decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Ramo]

It doesn't serve to reduce drug overdoes very much, if at all, and it eliminates the aforementioned benefits that legalization would bring. What's the point? It's revenge. That's irrational.

[Kidlicious]

Most people do not want to have drugs sold in stores. That bothers them, just like they wouldn't want murderers to go scott free, even if it meant that the murder rate would only go up a little bit. Do you see the value in that - having these things illegal?

[Ramo]

No, I don't. I consider revenge immoral. Incarceration of drug dealers would cause a decrease in human liberty in a great number of respects, without an appreciable gain in others. That makes it wrong IMO.

[Kidlicious]

This might be redundant, but do you not get the slightest bit of relief when a person is convicted of murder who you know is guilty? Isn't there a part of you that is glad for his consequences just because you feel that he deserves them?

[Ramo]

Sometimes. You know, I've had rape fantasies before. Just because I have certain feelings at times, doesn't mean that those feelings are moral, or that I should act on them.

Every loss in freedom, in life is wrong. That sort of thing shouldn't happen for petty reasons.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

drug use might not decrease if its legalised, but murders, and organized crime will decrease significantly, and to be able to go outside without getting caught in a drive by or a crossfire is good enough, for the innocneet, and for the jails, where we can now lock up real criminals, instead of letting rapists go after 3 years to make room for a marijuana user like what happened in minnesota or one of those states in the midwest.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Say we legalized drugs. Save for you crackheads, we all know that the result would be more drug addicion - more crackheads who don't feed their children - more people who don't show up for work, get fired and become homeless - more people stoned out of their mind 24/7, etc. How can that not be immoral?

You seem to be confusing two sets of consequences. If drugs are legalised, they will be a lot cheaper - like cigarettes and alcohol now. There may be more people using the stuff - but its not going to break the bank.

As for not showing up to work, neglecting children, etc., you already have the same problem with tobacco and alcohol, yet nobody is (except some insane fundies I reckon) pushing to outlaw them. We all know keeping the stuff legal and regulated is the best way to control these substances.

Originally posted by Kidicious
You want to do it for your freedom. So you want something for it. You want others to suffer for what you call freedom. How can that not be immoral?

On the contrary, Kid. Shiploads of money have been spent on this "War on Drugs" with very little effect. If drugs are legalised, not only this money could be used elsewhere, say, education, but a lot of other drug-related problems can be solved with no effort at all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Most people do not want to have drugs sold in stores. That bothers them

Again, what's the difference between these drugs and tobacco and alcohol? None.

Remember, nicotine is hellishly addictive, more so than cocaine and heroin.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the question to ask is "has alcohol legalisation led to drunks 24/7?"

if the answer is yes, then we should prohibit drugs

if the answer is no, then we should legalize it.

[Berzerker]

Kid

In fact I think there are some beers in the fridge

Are you guilty of immorality for "contributing" to the harm to society "caused" by booze?

Let me ask you this. If murder only increased a little bit when you legalized it would you support legalization of that?

Of course not, murder violates the life and liberty of a victim. Your "analogy" requires us to equate drug use with murder and that dog wont hunt. If I use pot or if you sell me a bag of pot, neither of us have violated the life or liberty of anyone else. Punishing us violates our liberty though, so ironically you as the punisher would have more in common with the murderer than you would selling me a bag of pot.

Btw, you still haven't explained how you are harming society by selling or giving me a bag of pot.

If your kid overdoses on drugs you deserve some justice.

If your kid dies because of booze, should ALL alcohol dealers be punished regardless of whether or not they sold your kid drugs? You're still using a generalisation to punish the innocent because of the guilty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Sometimes. You know, I've had rape fantasies before. Just because I have certain feelings at times, doesn't mean that those feelings are moral, or that I should act on them.

Every loss in freedom, in life is wrong. That sort of thing shouldn't happen for petty reasons.

Maybe you can explain to me why your sense of morality only comes from your rational brain, and not your gut feeling. Actually, you say here that you get a gut feeling, don't you? But you don't let it affect you decision making.

I need to think about why I allow my gut feelings to make moral decisions for me.

UR

On the contrary, Kid. Shiploads of money have been spent on this "War on Drugs" with very little effect. If drugs are legalised, not only this money could be used elsewhere, say, education, but a lot of other drug-related problems can be solved with no effort at all.

A lot of money is wasted too. The resources are well spent fighting drugs.

Again, what's the difference between these drugs and tobacco and alcohol? None.

Remember, nicotine is hellishly addictive, more so than cocaine and heroin.

I think alcohol is a very harmfull drug, but not as bad as heroine or crack or whatever new drug they can come up with.

Berzerker

Are you guilty of immorality for "contributing" to the harm to society "caused" by booze?

Partially responsible. I like to drink. I get a benefit from it, because I'm not an alcoholic.

Of course not, murder violates the life and liberty of a victim. Your "analogy" requires us to equate drug use with murder and that dog wont hunt. If I use pot or if you sell me a bag of pot, neither of us have violated the life or liberty of anyone else. Punishing us violates our liberty though, so ironically you as the punisher would have more in common with the murderer than you would selling me a bag of pot.

Btw, you still haven't explained how you are harming society by selling or giving me a bag of pot.

The thing about your idea of freedom is you have a tendency to limit responsibility to those who actually pull the trigger so to speak. People who do immoral things depend on others to do them. Drug dealers depend on users to do what they do. That makes the users partially responsible. You have a duty to society to do what you can within reason. I think refraining from drugs is within reason.

If your kid dies because of booze, should ALL alcohol dealers be punished regardless of whether or not they sold your kid drugs? You're still using a generalisation to punish the innocent because of the guilty.

Again with the 'punish.' I guess you can't help it. Stopping someone from doing something immoral is not punishment. It does'nt matter who the kid bought the alcohol from, all the dealers are guilty.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
A lot of money is wasted too. The resources are well spent fighting drugs.

No they aren't.

All this "War" has achieved were to create problems where none had existed before, problems such as drug gangs. The only effect of the Prohibition was making the Mafia a powerful force. This other prohibition is making drug gangs a powerful force. Meanwhile, all these resources that can be diverted to other things such as education and drug prevention go down the tubes.

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think alcohol is a very harmfull drug, but not as bad as heroine or crack or whatever new drug they can come up with.

I am not sure about that. Alcohol has a lot of negative effects, only a bit less bad than tobacco.

[Ramo]

Maybe you can explain to me why your sense of morality only comes from your rational brain, and not your gut feeling. Actually, you say here that you get a gut feeling, don't you? But you don't let it affect you decision making.

I need to think about why I allow my gut feelings to make moral decisions for me.

Who said my morality is purely rational? That's not possible, since you need an irrational basis from which to construct a moral system.

I have competing feelings. We all do. There's a part of me that wants revenge, and there's also a part of me that can't stand the suffering of others. I believe that the part of me that feels diminished by that suffering, by the loss of generalized freedom, is the stronger feeling. In other situations (a child is starving, or a person is executed for sedition, etc., etc.), that feeling is even more dominant. Analyzing those sentiments together, I arrive at the conclusion that the loss of generalized freedom is immoral. And thus, the pure revenge of incarcerating drug dealers is immoral.

[Kidlicious]

But you don't cry over the loss of freedom for the murderer. You have a satisfied feeling for his incarceration - not just because he will not be able to commit the crime again, but you have a feeling of satisfaction due to the fact that he did something unspeakable and now he will pay for it. I'm confused about what you mean by generalized freedom.

[Ramo]

Generalized freedom is a term I use as not to confuse it with Randian/Libertarian freedom.

Part of me gets some satisfaction with his incarceration. But part of me is sad about the loss of his freedom, for the rest of his life. As I said, the latter is generally a stronger sentiment. I ethically justify his incarceration because I think it would lead to fewer people getting killed.