Legalise all drugs

[asleepathewheel]

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.

I can't imagine someone giving 5$ blowjobs on the streets in order to sustain their coffee habit, were it to be outlawed.



Not that I want to imagine any kind of 5$ blowjob, of course....

[Wezil]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I can't imagine someone giving 5$ blowjobs on the streets in order to sustain their coffee habit, were it to be outlawed.

You haven't seen me before my morning coffee.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Wezil


You haven't seen me before my morning coffee.

No, which street do you ply your wares on?

[Kidlicious]

[Darius871]

Originally posted by 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.

I shouldn't have to answer the same points twice...

Originally posted by 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]

Kid

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.

Umm...then the problem aint with drugs but with the problems they're dealing with. Many people in physical and/or emotional pain often take drugs to ease that pain (what a shock). You call that "harm" and then want to put them in cages with violent criminals. Thats insane, Kid... And every step of the way YOU are making their decisions.

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.

But you do abuse drugs, you said you drink plenty of coffee. And since you've equated drug use with drug abuse with addiction, you're still an addict.

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.

Meaning millions have to be punished because you regret marrying someone. Given your statements in this thread, I'd say your "research" was limited to commercials from the Partnership for a drug free America.

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

So, its a crime for friends to stop being friends? Oh why not, escaping reality is a crime too in your mind.

You're the one who is spinning it.

Oh BS, you've done little but make convenient assumptions about why people use drugs. Ya ya, everyone is trying to escape from reality, blah blah blah. That would apply to any form of entertainment that distracts people from their problems. Control freak? I'll say, you're into mind control...

A lot of family members are relieved when their loved ones are put in jail. It means they can't do drugs in there.

You're delusions about drug free jails aside, alot of family members dont want their loved ones put in jail. That means you are harming them...

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.

No, you did it to them. They didn't walk into your cage, you had them put there. Nice life change you've provided.

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

I already know you're a commie, but why is government "wrong" when it is telling you what to do but "right" when its telling everyone else what to do?

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

So Kid gets to define happiness for everyone.

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

Commie, fascist, same mindset...

Do the millions of people who aren't habitual users get to decide for themselves? Nope, you've already decided the use of a drug = abuse which = addiction. Tell me Kid, if someone is in alot of pain and they're using morphine to relieve that pain. Would you say they are unreasonable for trying to "escape reality"?

Asleep

I can't imagine someone giving 5$ blowjobs on the streets in order to sustain their coffee habit, were it to be outlawed.

Not that I want to imagine any kind of 5$ blowjob, of course....

Out of the estimated 90 million Americans who've used illegal drugs, how many give BJs to get money for drugs? Less than 1%? How many nymphos in the country? If someone loves giving BJs, and do it regularly for no money, doing it for money aint unimaginable Thats the same problem Kid has, he boxes everyone else into how he thinks.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Umm...then the problem aint with drugs but with the problems they're dealing with. Many people in physical and/or emotional pain often take drugs to ease that pain (what a shock). You call that "harm" and then want to put them in cages with violent criminals. Thats insane, Kid... And every step of the way YOU are making their decisions.

No. Everyone has problems. Taking drugs doesn't make them better. It makes them worse. Taking drugs is a bad decision therefore someone else has to make decisions for them.

But you do abuse drugs, you said you drink plenty of coffee. And since you've equated drug use with drug abuse with addiction, you're still an addict.

I don't harm myself with coffee. I guess Wezil does

Meaning millions have to be punished because you regret marrying someone. Given your statements in this thread, I'd say your "research" was limited to commercials from the Partnership for a drug free America.

It aint punishment. It's helping them. And it's helping others. It's got nothing to do with me personally.

So, its a crime for friends to stop being friends? Oh why not, escaping reality is a crime too in your mind.

No. It's suffering when people ruin their relationships by taking drugs. Why don't you talk to some recovering addicts who are trying to rebuild their relationships?

Oh BS, you've done little but make convenient assumptions about why people use drugs. Ya ya, everyone is trying to escape from reality, blah blah blah. That would apply to any form of entertainment that distracts people from their problems. Control freak? I'll say, you're into mind control...

Actually I've read and listened to recovered drug addicts and their families. Instead of making assumptions I've judged the situation by real world experience.

You're delusions about drug free jails aside, alot of family members dont want their loved ones put in jail. That means you are harming them...

Again, I know people who's family members have been jailed and they have expressed their relief to me.

No, you did it to them. They didn't walk into your cage, you had them put there. Nice life change you've provided.

BS. You sell the drugs you put yourself in a cage bud.

I already know you're a commie, but why is government "wrong" when it is telling you what to do but "right" when its telling everyone else what to do?

Obviously that's not true. I don't know what you're talking about.

[Berzerker]

Aeson

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.

The law makes the distinction, you can drive under the influence on private property with the owner's permission. If you own the property, you dont need permission. Guilt by association under DUI ends at the public road, you argued for extending it into our homes.

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"

Public roads != privacy of your home, you argued for equating the two.

It isn't analogous, guilt by association is in conflict with probable cause. DUI laws go beyond drunk driving (laws), the latter is how cops have traditionally (and usually still do) detect drunk drivers. DUI laws dont rely on probable cause.

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

I was doing myself the favor by not having to type out what I mistakenly assume is common knowledge, but since you dont know the difference between drunk driving and DUI, I explained the difference. Alot of us are old enough to remember when breath analysis didn't exist and cops had to observe probable cause.

I gave an analogy to the contract you invented.

I didn't invent drivers licenses and you brought up DUI, not me. They represent the permission we obtained to drive on public roads. "Permission", understand? We dont need "permission" to decide what if anything goes into our bodies. You say we do need permission because we need permission to drive on public roads. Thats illogical...

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.

Wrong, you brought up your analogy comparing public roads with private property, not me. That was your attempt to "justify" using guilt by association to punish millions of people for using drugs. The analogy is screwed up because you make no distinction between public and private property, not because DUI employs guilt by association.

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.

If you play devil's advocate, you've taken a position. It aint my fault if you dont even believe your own BS

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".

Then maybe instead of wasting my time you could actually read my posts, I've got plenty of reasons for opposing the drug war and certainly have offered more than one. But telling me "society" has decided to use guilt by association and that it is "just" is irrelevant. I dont agree with "society" on that anymore than I agree with society's drug war.

I support democratic government that allow society to come to compromises and enact laws to help safeguard our freedoms.

By taking away our most fundamental freedom...

But I dont need to change any laws, just to have the laws obeyed. The drug war is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. But thanks for civics lesson

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Out of the estimated 90 million Americans who've used illegal drugs, how many give BJs to get money for drugs? Less than 1%? How many nymphos in the country? If someone loves giving BJs, and do it regularly for no money, doing it for money aint unimaginable Thats the same problem Kid has, he boxes everyone else into how he thinks.

No, I was merely using it as an anecdote of how far people can fall down the rabbit hole. Its really amazing the depths one will go to to get crack. My colleague knew a dealer who, after getting tired of getting blown by a crackwhore, began amusing himself by giving her crack to have sex with a dog. I personally represented a good dozen men who lost everything and were on the streets giving blowjobs for crack.

OTOH, I've had clients who were clearly functional, they tended towards mj and prescription abuses. The clients on the harder drugs were much more likely to be homeless or nearly so.

Oh, and one final anecdote from me:
I had a client, age 18, scholarship to college, who was out with buddies. They passed him the wet, which is either mj laced with pcp or embalming fluid, or a combo of all. Well, whatever the **** it was, he ended up in a padded cell eating his own **** and smearing his bloody hands on the wall. Quite a shock to all involved. I had him diagnosed by a pair of docs-he had symptoms resembling paranoid schizophrenia. Pretty devastating to the family.

My point: I really have none, I just wanted to share my stories with the class.

[Berzerker]

No, I was merely using it as an anecdote of how far people can fall down the rabbit hole.

For someone who likes giving BJs for free, they aren't falling anywhere if they do it for $5. As for the rest of that, you didn't answer my question, much less my point. Using a selected small minority of a population to draw negative conclusions about a much larger population is the foundation of racism.

[Berzerker]

No. Everyone has problems. Taking drugs doesn't make them better. It makes them worse. Taking drugs is a bad decision therefore someone else has to make decisions for them.

You take drugs, so why are you making decisions for others? And you dont know that taking drugs doesn't help, alot of people would disagree. Are people even allowed to disagree in Kidworld? Everyone has problems, everyone must solve said problems by consulting The Oracle of Kidworld. I think I see why commies rejected God, they wanted the job.

I don't harm myself with coffee. I guess Wezil does

Should Wezil be jailed until he adopts your vision of living life? Coffee aint good for ya, thats harm according to you. I guess you're changing that definition again.

It aint punishment. It's helping them. And it's helping others. It's got nothing to do with me personally.

You used your marriage as a life experience with which to draw conclusions about others. And dont give me that ******* BS, it aint punishment MY ASS. You go spend time in a cage with violent criminals and tell me it aint punishment. You arrogant little pissant...

No. It's suffering when people ruin their relationships by taking drugs. Why don't you talk to some recovering addicts who are trying to rebuild their relationships?

So its a crime to ruin a relationship? I've taken alot of drugs and it never ruined any relationships. Stop lying about people you never met.

Actually I've read and listened to recovered drug addicts and their families. Instead of making assumptions I've judged the situation by real world experience.

And if I was a nutritionist who dealt with obese people, I'd be justified in concluding everyone is obese? The problem is you dont listen to the millions of people who didn't become addicts etc...

Again, I know people who's family members have been jailed and they have expressed their relief to me.

So what? I know people who are distraught their loved ones are in jail. You're harming them... But thats okay, just another double standard...

BS. You sell the drugs you put yourself in a cage bud.

So all them people with guns marching you into the cage are just friends showing their support as you bravely walk in of your own accord? You were talking about escaping from reality?
Tell that BS to the actor Tom Sizemore, he was busted for using and he got a year. Or Tommy Chong, he got several months for making bongs. And dont change the subject again, "users" go to jail, not just dealers.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I know

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The law makes the distinction, you can drive under the influence on private property with the owner's permission. If you own the property, you dont need permission. Guilt by association under DUI ends at the public road, you argued for extending it into our homes.

Nope. Learn to read.

But I am glad that you've finally admitted that DUI laws are based on guilt by association. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

Public roads != privacy of your home, you argued for equating the two.

Nope. Learn to read.

It isn't analogous, guilt by association is in conflict with probable cause. DUI laws go beyond drunk driving (laws), the latter is how cops have traditionally (and usually still do) detect drunk drivers. DUI laws dont rely on probable cause.

All you're doing here is saying what I've already said. DUI laws are founded on guilt by association. You don't have to actually cause harm to be guilty, you just have to behave in a way that has been associated with causing harm.

I was doing myself the favor by not having to type out what I mistakenly assume is common knowledge, but since you dont know the difference between drunk driving and DUI, I explained the difference. Alot of us are old enough to remember when breath analysis didn't exist and cops had to observe probable cause.

I said DUI. You argue about drunk driving. Nowhere have I said anything about drunk driving (except to point out I haven't said anything about drunk driving). And then you try to pretend I'm the one who doesn't know what DUI is.

I didn't invent drivers licenses and you brought up DUI, not me. They represent the permission we obtained to drive on public roads. "Permission", understand? We dont need "permission" to decide what if anything goes into our bodies. You say we do need permission because we need permission to drive on public roads. Thats illogical...

You're the only one even mentioning a correlation between driving on public roads to what we put in our bodies.

Wrong, you brought up your analogy comparing public roads with private property, not me.

I never even said anything about private property. Is your mind really so fried?

That was your attempt to "justify" using guilt by association to punish millions of people for using drugs.

I said drugs should be legalized. You somehow read this as drugs should be illegal. You need to learn to read. Case closed.

The analogy is screwed up because you make no distinction between public and private property, not because DUI employs guilt by association.

An analogy is to draw a comparison between two different situations which share a common factor. Not all factors will be analogous, and they don't have to be... in fact that's the whole ****ing point of an analogy, to look at a factor in a different light.

If you play devil's advocate, you've taken a position. It aint my fault if you dont even believe your own BS

My position was simply asking you a question about the applicability of your arguments against "guilt by association" in another regard.

You don't have the balls to actually address that question... or perhaps not the brains to understand what the question is. Either way you've shown an amazing ability to avoid reality.

Then maybe instead of wasting my time you could actually read my posts, I've got plenty of reasons for opposing the drug war and certainly have offered more than one. But telling me "society" has decided to use guilt by association and that it is "just" is irrelevant. I dont agree with "society" on that anymore than I agree with society's drug war.

Sorry. I tend to feel one needs to use valid arguments to support a stance... even if it's my own. (Especially if it's my own in fact. I don't want people tarnishing my position with idiotic arguments... you know, because of "guilt by association" being a factor.)

By taking away our most fundamental freedom...

Nowhere in this thread have I expressed support for reducing freedom. I hold the same conclusion as you do, that drugs should be legalized. I guess the fact that I had already expressed it before addressing you, and have since expressed it 3 more times, just can't compete with your complete and utter disconnect with reality.

But I dont need to change any laws, just to have the laws obeyed.

You simply are delusional. Anti-drug laws are laws.

The drug war is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.

Even if it were so, you still have to show that a law is unconstitutional in court, and change it, before it stops being the law.

Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean it's not a law. In fact it means it is a law. That's why it's called a law.

"The law is not the law" - Beserker.

But thanks for civics lesson

Perhaps if you stopped rolling your eyes at me and thought for a second you could realize that a law is a law.

Thanks for the laughs. (Again, since we had this exact same discussion ~2 years ago.)

[Wezil]

My ears were burning...

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't harm myself with coffee. I guess Wezil does

Don't roll your eyes at me.

Wezil doesn't care too much for coffee truth be told (I prefer tea), but really craves caffeine. I love the buzz I get off the morning Timmies though.

Does it "harm" me? Not sure, there are conflicting studies on the effcts of tea consumption. It is certainly less harmful than some of the other drugs I have been known to "experiment" with.

Comapred to Berz's laboratory experience I'm a rank amateur. In my life I have tried 9 different drugs (8 "street", 1 prescription) but currently only engage in 3.5 (alcohol is part-time/occasional these days).

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Berzerker


For someone who likes giving BJs for free, they aren't falling anywhere if they do it for $5. As for the rest of that, you didn't answer my question, much less my point. Using a selected small minority of a population to draw negative conclusions about a much larger population is the foundation of racism.

Racism?

And I assumed your questions were rhetorical.

All I know are my own experiences with addicted persons. Deeply addicted. Far more than you apparently know. I have represented probably 300 people on drug charges, at various stages, from minor possession to major dealing, from recreational users, to hard core junkies selling their bodies on the streets for a fix. I daresay that I know more about these issues than you do, I have seen the depths that drugs can send someone to, have you?

And really, I was just sharing a story, I didn't even state my pov, which is legalizing mj, but not the rest. using taxes on mj to pay for treatment facilities.

Where is that study about 90 million users?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You take drugs, so why are you making decisions for others?

I took drugs. Past tense.

And you dont know that taking drugs doesn't help, alot of people would disagree.

Drugs damage your ability to reason don't you know.

Should Wezil be jailed until he adopts your vision of living life? Coffee aint good for ya, thats harm according to you. I guess you're changing that definition again.

It was a joke don'tcha know. No one does any harm with coffee. Give it up bud.

You used your marriage as a life experience with which to draw conclusions about others. And dont give me that ******* BS, it aint punishment MY ASS. You go spend time in a cage with violent criminals and tell me it aint punishment. You arrogant little pissant...

It's simple. Drugs cause harm to individuals and society. Therefore making them illegal helps people. Lot's of people don't use drugs because they are illegal. Also, lot's of people quit using drugs in jail. It helps people. You are being ridiculous.

So its a crime to ruin a relationship?

Using illegal drugs is a crime partly because it ruins relationships.

And if I was a nutritionist who dealt with obese people, I'd be justified in concluding everyone is obese? The problem is you dont listen to the millions of people who didn't become addicts etc...

Do you know anything about drug abuse? Every drug addict claims that drugs are harmless until they get into recovery. Of course I listen to them.