yet another area of people's lives

2) Government encouragement of addiction and the creation of more unproductive/underproductive citizens

[Kaz The Original]

1) I'd rather the government than joe scumbag.

2) The legalization of drugs would not increase drug consumption.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
So you support:

1) Government intimately involved in yet another area of people's lives

[/ QUOTE ]

By banning and policing the substance the government is just as involved in indivuals citizens lives.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

By banning and policing the substance the government is just as involved in indivuals citizens lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually more so in my estimation.

[cardcounter0]

What good is your estimation?

[PokerDork]

I have a couple of questions for those who favor legalizing all (or even some) forms of drugs in any country. I tend to agree that this probably would not increase usage especially if there was some type of qualifying age (18 or 21 in the US, probably 19 in Canada), however, there are many key problems that need to be adressed.
1. Where do you get the hard drugs from? drugs like heroin and cocaine could not easily be produced in the US or Canada, and getting them would involve a foreign policy nightmare... primarily because the producers of most hard drugs are unsavory characters, many of whom are government has actually killed.
2. What drugs would be legalized? Legalizing all drugs would simply not be possible, as certain drugs either cannot be safely produced (say magic mushrooms), or with drugs like LSD the after effects are such that allowing people to use them may cause them to be completely non-functional members of society.
3. How would allowing people to use non-physically addictive drugs help with addiction treatment? If you legalized say LSD or methamphetamine, drugs that are not actually physically addictive, the problems with people on these drugs is a mental and not physical addiction, it is virtually impossible to treat someone who simply does not have the will to quit, afterall if they did it would be as easy as just not doing their drug of choice anymore.
4. What would this do to public intoxication laws that exist with regard to alcohol? Yes alcohol is legal in the US and Canada but it is not legal to operate a vehicle while drunk, nor is it legal (I'm not sure if this is true in Canada) to be drunk in a public place. I think these laws have a lot of merit with respect to public safety issues, and the fact that the philosophy of the government in general in The US is to not have intoxicated people, how then could they legalize products that would be used strictly for the purpose of becoming intoxicated.
5. What about drugs that are available only with a prescription that can be used recreationally as well (pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc.)? How would these drugs exist, or would you simply need a prescription to acquire your heroin or cocaine? If you answer yes to the latter, who qualifies?
I actually have more questions than this, but I would be interested in seeing these answered.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
2) The legalization of drugs would not increase drug consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect - you weaken your argument with such obviously false statements. Some people choose not to go over the speed limit because it is the law, yet no one is going to give up drugs because it is against the law? That's just plain dumb.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By banning and policing the substance the government is just as involved in indivuals citizens lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually more so in my estimation.

[/ QUOTE ]

More involved in selected cases only. When we decided to go after DUIs and DWIs, the government got more involved in a few people's lives, but many people stopped risking this behavior and the total number of people driving recklessly (not to mention people getting killed and maimed) went down.

The net impact on society matters more than whether for one particular person, the government gets in your face.

[Kaz The Original]

1. This is an excellent question, but not at all an insurmountable problem. If it is possible to sift the cutting agents out of say cocaine after it has been cut, drug busts would be one area of supply.

2. Why do you say magic mushrooms cannot be safely produced? I also believe the information you have on LSD is incorrect.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml. As for as my knowledge goes there have been no REPUTABLE scientific studies that shows LSD to be damaging to any significant % of users.

3. Here again your information is inaccurate. Meth IS physically addictive.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth.shtml

As to your question, what is the benefit of legalizing non addictive drugs (ie marijuana), it takes the $$$ out of criminal organizations. I don't really believe in "mental addictions". Pot is addictive the way volleyball is addictive, in which to say it isn't.

4. I think all the laws that alcohol consumption are governed by could easily be used for drugs. Cannot be done in a public place, cannot operate a vehicle while under the influenece.

[Kaz The Original]

A clear and concise rebuttal containing a number of facts that prove your point!

"Some people choose not to go over the speed limit because it is the law, yet no one is going to give up drugs because it is against the law?"

I'm not even sure what this means, or how it relates to my argument. Maybe I'm dumb.

In the Netherlands, where they legalized marijuana, consumption has not increased. Thus it stands to reason that legalizing drugs does not increase consumption, nor does illegalizing them decrease consumption (see Prohibition), and the fact that marijuana is smoked by a large % of the Canadian population (and American!).

[PokerDork]

I apologize for the innacurate information I posted. You are right about meth, I typed that off the top of my head, I guess my memory has failed me again (probably because I smoked too much pot in high school [note: although this may be true I mean it here in jest]). But, lets return our focus to question #1. The other four were just objections that I just rattled off, but the source of supply seems to be the biggest practical concern. I think my other questions involve issues on which the opposing sides cannot possibly agree since, if we did, we would have to concede much of our argument. As a quick aside about mental addiction, it definitely does exist to an extent, ever heard of GA? People are compulsive gamblers and it often requires psychological treatment to break bad habbits, I think that mental drug addictions are in the same boat as gambling addictions in many respects. Also, the point I was trying to make though not made clearly enough upon re-reading my post, was that someone who was tripping all the time could not be a functional member of society; I realize that it read more like heresay along the lines of, "once you trip seven times you are legally insane" it was not intended to read that way. This is important because this person has no "problem" per se (especially since mental addictions "don't exist") yet there is very little they could do productively while under the influence of LSD. Sorry for the digression, back to the point.
"The benefits of legalizing drugs are that it will take money out of the hands of criminal organizations..."
"1. This is an excellent question, but not at all an insurmountable problem. If it is possible to sift the cutting agents out of say cocaine after it has been cut, drug busts would be one area of supply."
Well if criminal organizations are no longer doing business, how then could they be busted as a source of drugs. Also, in a regulated industry, I do not think that law could require confiscated contraband to be repackaged (even if purified) and sold by the government, clearly you can see the problems that arise here. You also simply failed to answer where we would get most of our drugs from. If we wanted cocaine how do we get it in mass quantities, especially when the government of Colombia has taken many steps in order to cut down on the production, and exportation of cocaine. Legalizing drugs here would have to be accompanied by any countries that produce these drugs to adopt laws that regulated production in a similar way that we were trying to regulate consumption, if this could not be done, having an adequate supply of legal drugs would be impossible, and users would again turn to dealers, who now probably have higher prices due to the government shortage, and we are back to where we started.
Also, perhaps a better example of a non-safely produced drug (since I suppose growing fungi on feces could be monitored enough to eliminate any serious risk) would be crack. Crack is definitely a drug, that is produced in a manner that is by nature unsafe and impure. Yet crack addicts crave only crack since coke can no longer do the trick or is simply too expensive. Crack and crack related crimes are still a big problem, I've worked, tutored, and lived in very bad neighborhoods and have witnessed firsthand how crack can destroy lives. As a corollary to the point about crack, what about pregnant women? Smoking and drinking are extremely dangerous as it is, what about a pregnant woman addicted to cocaine? Her child will almost inevitably be placed at a disadvantage because of her mothers drug abuse, yet the government now supports this woman's right to use? I know a woman who used cocaine throughout three pregnancies and her children have cognitive and speech disabilities that are most certainly related to her drug use, and it is truly a shame.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
So you support:

1) Government intimately involved in yet another area of people's lives

2) Government encouragement of addiction and the creation of more unproductive/underproductive citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. What really can be said in response to this post?

The ignorance shown is just staggering.

[Kaz The Original]

Last in first out, the pregnant lady example is a great reason why legalization should occur. I don't see it entirely like a beer store where you pick up the cocaine and hand the attendant $20. You would go in to the place, request it, maybe talk with a physician. Like a perscription. Pregnant mothers would not be allowed to get it.

You know how you make cocaine into crack? You put cocaine and bakingsoda into a table spoon (with water I think) and hold a flame under it. What's so unsafe about that?

Yes, physical addiction to crack and cocaine can destroy lives (although I am not sure they are PHYSICALLY harmful drugs), but this happens (as you say) all the time already. Having people being able to follow trends on it's use, and having health care professionals involved in the usage here can only be a positive thing.

[cardcounter0]

During prohibtion, where did alcohol come from?
Crooked mob bootleggers. Sometimes the product wasn't very good, sometimes it was poison.

Now that it is legal, huge corporations run breweries. One bottle of Budweiser is pretty much the same as another bottle of Budweiser, and nobody goes blind.

If pot was legal, I imagine the cigarette companies could manage to deliver the product without requiring government assistance.

Cocaine, herion, etc? Well if they can make those miracle designer drugs to cure cancer, I'm sure there are a lot of companies out there capable of producing drugs that are basically derived from plants.

[wtfsvi]

This is frisky Kaz. And yes, why should we be better suited to know what is good for a person who wants to use drugs than the person himself? Clearly we cannot claim to be.

What we can do is offer information about drugs, and when I say information that also includes our attitude to it. What society should be saying, imo, is something like: "You are free to do what you want, but we think it would be foolish to do so and so..". This attitude is not well shown by having government-shops selling heroin.

I'd say that the government should make an effort to make marijuana cheap and easilly obtainable, while making heroin expensive and difficultly obtainable. (The last target could be reached by stuff like prohibiton of mass advertising/high customs tariffs.) (I realize there are more drugs than marijuana and heroin, but I don't have enough knowledge to know where to draw the line between them.)

A problem though, is if it would be acceptable to make a larger market for drugs in this manner. While children are starving to death every day, we'd make the poor contries grow drugs instead of grain. (When I say this its implied that your statement about drug-use not increasing is beyond strange.)

[Chris_P]

legilization of drugs isn't going to increase drug cunsumption, the largest consumer of drugs by far (in the U.K) is youths. Government controlled distribution will stop 9 year olds being able to purchase green (the most common of all drugs) and hopefully give them more time to think about whether they want to take drugs not meerly forced to by peer pressure....

VIVA LA COCOIANA.....

[BCPVP]

I have a question for the pro-legalizers.

I think some drugs are very bad for your body. Would society wind up paying more for the healthcare (through things like Medicare/Medicaid) for people who screw up their bodies on drugs?

[wtfsvi]

sure would. And more people will be less able to work, so society lose even more.

Same holds true about smoking and alcohol. I can't say it's good to make it illegal though. Who are we to decide?

[BCPVP]

Glad someone sees the problem I have accepting the legalization argument. I just don't think a society with a lot more people like Ozzy Osbourne is a good thing.

As an aside, I wonder if the pro-legalizers would be willing to legalize automatic weapons, for much the same reasons?

[wtfsvi]

I see your point, but I'm pro-legalizing. As you can read out of my post.

Weapons is an interily different thing, because it (directly) hurts other people than the one making the decition to buy and use them.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
What good is your estimation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just take a friendly visit to your local jail.

[ricochet420]

Have not read responses, but soft drugs, ish, weed, shrooms, etc should be legal, buT NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ricochet420]

Most drugs (read, ALL different kinds of drugs, alcohol, Rx, etc.) are bad for your body if abused. However, most of the physical problems associated with street drug abuse is due to unclean conditions, nasty cutting agents, and a blackmarket world in which the users often do not have access to good "clean" drugs. Using a needle (correctly) is the safest and least harmful way to injest drugs, compared to snorting, smoking, eating!!!

With legalization, compassion and understanding we could actually cut our healthcare costs in respect to this topic.
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for the pro-legalizers.

I think some drugs are very bad for your body. Would society wind up paying more for the healthcare (through things like Medicare/Medicaid) for people who screw up their bodies on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Where do you get the hard drugs from? drugs like heroin and cocaine could not easily be produced in the US or Canada, and getting them would involve a foreign policy nightmare... primarily because the producers of most hard drugs are unsavory characters, many of whom are government has actually killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, 90% of our cocaine comes from Bolivia which is a very peaceful country and the dealers there tend to be Harvard educated and before the major crackdowns, used to spend a lot of money building up the country. The violent people are the Columbians which distribute the Bolivian cocaine. Equating drug dealers with violence is more of a propoganda thing than anything else.

The most successful drug dealers use the quality product for cheap method to gain business. Violence is bad for business and violent drug dealers tend to be more about stealing and ripping people off then the actual drug business. In reality, many of the good drug dealers are much better people IMO then the average person because they become extremely sick of having to deal with people who can't be trusted. They constantly have to deal with cash ends up missing, product that weighed out fine the day before is now light, people who talk too big and promise things they can't do, etc. The nonviolent (quality for cheap) dealers can't report those people to the cops so they have to cut their losses and take their business elsewhere. People in that situation get sick of liars and cheats very quickly.

So calling a weed, MDMA, LSD, muchroom, or even a cocaine dealer a scumbag simply because he sells drugs is simply poor logic.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Most drugs (read, ALL different kinds of drugs, alcohol, Rx, etc.) are bad for your body if abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot water.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/review/medrev_v6n1_0003.html

The syndrome of polydipsia and hyponatremia (SP&H) has been reported in psychiatric patients for three quarters of a century. The syndrome consists of three separate stages, beginning with excess drinking and ending with hyponatremia-induced coma and death.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but I'm pro-legalizing. As you can read out of my post.

Weapons is an interily different thing, because it (directly) hurts other people than the one making the decition to buy and use them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not necessarily true. People on drugs can (and do sometimes) hurt others. And the vast majority of people with guns don't hurt others (especially with legally owned automatics).

[cardcounter0]

Whoooooosh!!!!

That one went over your head. I didn't say a thing about the accuracy of the previous statement. I just wonder what MMMMMM's creditials were that we should give two hoots about his "estimate".

I mean if I needed an estimate on how to best launch a rocket to the moon, do I run out to the back yard and ask the little kid mowing my lawn what he thinks? Do I grab a guy driving a cab and get his opinion? Wouldn't I want an estimate from, oh say, a rocket scientist?

Since MMMMMM has exhibited a shocking amount of ignorance on a vast array of subjects, and an inability to comprehend or what people are saying using the english language, what good is "HIS" estimate?

In my estimation .... Yeah, his estimation and a fifty cents won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Government intimately involved in yet another area of people's lives



[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i'm retarted but are you saying the government currently isn't involved in our lives with respect to drugs? People are sitting in jail cells for smoking pot, you know how stupid that is?

Legalizing drugs would have a much lesser effect of infringing on the rights of individuals than the current prohibition laws. Care to dispute this?

[wacki]

whoosh???

No it didn't go over my head.

[ QUOTE ]
Since MMMMMM has exhibited a shocking amount of ignorance on a vast array of subjects, and an inability to comprehend or what people are saying using the english language, what good is "HIS" estimate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry you are going to had to provide a lot of proof/links to convince me of that.

Btw, has anyone ever said this to you?

There's no need to continue to prove your ignorance. We've all believers already.

Linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1545262&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[cardcounter0]

I think links and/or proofs would require comprehension on your part, so that would be pretty futile, wouldn't it?

By the way, your link is to a post where I asked a question.
So I guess in Wacki world, you better not ever ask a question, it proves your ignorance. Better to proclamate and pontificate like MMMMMM does, without worrying about facts.

Thanks for pointing that out, "WACKI"
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wacki]

Maybe you should look at the rest of your post. Dynasty only quoted one line. It's odd that I can remember more about you then you can.

Eechh.. I need to get out of politics again.... Too much trolling. I guess I did kind of start this battle though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, maybe you should get out of it. Since I did read the rest of my post.

I said Indiana was a RED STATE. Do you disagree? They didn't vote for Bush this last election?

I also said that Indiana was primarily republican.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HERE: can you comprehend this?

When Republican Mitch Daniels is sworn in as Indiana's new governor on Jan. 10, the state government will be under one-party rule for the first time since 1982.

Republicans will control the governor's office, both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly and almost every statewide office.

The lone exception: the clerk of the Supreme and Appellate courts, a mostly clerical post that is being eliminated as an elective office anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I then ASKED the question, weren't all of Indiana's senators and representatives also Republican? Dynasty pointed out the exception. My BAD! IGNORANT ME. hahahahha!

Try to come back with a point, next time.

[wacki]

So, are you calling Dynasty an idiot as well?

[cardcounter0]

Where did I call anyone an idiot? Have you ever been tested for Schizo-affective Disorder? Dyslexia? Any type of learning and/or cognitive disorders?

Is there a history of alcoholism or insanity in your family?
Are you currently under any medications, prescribed or illegal? Did you abuse a lot of drugs and/or alcohol as a child or teenager?

Maybe you were shaken as a baby? Strong blow to the head? Lack of oxygen to the brain?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[wacki]

You called MMMMMM ignorant and said he was unable to understand english. I asked for proof and then pointed out that you don't exactly have the best track record either. So prove that MMMMMM ignorant and can't understand ...

You know what, I don't care.

I've got stuff to do.

[cardcounter0]

>>>>>>>>>
I never called MMMMMM an idiot. I searched and the word idiot has only been used by you. I merely pointed out that MMMMMM's estimations shouldn't really be trusted.
<<<<<<<<<<

Examples from today ....

Rush Limbaugh once told a caller on his radio show to "take the bone out of his nose, and call him back."

MMMMMM can't decide if that is a racial comment or not, he needs to know the "context" from which it is taken.

MMMMMM didn't know who Carol Moseley Braun was (the first Black women elected to the US Senate), so he pontificated that she might be some kind of "gold digger" or "female race pimp/legal extortionist".

Later when the subject turned to American Indians,
MMMMMM pontificates that the Creek Tribe of Georgia were a particularly savage tribe. Fact is, the Creek descended from the ancient mound builder civilization, had an advanced political system, and when they first encounted the white man, had a huge network of villages, an advanced agricultural system, and fenced livestock.

More wisdom from MMMMMM today, even though all the country speaks with some sort of an accent, some accents are "incorrect" according to MMMMMM.


And I asked a question a while back. Man, do I feel stupid.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

cardcounter0, if I had your personality I would probably punch myself in the face every time I looked in the mirror.

Anyway, maybe you could enlighten us about what it's like to have an immature, petty, and trouble-making personality at the age of 27? Don't most people outgrow out that stuff by their mid-teens? Always exceptions to every rule, apparently...

[cardcounter0]

Hmmmmm.... more incorrect conjecture on your part.
Maybe you could pontificate on which part.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
cardcounter0, if I had your personality I would probably punch myself in the face every time I looked in the mirror.

Anyway, maybe you could enlighten us about what it's like to have an immature, petty, and trouble-making personality at the age of 27? Don't most people outgrow out that stuff by their mid-teens? Always exceptions to every rule, apparently...
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm.... more incorrect conjecture on your part.
Maybe you could pontificate on which part. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you don't punch yourself in the face whenever you look in the mirror...you punch the guy who's looking back at you, right?

[Dead]

Both of you stop it. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Thanks.

[Kaz The Original]

You guys have issues, that's cool, there's a dozen other threads to rehash them in. Not mine please!

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for the pro-legalizers.

I think some drugs are very bad for your body. Would society wind up paying more for the healthcare (through things like Medicare/Medicaid) for people who screw up their bodies on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

What drugs are we talking about here? Herione for example is not "bad" for your body. While herion users have shorter life spans on average this is due to their lifestyle, not the drug itself.

Drugs are not 'bad'. They, like everything else in life, have consequences, and like anything else can be misused, but I strongly suggest that everyone do a little reading on them. It is not so simple as "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs".

And no, marijuana use does not make you stupid. There was a great little moment in history where the U.S. Government came out with a scientific study which attempted to claim just that (that marijuana use was harmful and caused all sorts of negative stuff). It was ripped to shreds by the scientific community as a whole.

[ChoicestHops]

Legalization of all drugs would be a bad thing. For a general list, "all drugs" includes:

Marijuana
Cocaine
Heroin
Ecstasy
Meth
Hallucinogens (LSD, shrooms, 2-c family, salvia, peyote, and other)

Marijuana, first off, is a drug that should be legalized and controlled. I honestly don't see the debate with this. Physical addiction is very rare among users. In general, smoking a joint is a moderately safe thing to do.

Cocaine, heroin, and the other opiates would be a terrible drug to have legalized. Although some people can use in moderation, the physical and mental addiction they have is too overwhelming. I couldn't see anyone having a health insurance plan if you are a habitual or even recrerational user of one of these. It would simply cause way too many problems in society.

Meth should be an easy one. The street meth is incredibly dirty and dangerous to make. It's extremely bad for your health. No debate here.

Ecstasy is a toss up in my opinion. If it was regulated and controlled we would have pure MDMA and not other cuts in the product. Yet, im not so sure of the dangers of MDMA.

Hallucinogens should be legal in my opinion. If regulated there is very small chance for physical damage to a person unless they are already in a bad mental state. Someone who is bipolar or has prone anxiety should not be tripping. I can see this classification of drugs being purely recrerational, as there isn't a real physical addiction to them.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Ecstasy is a toss up in my opinion. If it was regulated and controlled we would have pure MDMA and not other cuts in the product. Yet, im not so sure of the dangers of MDMA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists injected 600x the maximum intoxication dose into monkeys during clinical trials. They couldn't find 1 dead brain cell due to MDMA. MDMA, when abused, can cause neuron disconnects, but the neurons reconnect (albeit not always in the same way). A 6 pack of beer is more dangerous IMO. (It's too bad I love the taste of Guiness)

MDMA also used to be legal and was even used for marriage counseling.

[Dead]

So you're saying that Ecstasy causes no long term brain damage and is actually safe to use?

-Dead(not a scientist)

[InchoateHand]

Yes. That's what he is saying. They tried, and tried, and tried and tried to prove some sort of severe danger associated with MDMA, but there simply isn't one. The worst thing about ecstacy is that tolerance is permanent--roll enough and you'll never roll again. Beer, however, always works.

[wacki]

When injected with 600x intoxication dose braincells will disconnect. They reconnect but they may or may not reconnect in the same way. When injected with 600x the intoxication dose, roll for an hour or two, and then injected with prozac, the only physiological damage that can be found is liver damage.

If you roll too much you run out of seratonin, which takes 2 weeks (sometimes more, sometimes less) for your brain to make. So if you roll hard for 3 days straight you won't be able to roll for a few weeks. Never ever do consecutive rolls because the nueron disconnection occurs when you run out of seratonin.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys have issues, that's cool, there's a dozen other threads to rehash them in. Not mine please!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the diversion, Kaz, but cardcounter0 attacked me out of the blue in this thread and in a petty manner. I tried to respond semi-humorously. If you look back you will see exactly what happened. So I won't say any more about it, but I think he, not I, should be castigated for the divergence.

It's really too much to expect that someone should accept needless personal attacks in a thread and not respond at all.

[wtfsvi]

You're pushing it now Kaz. Is heroin not bad for your body/brain? Have you ever seen a former heroin addict in the eyes? Heard a former heroin addicts voice? It's bad for you.

We can't make stuff illegal just because it's bad for people who choses to use it though.

[cardcounter0]

attacked you "out of the blue"?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[mmcd]

If all drugs were legal, the avenues for industrious young people to make a lot of money quickly would be greatly reduced. I support drugs, but I also support drug dealers.

[InchoateHand]

No, literally heroin is not bad for you. Obviously it "is," but medically it is very safe and causes no physical damage providing you do not die of an overdose (which is normally caused by combining it with other CNS depressents, chiefly alcohol). It does nothing to your brain, and as most junkies will attest, thats why they liked it---it removed all their cares in the world, but they could still think clearly if they wanted to.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
If all drugs were legal, the avenues for industrious young people to make a lot of money quickly would be greatly reduced. I support drugs, but I also support drug dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]
When I had a discussion about this topic with someone I knew who dealt drugs, I was surprised to find that he thought drugs should be illegal. His reasoning almost made sense: by keeping drugs illegal, their price is artificially inflated due to the black market. If they were legal, the guy would no longer get money from selling drugs, as everyone would go buy them from 7-11 or a grocery store.

Of course, he had to be deluded enough to think that he'd never get caught or that he wouldn't get involved in gangbanging and all its ills for this to work. I figured the negative utility of these two things outweighed the positive utility of making money, but I guess he did not.

As someone who doesn't deal drugs, I support full legalization of all drugs. That the government initiates force against people for possessing politically incorrect organic compounds is a moral outrage.

[ChoicestHops]

So Healthcare will pick up the tab when all the coke heads and opiate junkies lose their jobs and ruin their families?

Having all drugs legal is simply unrealistic. If it's legal, it doesn't have to be regulated. You want more junkies shooting up street drugs?

Some compaines won't hire you if you smoke cigarettes, I can assure you if you are a recrerational opiate user you'd never find a job except cleaning the 7/11 or busing some tables somewhere.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
So Healthcare will pick up the tab when all the coke heads and opiate junkies lose their jobs and ruin their families?

[/ QUOTE ]
So Healthcare will pick up the tab when all the alcohol addicts lose their jobs and ruin their families? (Hint: no, unless the addict, his family, or his friends want to pay for it somehow)

[ QUOTE ]
You want more junkies shooting up street drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, why not? With heroin on sale for $10 at CVS, they won't need to rob people to get their fix. Taking this kind of "oh my god, addicts exist, therefore ban the addictive substance" thinking to its logical conclusion means that you would support making alcohol illegal, no? The truth is that not everyone who tries heroin or coke becomes an addict, anyway. Just like not everyone who drinks a beer becomes Barney Gumble.

[ QUOTE ]
Some compaines won't hire you if you smoke cigarettes, I can assure you if you are a recrerational opiate user you'd never find a job except cleaning the 7/11 or busing some tables somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those companies are probably missing out on some good workers, but it's their prerogative to deny employment to someone if they believe they won't get the job done. Also, many companies offer rehab programs (or a pink slip) if an employee's alcoholism begins to affect his job performance. I don't see why the situation would be any different with opiate addiction.

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys have issues, that's cool, there's a dozen other threads to rehash them in. Not mine please!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the diversion, Kaz, but cardcounter0 attacked me out of the blue in this thread and in a petty manner. I tried to respond semi-humorously. If you look back you will see exactly what happened. So I won't say any more about it, but I think he, not I, should be castigated for the divergence.

It's really too much to expect that someone should accept needless personal attacks in a thread and not respond at all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, yeah, yeah, take it outside you two! : - )

[CORed]

I agree with you except for the part about being sold by a government agency. I would have them sold by licensed private companies (that would lose their license if they sold to minors or violated other regulations) similar to the way liquor is sold in much of the United States (some states have state government run liquor stores).

Also, IMO heroin is far from the worst drug. It is highly addictive, but the health effects of being addicted yo heroin are not nearly as bad as those of being addicted to methamphetamine, for example.

Reagarding methampetamine: If legal, methampetamine would be manufactured in factories with proper safety controls, instead of in houses, apartments and hotel rooms by drugged out idiots who should not be trusted with a book of matches, let alone hazardous chemicals.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some drugs are very bad for your body. Would society wind up paying more for the healthcare (through things like Medicare/Medicaid) for people who screw up their bodies on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way to know for sure without actually trying it, but I believe the answere is no. IMO, people who are not deterred from doing drugs by the negative natural consequences are not detered by negative legal consequences either. I believe that legalization would result in little or no increase in usage of dangerous drugs. I know I wouldn't be rushing out to buy methampetamine, cocaine or heroin if it were legalized tomorrow. I think we need to give adult citezens in a free country credit for being smart enough to make their own decisions. Drug laws are a classic example of the govenment attempting, and mostly failing, to protect people from themselves. In a free society, the role of the government should be to protect people from being directly harmed by others. Drug laws, laws against prostitution and sodomy, and mandatory seat belt laws, to cite a few examples, do not do this, and should be repealed

[ricochet420]

You've obviously never been to the desert on a horse with no name, have you? THink clearly that is effing awesome. On the contrary most use this beautiful(read horrible) drug so they don't have to think clearly. [ QUOTE ]
they could still think clearly if they wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

Fair enough, COred. Perhaps I should pose the question in present tense. Should society pay for the healthcare of those who wreck themseleves on drugs, alcohol, or tobacco?

And I'll ask again, since few answered it the last time. If we're going to legalize drugs, then why not legalize all firearms as well?

[wtfsvi]

You must understand the difference between drugs and firearms. Drugs do not directly harm other people than the people making the decition to buy and use it. Firearms do.

Your first argument is that people on drugs sometimes harm other people. (I take it you mean they do it more often than people off drugs.) That is true. That is also true about people who are not educated. Should we be making laws against not being educated? We clearly should not.

Your second argument is that most people with guns don't hurt anyone. While that is also true, the whole POINT of firearms is to hurt someone. The people who are not hurting anyone with them don't need them anyway. (I'm sure it's fun for them to shoot at targets or whatever, but cmon.)

[BCPVP]

This is an extremely ignorant arguement to present(at least within the context of the U.S.).

[ QUOTE ]
Your first argument is that people on drugs sometimes harm other people. (I take it you mean they do it more often than people off drugs.) That is true. That is also true about people who are not educated. Should we be making laws against not being educated? We clearly should not.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has little to do with firearms. (And technically, we do have something close to laws against not being educated, such as truancy laws, NCLB, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Your second argument is that most people with guns don't hurt anyone. While that is also true, the whole POINT of firearms is to hurt someone. The people who are not hurting anyone with them don't need them anyway. (I'm sure it's fun for them to shoot at targets or whatever, but cmon.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the really dangerous argument. At least in the U.S., the number of people who own guns is in the tens of millions, yet crime with guns doesn't even come within the same ballpark of that number. A book I suggest you read would be John Lott Jr's book More Guns, Less Crime (and possibly the follow up The Bias Against Guns). His first book was about the largest study of the issue of gun control that was (and to this day still is) conducted. In it, he cites statistics that show that defensive gun use occurs between 1 and 2.5 million times per year. He also shows how states that have adopted concealed carry laws have seen reductions in violent crimes such as aggravated assault, rape, and murder. And in 90% of the cases, merely brandishing a gun stops the crime before it even occurs.

So the whole point of owning a gun is NOT just to hurt someone else. I'm not even going to go into the economic benefits the gun and hunting industry produce. Suffice to say, guns have tremendously positive benefits that far outweigh the negative consequences of some of their use. And that's why it is hypocritical to be in favor of legalizing drugs but against legalizing all firearms. Both can be done safely and both can be abused, causing death.

[Kaz The Original]

Ironic that people can think in such a manner. "More guns equals less shootings". I don't care what statistics or "facts' you wave in front of my face, never will you convince me that more guns equals less shootings.

Regardless, if you want to talk about guns, make a thread about it. Drugs are not the same as guns, and my reasons for legalizing them have nothing to do with people's "right to get high" as some claim their is a "right to own a gun". The main reason we should legalize drugs is that it would HELP people. The fact that banning drugs is 'morally wrong' in the libertarian viewpoint is merely a positive plus, not something I care about.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely ignorant arguement to present(at least within the context of the U.S.).

....

...A book I suggest you read would be John Lott Jr's book More Guns, Less Crime (and possibly the follow up The Bias Against Guns). His first book was about the largest study of the issue of gun control that was (and to this day still is) conducted. In it, he cites statistics that show that defensive gun use occurs between 1 and 2.5 million times per year. He also shows how states that have adopted concealed carry laws have seen reductions in violent crimes such as aggravated assault, rape, and murder. And in 90% of the cases, merely brandishing a gun stops the crime before it even occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously when you simultaneously tell someone their argument is "ignorant" and mention hypocrisy and then RELY ON JOHN LOTT. John Lott? The John Lott who made up an entire survey (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html)? The "More Guns/Less Crime" that reaches its conclusions because of coding errors (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf)? The John Lott who, when confronted with the coding errors, changed his methodology (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html) to make the conclusions come out the "right" way? The John Lott that pretended to be Mary Rosh? (http://www.reason.com/0305/co.js.the.shtml) THAT John Lott?????

Oh, the humanity.

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely ignorant arguement to present(at least within the context of the U.S.).

....

...A book I suggest you read would be John Lott Jr's book More Guns, Less Crime (and possibly the follow up The Bias Against Guns). His first book was about the largest study of the issue of gun control that was (and to this day still is) conducted. In it, he cites statistics that show that defensive gun use occurs between 1 and 2.5 million times per year. He also shows how states that have adopted concealed carry laws have seen reductions in violent crimes such as aggravated assault, rape, and murder. And in 90% of the cases, merely brandishing a gun stops the crime before it even occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously when you simultaneously tell someone their argument is "ignorant" and mention hypocrisy and then RELY ON JOHN LOTT. John Lott? The John Lott who made up an entire survey (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html)? The "More Guns/Less Crime" that reaches its conclusions because of coding errors (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf)? The John Lott who, when confronted with the coding errors, changed his methodology (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html) to make the conclusions come out the "right" way? The John Lott that pretended to be Mary Rosh? (http://www.reason.com/0305/co.js.the.shtml) THAT John Lott?????

Oh, the humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow that's awesome. Talk about disreputable source! This Lott guy's a joke!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ironic that people can think in such a manner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing the level of ignorance about guns that exists in our society.

[ QUOTE ]
"More guns equals less shootings".

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this word change was an intentional, accidental, or just out of idiocy, but it just goes to further show the bias against guns. While shootings may (or may not) increase, crime decreases with more gun ownership. Many shootings are legal, don't forget.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what statistics or "facts' you wave in front of my face, never will you convince me that more guns equals less shootings.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a childish, ignorant thing to say! I don't know if anything I've read on this board tops this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, if you want to talk about guns, make a thread about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm offering a comparison between guns and drugs and suggesting that being in favor of the legalization of one and not the other is hypocritical. The question was very relevant and I only digressed to correct some misconceptions about guns.

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason we should legalize drugs is that it would HELP people.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be my main reason that we should legalize firearms. Guns legally help millions of people every year.

[Dead]

Give me some examples of legal shootings that occur a lot in our society.

[natedogg]

I know a woman who used cocaine throughout three pregnancies and her children have cognitive and speech disabilities that are most certainly related to her drug use, and it is truly a shame.

The argument for prohibition implied by this anecdote can be rephrased thusly:

"Some people will choose poorly with regard to [fill in the blank], therefore no one should be allowed to make a choice regarding the subject"


natedogg

[InchoateHand]

You are so wrong, and nice "slang" from thirty years ago moron. I went to work, I went to school for a long time on a fuckload of that [censored], and what bit me in the ass was money. Problem is that [censored] costs money. I've spilt more dope than you've seen, so shutthefuckup.

[BCPVP]

Didn't see this one.
This would be the John Lott who not one but three Nobel Prize winners in Economics applauded on the back of The Bias Against Guns.

I read a couple of your links, but I'm unimpressed. Far too much of the first link deals with where the number 98% came from. A little bit had to do with whether the study took place or not, but the author is speculating when he says it didn't.

Nonetheless, this doesn't have anything to do with my point that you'd be a hypocrite to say that drugs should be legalized and guns shouldn't. I'd be willing to argue the links you provided in another thread so as not to clutter this one up.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
So Healthcare will pick up the tab when all the coke heads and opiate junkies lose their jobs and ruin their families?

Having all drugs legal is simply unrealistic. If it's legal, it doesn't have to be regulated. You want more junkies shooting up street drugs?

Some compaines won't hire you if you smoke cigarettes, I can assure you if you are a recrerational opiate user you'd never find a job except cleaning the 7/11 or busing some tables somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a while since I've seen a voice of support for drug prohibition as incoherent and ill-founded as this one.

natedogg

[Kaz The Original]

I know a cokehead thats a retired cop and a crack head that works at the sport desk for the towns newspaper.

[microbet]

Drugs should clearly be illegal.


signed,

California Correctional Peace Officers Association

[microbet]

That cokehead broad was just the exception that proves the rule.

Most peoples is law abiding citizens and don't have crack babies because it's illegal.

signed,

The Mafia, the bloods, the crips and Al Qaeda.

[microbet]

People already have an incredible amount of freedom in our country. They don't need the freedom to use dangerous and addictive drugs.

Signed,

Anheiser Busch and Phillip Morris

[microbet]

Why are some drugs legal?

Alchohol - More than 50% of eligible voters want to be able to drink

Tobacco - A legacy drug, it used to be true that more than 50% of eligible voters wanted to be able to smoke

Pot, LSD, cocaine etc - less than 50% of eligible voters want to use them.

People don't care about other people's freedom.

[ChoicestHops]

Way to speak your mind, dog.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, why not? With heroin on sale for $10 at CVS, they won't need to rob people to get their fix. Taking this kind of "oh my god, addicts exist, therefore ban the addictive substance" thinking to its logical conclusion means that you would support making alcohol illegal, no? The truth is that not everyone who tries heroin or coke becomes an addict, anyway. Just like not everyone who drinks a beer becomes Barney Gumble.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a terrible analogy. You're comparing alcohol addiction to an opiate addiction. It can take time before people can become addicted to alcohol. Opiate and cocaine addictions can happen very quickly. The only major difference is people can die from alcohol withdrawal, while opiate users can not die from a withdrawal alone.

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
the economic benefits the gun and hunting industry produce

[/ QUOTE ]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
concealed carry laws

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we were talking about assult waeapons? Let me see you carry a concealed assult rifle /images/graemlins/grin.gif Hunt with them often? I don't suppose so. They're purpose is to hurt people, not something you draw from your pocket when a scary rapist appear /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Still, I don't like the idea of handguns being so easilly obtainable either. If some guy takes out a knife and threatens me to give away my wallet or whatever, and I take out my gun instead and shoot him dead; I've carried out the purpose of guns. To hurt other people.

Oh, and that about me being stupid in an american context. Care to elaborate? I'm not an American, but I presume your statistics too shows that people are more likely to be criminals the less education they have?

[Dead]

Hurting people is sometimes necessary. If I had a gun on me, and someone demanded my wallet, maybe I would try to shoot them in the knee or something so they wouldn't die. But that's not always possible. Once someone puts you in a situation like that you have the right to defend yourself and your property. Doing nothing is often more dangerous than pulling the gun.

And I support gun rights. Just as an example, disabled people and women can benefit from guns. They can be valuable tools for protection.

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
the right to defend yourself and your property

[/ QUOTE ]

Guns are an acceptable mean to protect yourself? Maby. To protect your property? Never. And I suspect the latter is the case far more often than the former.

This is getting way out of topic though.

[Dead]

That's your opinion

I imagine that the laws in Norway are somewhat different, considering that it is more of a collectivist country.

But here in the US, in many states, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself and your property.

I think your first statement is ridiculous. Maybe it is acceptable to use a gun to defend yourself? Of course it is. If someone is threatening your life then you have the moral(as well as legal, at least in the US) right to use deadly force on them.

[wtfsvi]

You have the legal right to defend yourself with any means necessary if your life is threatend in Norway too. What I'm questioning is your moral right. Anyway, both stands are fully acceptable in my opinion. (Both that it's fine to kill in self defence, and that it's not fine.)

It's killing to defend your property I think is awful. I believe Rousseau once said something like: "The first guy who found a hill and claimed he owned it, and found people simple enough to believe this statement, invented private property." That's kinda funny I think, even though I'm sure I misquoted it.

Anyway, now we're (I am) way way off topic.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Some compaines won't hire you if you smoke cigarettes, I can assure you if you are a recrerational opiate user you'd never find a job except cleaning the 7/11 or busing some tables somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a good reason not to use opiates even if they are legal. There are lots of good reasons not to use many of the more dangerous drugs. People who are not detered by these reasons are not deterred by criminal penalties either. The ridiculous assumption made by most supprters of the status quo is that there will be a massive increase in drug use if drugs are legalized. They seem to assume that the only reason vast majority of the population isn't mainlining methamphetamine is that it's illegal.

The basic problem is, some fuzzy thinker says, "The world would be a better place if xxxx didn't exist. I know, let's make xxxx illegal, that's the same as making it non-existant." Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. Most people make reasonably intelligent decisions. Some don't. Those who don't make intelligent decisions usually don't care if whatever foolish thing they choose to do is illegal. Making drugs illegal doesn't solve the problems it is intended to solve, and creates a host of new problems: Drugs get more expensive, so addicts resort to crime to buy drugs, instead of panhandling. The criminal element gains a new source of revenue. Law enforcement resources are diverted away from violent crimes and property crimes to trying to enforce fundamentally unenforceable laws.

[BCPVP]

wtfsvi, not every state allows you to use lethal force to defend your property. My state doesn't. If someone is running off with your TV, you can't shoot him. If he was in your house and presented a threat that didn't leave, then you may be able to justify shooting him.

Obviously you have different opinions about guns (much of which seem wrong). Take "assault" weapons, for instance. After the 1994 ban on certain "assault" weapons, we can see that the law did little to affect the rate at which such weapons were used in crimes. The original number was incredibly low (under 3% I believe). If you think about it, what does a criminal care about laws anyways? The vast majority of them don't get their guns from the local gun store or gun show. They obtain them illegaly (usually via relatives, gangs, black market etc). So all a law that outlaws those types of weapons does is take these weapons away from law-abiding citizens, who may have used them for defense or for fun. This is comparable to the topic of the thread that people do drugs whether there's a law or not, and because most of those using drugs don't hurt people, we shouldn't be banning it.

And Dead, I like that you're in favor of self-defense (because I've met libs who aren't /images/graemlins/shocked.gif), but if you are going to use lethal force in a situtation, I suggest you make sure you try to be lethal. Kinda like the police ideology: shoot to kill. If you shoot the guy mugging you in the knee, he falls down, you start to run, he pulls his gun and shoots you. You don't know how well-armed a criminal is, so it's best not to risk any more danger.