Legalise all drugs

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
edit: I do know a couple alcoholics who don't work however. Nasty drug.

Not on Mondays anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Nonsense, damn near everyone uses something that causes them harm. Its called life... You drink alot of coffee? Are you an addict in "need" of our help? We'll let a rapist out early to make room for your addiction.

Yea, drinking coffee and taking meth is the same thing.

These drugs aren't harmful, people harm themselves. And if you're gonna accuse millions of people of harming others, back it up with proof and not GUILT BY ASSOCIATION... or some ******* stereotype you got rattling around between your ears.

They harm themselves when they take the drug. Every person who takes heroine puts themselves at risk.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MikeH
You want LSD or magic mushrooms. Both are cheap.

You can't get continuing effects from those drugs like you can other drugs. You have to wait a few weeks at least. That's why they are cheap.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
These drugs aren't harmful, people harm themselves. And if you're gonna accuse millions of people of harming others, back it up with proof and not GUILT BY ASSOCIATION... or some ******* stereotype you got rattling around between your ears.

Just wondering... do you think we should get rid of DUI laws as they are "guilt by association"?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MikeH


I think like someone who was formerly a regular casual drug user, which the vast majority of drug users are.

The kind of people you are describing need serious help, if someone's that ****ed up I'd rather use my tax money to prescribe them free crack or offer them treatment than have them buy black market crack which they end up funding with street crime, burglary and prostitution.

Would people start taking crack because it wasn't illegal? I tried lots of stuff that was illegal but I'd never try crack.

People who smoke crack are so messed up that they don't even care about the legality of it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by MikeH
Why would you make them freely available? You'd give them at least the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco, if not more.

Alcohol and tobacco are only restricted by age. There's no restriction on what amount any one adult can purchase at any one time. That's certainly what I'd call freely available.

Originally posted by MikeH
Why would you make them cheap? We tax alcohol and tobacco highly to make the price unnattractive?

I didn't say cheap, I said less expensive. The vast majority of any illegal drug's cost is caused by the difficulty and risk of illicit production and distribution efforts.

Suppose that a teener of meth costs $200 now, but would only cost $20 if large-scale industrial production and commercial distribution were allowed. Are you suggesting that it be taxed at a rate of 1000% so that the post-legalization price matches the pre-legalization black market price? The alcohol and tobacco excise taxes to which people keep analogizing are only in the ballpark of 10% and 30% respectively.

Even if we were to impose such draconian taxes so as to prevent any drop in prices, that doesn't change the simple undeniable fact that many (obviously not all, and possibly not most, but certainly many) people either A) refrain from drug use or B) at least limit their usage for the sole reason that it has criminal penalties. With this barrier removed, the number of users and abusers would necessarily increase. I can't imagine how anyone could delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

Originally posted by MikeH
Those drugs are already freely available on street corners, isn't having them sold through pharmacies (or the equivalent of off-licences) where the quality and percentages of the drug and any cutting agents can be monitored and the age of purchasers can be checked a much better idea?

No argument here; I already said I do support total legalization and only added the condition that the more numerous addicts be held responsible for their choice and not be allowed to abuse the social safety net to support a habit.

Originally posted by MikeH
Opium used to be legal here, it didn't cause society to collapse.

It's silly to make a direct analogy between one raw drug in the repressed culture of the Victorian Era to a veritable smorgasbord of extensively refined drugs in a popular culture that glorifies drug lifestyles. Not to mention that in this day and age there is arguably a higher degree of anomie conducive to drug abuse.

[Berzerker]

Yea, drinking coffee and taking meth is the same thing.

They are the same thing according to your definition of "addiction". Are you now revising your definition?

They harm themselves when they take the drug. Every person who takes heroine puts themselves at risk.

You said everyone who uses these drugs harm others, back it up or retract the slander. Drinking alot of coffee aint good for the body either, does that make you an addict? Are you harming others? You're trying to equate moderate or rare use of a drug with the long term effects of addiction.

People who smoke crack are so messed up that they don't even care about the legality of it.

Wouldn't that be true of everyone using a prohibited substance? I tried it a few times, didn't seem any different than freebasing cocaine and I stopped. This is your brain on government drug propaganda.

Just wondering... do you think we should get rid of DUI laws as they are "guilt by association"?

DUI laws are not guilt by association, if you're DUI you are violating the contract by which you obtained permission to drive on a public road. I support laws against drunk driving - visible inability to control a vehicle accompanied by confirmation of booze. You're confusing public property with personal privacy, we dont need "permission" to our own bodies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
They are the same thing according to your definition of "addiction". Are you now revising your definition?

I see no reason to revise my definition, just because you can't be reasonable.

You said everyone who uses these drugs harm others, back it up or retract the slander. Drinking alot of coffee aint good for the body either, does that make you an addict? Are you harming others? You're trying to equate moderate or rare use of a drug with the long term effects of addiction.

Drug addicts hurt those who love them (family and friends). Coffee doesn't affect a person like that. If someone is a drug addict they are going to harm themselves with something much stronger than coffee.

You're trying to equate moderate or rare use of a drug with the long term effects of addiction.

No. Drug addiction is progressive. You are making it out to be black and white. You don't cross a line and become a drug addict. You are a drug addict before you start taking drugs. That's what I'm trying to communicate to you. That doesn't mean that people who drink coffee and smoke cigerettes are drug addicts. That's something else.

Wouldn't that be true of everyone using a prohibited substance?

There's some truth to that. Why do people break the law to get high? That's a problem that they create for themselves that is related to their need to get high.

I tried it a few times, didn't seem any different than freebasing cocaine and I stopped. This is your brain on government drug propaganda.

You believe that crack is harmless?

Do you believe that drugs have altered your thinking at all?

[Berzerker]

I see no reason to revise my definition, just because you can't be reasonable.

Then you've just described the vast majority of people as addicts... Reasonable enough?

Drug addicts hurt those who love them (family and friends). Coffee doesn't affect a person like that. If someone is a drug addict they are going to harm themselves with something much stronger than coffee.

You said everyone who uses these drugs harms others, now you're talking about addicts and hurt feelings? Back up your slander or retract it, but dont keep trying to weasel out of what you said. If parents dont want their kids to be gay, does that mean gays harm others? Or maybe Momma wants a doctor in the family but you want to do something she doesn't like, are you harming her? Using sloppy definitions that backfire on your arguments

No. Drug addiction is progressive. You are making it out to be black and white. You don't cross a line and become a drug addict. You are a drug addict before you start taking drugs. That's what I'm trying to communicate to you. That doesn't mean that people who drink coffee and smoke cigerettes are drug addicts. That's something else.

Yup, its called hypocrisy. And where did I say any of that?

"You are a drug addict before you start taking drugs".

Sig material for sure...

There's some truth to that. Why do people break the law to get high? That's a problem that they create for themselves that is related to their need to get high.

Or just a rejection of an immoral law... Why do people engage in civil disobedience? Do you ever exceed the speed limits? People evaluate the risk, the penalties, and proceed from there. And it aint about need, its about enjoying life. Stay the **** out of other people's lives. You cant even see your arrogance and hypocrisy, you want the government to harm millions of people because some people harm others. Then to "justify" it, you accuse your victims of harming others but dont have any proof, so you point to "addicts" and use guilt by association.

You believe that crack is harmless?

You keep leaving people out of the equation, I used it several times and it didn't do anything to or for me, so I didn't harm myself.

Do you believe that drugs have altered your thinking at all?

Of course, had I never used drugs your BS might sound convincing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You said everyone who uses these drugs harms others, now you're talking about addicts and hurt feelings? Back up your slander or retract it, but dont keep trying to weasel out of what you said. If parents dont want their kids to be gay, does that mean gays harm others? Or maybe Momma wants a doctor in the family but you want to do something she doesn't like, are you harming her? Using sloppy definitions that backfire on your arguments

I really don't care if you don't like my definition. I won't define drug addiction to satisfy the debate. I will define it as it should be. Being gay and abusing drugs are two different things. Purposefully harming yourself is obviously harmfull to your relationships. It means you don't care about your relationships. If someone is hurt by you being gay they will either get over it or that just says something about them and not you.

Or just a rejection of an immoral law... Why do people engage in civil disobedience? Do you ever exceed the speed limits? People evaluate the risk, the penalties, and proceed from there. And it aint about need, its about enjoying life.

You can't enjoy life without taking drugs? If you liked living so much you wouldn't do drugs. What a bunch of crap you are shoveling. People who abuse drugs don't love life. They love getting high, because it is an escape from life.

Stay the **** out of other people's lives. You cant even see your arrogance and hypocrisy, you want the government to harm millions of people because some people harm others. Then to "justify" it, you accuse your victims of harming others but dont have any proof, so you point to "addicts" and use guilt by association.

You can't seperate government and society like that. I don't want the government to harm people. That's why I don't want them to legalize drugs. I don't believe in "getting out of people's lives." I believe in making society better so that people are happier. That doesn't make me a control freak or authoritarian. You just think that because you are incredibly unreasonable about this subject.

You keep leaving people out of the equation, I used it several times and it didn't do anything to or for me, so I didn't harm myself.

Of course I am not leaving people out of the equation. I've explained this already. There are drug addicts and there are drugs. The two do not mix. Drug addicts can not use drugs without causing harm. Therefore drugs are harmfull.

Of course, had I never used drugs your BS might sound convincing.

I can't disagree with that, except the BS part.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
DUI laws are not guilt by association, if you're DUI you are violating the contract by which you obtained permission to drive on a public road.

That is inane. In essense all you are saying here is you support DUI laws because driving under the influence is against the law.

Using the same logic you use here, by using illicit drugs you are violating the contract of citizenship. That being, that you will follow the laws of the land. Thus they should be illegal.

You're confusing public property with personal privacy, we dont need "permission" to our own bodies.

I'm not confusing anything. Except perhaps confusing you.

DUI laws are based on guilt by association. The act of driving under the influence has been shown to increase the danger you pose to others, and so even if you have not actually harmed anyone, the law takes pre-emptive action based on that association of your behavior with harming others.

[Berzerker]

Kid

I really don't care if you don't like my definition. I won't define drug addiction to satisfy the debate. I will define it as it should be. Being gay and abusing drugs are two different things. Purposefully harming yourself is obviously harmfull to your relationships. It means you don't care about your relationships. If someone is hurt by you being gay they will either get over it or that just says something about them and not you.

But according to your definition of addiction, most people are addicted...including you. And now you're attaching caveats to "harm", you said people who use drugs harm others because addicts have loved ones with hurt feelings. That means you are equating "harm" with "hurt feelings" and people who use drugs with addicts. And that means any time anyone hurts the feelings of someone else, they have harmed them regardless of why or whether or not they could have avoided harming them. You want to make it a crime to hurt someone's feelings... Another Kidefinition blows up...

You can't enjoy life without taking drugs? If you liked living so much you wouldn't do drugs. What a bunch of crap you are shoveling. People who abuse drugs don't love life. They love getting high, because it is an escape from life.

Its just one of many things I and others find enjoyable. You can spin that anyway you want but you're still full of sh!t. I like watching the NFL, does that make me an addict trying to escape reality? You cant even figure out you're insulting millions of people. Now you're reading the minds of people you never met. The sad part is you actually get to make decisions about how everyone else lives their lives thru crooked politicians.

You can't seperate government and society like that. I don't want the government to harm people. That's why I don't want them to legalize drugs.

Putting people in cages with violent criminals isn't harming them? You putz, you dont want government to harm people, you just want government to abduct millions of people and put them in cages because you've decided they harmed others. Tell me Kid, does it hurt the feelings of their loved ones when you cart them off to jail? What does that make you? Someone who harms others? A hypocrite? Oh yeah, to pay for all this we the taxpayers are threatened with real harm.

I don't believe in "getting out of people's lives."

Obviously, you're quite the little busybody. That doesn't exactly make you consistent when government is in your face and you dont like it.

I believe in making society better so that people are happier.

Based on your definition of happiness.

That doesn't make me a control freak or authoritarian.

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

You want to make our decisions for us, but that aint a control freak?

You just think that because you are incredibly unreasonable about this subject.

Yes, it is unreasonable to oppose your dirty immoral drug war.

Of course I am not leaving people out of the equation.

Of course you are, you keep blaming the drugs and ignoring the people who take the drugs. And once people use a drug, they automatically become "addicts" and therefore guilty of "harming" others. You can explain how it harms someone who doesn't even know you're using a drug. No you cant...

There are drug addicts and there are drugs. The two do not mix. Drug addicts can not use drugs without causing harm. Therefore drugs are harmfull.

And according to you, everyone who uses a drug you dont like is an addict. You slander people you've never met based on your experience with a drug addict. You're no different than the racist who hates people they never met because one of "those people" did something bad to them.

Aeson

That is inane. In essense all you are saying here is you support DUI laws because driving under the influence is against the law.

I dont support DUI laws, I support drunk driving laws. Drunk drivers have displayed the inability to control their vehicle. That wont save your ridiculous analogy... Try telling people they cant drink beer at home because somebody drove under the influence. They'll quickly point out the idiocy of comparing driving on public roads with private behavior on private property.

Using the same logic you use here, by using illicit drugs you are violating the contract of citizenship. That being, that you will follow the laws of the land. Thus they should be illegal.

You're equating public property with private property... There is no "citizenship contract" that says you get to decide what I put in my body. Show me where I signed such an absurdity... I can show you my signature on my drivers' license.

I'm not confusing anything. Except perhaps confusing you.

Sure you are, you just equated permission to drive on a public road with our freedom to decide what if anything we put in our bodies. That turns people into property of the state based on public ownership of roads.

DUI laws are based on guilt by association. The act of driving under the influence has been shown to increase the danger you pose to others, and so even if you have not actually harmed anyone, the law takes pre-emptive action based on that association of your behavior with harming others.

Which is not analogous to what you do in the privacy of your home. I usually equate DUI with drunk driving to save time with people who dont know the difference. If your analogy wasn't screwed up, you wouldn't have needed to invent a "citizenship contract" to hand our freedom over to the state. So here is your argument (Kid aint got nothing on you)

1) You support punishing people who drive safely because of people who dont drive safely

2) You support punishing people for what they do in their homes because some people dont drive safely

3) You support government ownership of all property and people - we need permission for everything because some people dont drive safely. Yeah, guilt by association is brilliant!!!

[MikeH]

In response to everyone who responded to me:

I never said drugs couldn't be very bad for you, but prohibition is clearly failing on a massive scale and turning massive sections of the community into criminals. Drugs being illegal doesn't stop people getting them, they are freely available in every town and city in the US and UK already.

Since prohibition doesn't stop people getting drugs, but takes huge resources to police let's just make it legal but regulated, how could it possibly make the problem worse?

And all those responsible recreational drug users who manage their lives perfectly happily will be decriminalised.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But according to your definition of addiction, most people are addicted...including you.

One, there is a difference between addicted and addict. And addict may not be addicted at the time. They still have a problem with drugs, because they want to deal with problems by taking drugs.

Two, yes I include myself. I've abuse drugs. I don't anymore. I don't even smoke pot anymore, mainly because I am a father, and it didn't mix well with being a father. But then it never really helped me with my other relationships either, so I probably should never have smoked it.

My problem is that I married a drug addict. When my marriage got worse and my wifes addiction progressed I had to ask myself why I would marry such a person. That caused me to research drug addiction and has brought me to my current POV.

And now you're attaching caveats to "harm", you said people who use drugs harm others because addicts have loved ones with hurt feelings. That means you are equating "harm" with "hurt feelings" and people who use drugs with addicts. And that means any time anyone hurts the feelings of someone else, they have harmed them regardless of why or whether or not they could have avoided harming them. You want to make it a crime to hurt someone's feelings... Another Kidefinition blows up...

I'm not just talking about hurt feelings. I'm talking about relationships. Do you even realize how important relationships are?

Its just one of many things I and others find enjoyable. You can spin that anyway you want but you're still full of sh!t. I like watching the NFL, does that make me an addict trying to escape reality? You cant even figure out you're insulting millions of people. Now you're reading the minds of people you never met. The sad part is you actually get to make decisions about how everyone else lives their lives thru crooked politicians.

You're the one who is spinning it.

Putting people in cages with violent criminals isn't harming them? You putz, you dont want government to harm people, you just want government to abduct millions of people and put them in cages because you've decided they harmed others. Tell me Kid, does it hurt the feelings of their loved ones when you cart them off to jail? What does that make you? Someone who harms others? A hypocrite? Oh yeah, to pay for all this we the taxpayers are threatened with real harm.

A lot of family members are relieved when their loved ones are put in jail. It means they can't do drugs in there. When an addict is thrown in jail it's a change for them to change their life. If they are thrown it for many years well hell, that person did it to themselves. That's what happens when your addiction progresses to that point. You don't care about anything but getting high anymore, and you do stupid things.

Obviously, you're quite the little busybody. That doesn't exactly make you consistent when government is in your face and you dont like it.

I never take your libertarian pov when govt does something I don't like. I just simply say the govt is wrong.

Based on your definition of happiness.

Based on a reasonable persons definition of hapiness (not habitual drug users and libertarians).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sure you are, you just equated permission to drive on a public road with our freedom to decide what if anything we put in our bodies. That turns people into property of the state based on public ownership of roads.

While you want to make a distinction between public property and private property, it doesn't exist in regards to the law, unless the law makes that distinction.

Which is not analogous to what you do in the privacy of your home.

It is analogous to the point we are discussing, which is if laws that are based on "guilt by association" can be valid.

"Guilt by association" != "privacy of your home"

I usually equate DUI with drunk driving to save time with people who dont know the difference.

I'm sure you're just doing us all a favor by misusing terms. Thanks!

If your analogy wasn't screwed up, you wouldn't have needed to invent a "citizenship contract" to hand our freedom over to the state.

I gave an analogy to the contract you invented. If you think it's screwed up, I agree. Because your original statement was screwed up. What your "contract" is, is simply a law that we must abide by or face the consequences. That is also what drug laws are.

Laws. With penalties if you break them. If you disagree with the laws, change them... but you can't just pretend they aren't the laws.

1) You support punishing people who drive safely because of people who dont drive safely

Nope. 0/1

2) You support punishing people for what they do in their homes because some people dont drive safely

Nope. 0/2

3) You support government ownership of all property and people - we need permission for everything because some people dont drive safely. Yeah, guilt by association is brilliant!!!

Nope. 0/3

And it's 0/4 becuase you were wrong to even suppose I had given my position. I have not supported "guilt by association" or opposed it. I asked you if you supported another form of "guilt by association" that our society has determined is just and made into law. I implied, then outright stated that DUI laws are based on "guilt by association"... associating the act of DUI with the increased danger you pose to others. I did this to illustrate the problem with opposing a law simply because it is based on "guilt by association".

I support democratic government that allow society to come to compromises and enact laws to help safeguard our freedoms. I don't agree with every law that results in, but that is to be expected. No one will get their exact set of prefered laws in such a system, which is the whole point. (Otherwise you have a dictator and everyone else...)