Drugs

[emad]

Peer pressure and escapism. THOSE ARE THE ONLY REASONS WHY PEOPLE DO DRUGS FOR RECREATION.

Peer pressure = find new friends; get a role model; think about your future
Escapism = therapy

Can I say... bull?

Nobody pressured me into it, nobody told me to do it, hell, my friends who did it never even told me to do it. I did it of my own free will. No escapism was involved, nothing bad was going on in my life. I just felt the urge to try it and so I did. Just about all the stoners I know started that way. Peer pressure is bull****. It's your choice to give in or not and it's your choice to take it. If you don't want it, say no. Simple as that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Can I say... bull?

Nobody pressured me into it, nobody told me to do it, hell, my friends who did it never even told me to do it. I did it of my own free will. No escapism was involved, nothing bad was going on in my life. I just felt the urge to try it and so I did. Just about all the stoners I know started that way. Peer pressure is bull****. It's your choice to give in or not and it's your choice to take it. If you don't want it, say no. Simple as that.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more candid. The two MAIN reasons (among others) why people do drugs are peer pressure and escapism. I won't say that there aren't any other reasons, but those are the primary reasons.

Either way, that doesn't make any sense to me... curiosity over doing something illegal. I guess that means I should start insider trading -- I'm curious as to what that must be like...

 

[ledhed]

So people drink beer or do other drugs because of peer pressure and escapism . Why not just make escapism and peer pressure illegal then ? By your logic its killing thousands and causing others to get treatment. lets just remove all choice from the equation period and only let choices that can not cause harm be legal .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So people drink beer or do other drugs because of peer pressure and escapism . Why not just make escapism and peer pressure illegal then ?

That's impossible. What you CAN do is EDUCATE the people into AVOIDING peer pressure and find CONSTRUCTIVE ways to deal with problems.

By your logic its killing thousands and causing others to get treatment. lets just remove all choice from the equation period and only let choices that can not cause harm be legal .

That's taking it to the extreme, and I know what you're trying to imply. It's not going to work, because that's not me.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps I should have been a bit more candid. The two MAIN reasons (among others) why people do drugs are peer pressure and escapism. I won't say that there aren't any other reasons, but those are the primary reasons.

Either way, that doesn't make any sense to me... curiosity over doing something illegal. I guess that means I should start insider trading -- I'm curious as to what that must be like...

Remember - not ALL drugs are illegal - as emad pointed out above.

Personally I'm currently engaged in drug ingestion. I'm drinking a can of wife-beater with my Pringles and chocolate. Nobody forced me to do it and I'm not trying to escape from anything. I like the taste.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Remember - not ALL drugs are illegal - as emad pointed out above.

I'm aware of that.

Personally I'm currently engaged in drug ingestion. I'm drinking a can of wife-beater with my Pringles and chocolate. Nobody forced me to do it and I'm not trying to escape from anything. I like the taste.

You like the taste of beer... that's fine. What's wrong with "Non-Alcoholic Beer"? Granted, I am aware that NA beer has small traces of alcohol, but it's considerably less than regular beer...

 

[Famine]

You like the taste of beer... that's fine. What's wrong with "Non-Alcoholic Beer"? Granted, I am aware that NA beer has small traces of alcohol, but it's considerably less than regular beer...

The particular brand of beer I prefer the taste of has no no-alcohol variant and, even if they did, it'd taste different (like Coke and Diet Coke, or Pepsi and PepsiMax).

 

[ledhed]

That's impossible. What you CAN do is EDUCATE the people into AVOIDING peer pressure and find CONSTRUCTIVE ways to deal with problems.

Ok than by that logic drugs should not be a criminal offense. Users should be educated and counseled instead of put in jail . So now what criteria do you use to decide whats legal and what is not ? Is having a beer or two after work legal ? Or a glass of wine after dinner ?
Although I cant see the logic of imposing on the rights of millions of people who can make responsible choices on what to drink and when ..lets try to imagine your world.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok than by that logic drugs should not be a criminal offence.

Drug use should be a criminal offense, regardless of what logic is used.

Users should be educated and counseled instead of put in jail .

Most drug users are educated and counseled instead of being put in jail -- I've proved that already.

So now what criteria do you use to decide whats legal and what is not ? Is having a beer or two after work legal ? Or a glass of wine after dinner ?

You can have NA beer, and you can have NA wine.

Although I cant see the logic of imposing on the rights of millions of people who can make responsible choices on what to drink and when ..lets try to imagine your world.

Whether they themselves make responsible choices or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, drug legalization is harmful. The statistics speak for themselves.

The particular brand of beer I prefer the taste of has no no-alcohol variant and, even if they did, it'd taste different (like Coke and Diet Coke, or Pepsi and PepsiMax).

Addiction?

 

[ledhed]

Why should drug use be criminal ?

Most drug users are educated and counseled instead of being put in jail -- I've proved that already

No they are not and no you have not.

You can have NA beer, and you can have NA wine.

Why must my choices be limited to inferior substitutes ?

Whether they themselves make responsible choices or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, drug legalization is harmful. The statistics speak for themselves.

its very relavent when you want to take away someones rights over thier own body. and when to enforce this decision you are willing to also take away thier liberty . unless of course you just decide to issue a strong scolding when they ignore your demands.
Statistics can be made to say what ever suits you. You will be doing the speaking interpreting the statitstics to suit your adgenda .

 

[Famine]

Drug use should be a criminal offense, regardless of what logic is used.

As emad pointed out, which drugs?

Whether they themselves make responsible choices or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, drug legalization is harmful. The statistics speak for themselves.

Are you using stats from a community where drugs are legal? If not, how do you know the effect legalisation would have?

Addiction?

Sure. Why not. I drink beer while eating Pringles and chocolate every night and quiver during the daytime when I can't have it. Or something.

 

[ledhed]

I quiver sometimes when I do not have my pringles also.

 

[Danoff]

Whether they themselves make responsible choices or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, drug legalization is harmful. The statistics speak for themselves.

How do you weigh freedom against statistics?

If we locked everyone up in a straightjacket and put them in a padded room... perhaps we could reduce the number of accidental deaths, reduce crime, and boost mortality. Maybe we could get everyone to live to be 100 years old, and almost nobody was hurt by anyone else.

If you could reduce car accidents to zero, crime to zero, boost the average life span to 100 years old, eliminate aids, eliminate cancer, eliminate drug use, eliminate everything bad in the world and all you had to do was chain everyone to the wall - life wouldn't be worth living.

How do you weigh freedom against statistics?

People have to be allowed to choose to live their own way. All we can do is try to prevent them from hurting each other (directly).

When given the choice between absolute safety and death. I'd choose death. My life isn't worth living if I'm not free.

How do you account for the fact that your goals here make peoples' lives more and more miserable. The fewer choices we have the more miserable we will be.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why should drug use be criminal ?

It leads to other crimes. Why should drug use be legal?

No they are not and no you have not.

That's because you don't want to believe the statistics that I've provided. That's OK -- you're free to believe what you want to believe.

Why must my choices be limited to inferior substitutes ?

Safety perhaps? Why did the NHRA limit the amount of nitromethane a top fuel dragster can use to about 85-90%, instead of running straight nitromethane?

its very relavent when you want to take away someones rights over thier own body.

You place privacy over public safety. Why?

Statistics can be made to say what ever suits you. You will be doing the speaking interpreting the statitstics to suit your adgenda .

Show me a place where drug legalization has actually worked.

As emad pointed out, which drugs?

If you want my opinion, drugs that are not designed to help people. I know that's extreme -- but it's my opinion. At the very least marijuana should STAY illegal.

Are you using stats from a community where drugs are legal?

No. These statistics were taken in the United States.

If not, how do you know the effect legalisation would have?

Because it's been tried before -- and I have statistics that show why these places have moved back towards criminalization.

Sure. Why not. I drink beer while eating Pringles and chocolate every night and quiver during the daytime when I can't have it. Or something.

I quiver sometimes when I do not have my pringles also.

How do you weigh freedom against statistics?

If we locked everyone up in a straightjacket and put them in a padded room... perhaps we could reduce the number of accidental deaths, reduce crime, and boost mortality. Maybe we could get everyone to live to be 100 years old, and almost nobody was hurt by anyone else.

You obviously live in a world of Black/White. You see no compromise at all -- it's all or nothing with you.

If you could reduce car accidents to zero, crime to zero, boost the average life span to 100 years old, eliminate aids, eliminate cancer, eliminate drug use, eliminate everything bad in the world and all you had to do was chain everyone to the wall - life wouldn't be worth living.

I agree. However, my goal is not to reduce crime to zero, reduce accidents to zero, eliminate drug use etc. We both know that that is impossible. However, allowing people to do what they want is only going to make things worse.

How do you weigh freedom against statistics?

Why is personal freedom more important than society?

People have to be allowed to choose to live their own way. All we can do is try to prevent them from hurting each other (directly).

And you think legalization will prevent people from hurting each other?

When given the choice between absolute safety and death. I'd choose death. My life isn't worth living if I'm not free.

No middle ground, eh?

How do you account for the fact that your goals here make peoples' lives more and more miserable. The fewer choices we have the more miserable we will be.

And guess what? Your goals here will make peoples' lives more and more miserable. Too many choices = no order, disarray, anarchy.

 

[Famine]

If you want my opinion, drugs that are not designed to help people. I know that's extreme -- but it's my opinion. At the very least marijuana should STAY illegal.

Caffeine and nicotine aren't designed to help people. One is 500 times more potent than crack and the other causes naso-oesophageal, stomach and lung cancers.

Pethidine is designed to help people, yet pethidine-addicted Harold Shipman killed 250 of his patients to steal from them.

 

[PS]

Safety perhaps? Why did the NHRA limit the amount of nitromethane a top fuel dragster can use to about 85-90%, instead of running straight nitromethane?

Because the NHRA is American and if you don't have that ounce of pure good ol' fashioned gasoline then you're a communist .















...but it could have been for safety.

[edit]

Too many choices = someone standing around for an hour trying to make up their mind. Not anarchy. That's a result of no restrictions/constraints.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Caffeine and nicotine aren't designed to help people. One is 500 times more potent than crack and the other causes naso-oesophageal, stomach and lung cancers.

You're not making a case for the legalization of illicit drugs, you're making a case for the criminalization (or at the least, regulation) of caffeine and nicotine.

Pethidine is designed to help people, yet pethidine-addicted Harold Shipman killed 250 of his patients to steal from them.

Is this a common occurence? I didn't know 450,000 people died every year because doctors are killing their patients so that they can get their "fix"?

Too many choices = someone standing around for an hour trying to make up their mind. Not anarchy. That's a result of no restrictions/constraints.

I'll have the ketamine sandwich with a side order of LSD fries and one medium marijuana tea.

 

[PS]

I'll have the ketamine sandwich with a side order of LSD fries and one medium marijuana tea.

I was simply saying it wasn't anarchy.

And LSD is bad, mmk?

 

[Duke]

Peer pressure and escapism. THOSE ARE THE ONLY REASONS WHY PEOPLE DO DRUGS FOR RECREATION.

1) I'm glad you're such an expert; thanks for clearing that up. Did your research include asking each and every one of them?

2) Peer pressure isn't a valid reason for doing anything. Again, making stupid choices is not something we should be legislating against. If it was, we'd need an infinite number of laws to cover all the myriad stupid choices people can make. Not that that would bother you.

3) I play GT4 for 'escapism'. Do I need to worry about you lobbying congress to criminalize that? It has an effect on my family - I stay up late instead of going to bed with my wife; I ignore my kids; I curse when I try to coax that damn MINI around Tsukuba at more than a snail's pace. Definitely bad for my blood pressure, in addition to being 'escapist'. Sounds like the butterfly effect to me - BAN GT4!. And no, I'm not being facetious.

WHAT?! 100,000 people DIE in alcohol-related incidents every year. How can it NOT bring down society?

100,000? Where'd you get that number? There were around 44,000 traffic accident deaths in America in 2003, according to the numbers I found. ALL traffic deaths. Assuming they were ALL alcohol-related, that still leaves 56,000 other 'alcohol-related' deaths to find. The CDC shows about 19,000 alcohol-induced deaths.

Refer back to the Butterfly Effect. Next, relate it to other HARDER drugs. There is your answer.

So the butterfly effect means that anything I do can have a harsh effect on others, no matter how small my action. Right. I guess I'm back to that "killing myself to protect everyone around me" thing. Wouldn't want that last breath I took accidentally sucking the life out the emphysema patient three states over by the microscopic drop in air pressure and oxygen content. Cheerio, chaps, it was nice knowing you.

If you're going to worry about the 'butterfly effect' you might as well just go sit in Dan's rubber room and eat lukewarm unsweetened oatmeal.

Telling them drugs are OK, is only going to INCREASE that risk. Is that what you want?

Nope, it's not what I want. That's why I never confused telling people it's legal to take drugs with telling people it's harmless to take drugs. I fully support disclosure requirements for all foods, medicines, and chemicals. People can only make informed decisions if they have access to information. Note that I said access to. If they choose to ignore that information, hey, that's their right. They should have to deal with the consequences.

You're absolutely right -- it doesn't give me the right to control other people. I'll leave that to the state.

You're right. What if is not a good reason to finagle control over people's private lives.

450,000 people died from cigarettes.
100,000 people died in alcohol-related incidents

I've been all over the CDC's 2003 death statistics, and I'm just not seeing anything like these numbers. Sorry.

It leads to other crimes. Why should drug use be legal?

Being poor leads to other crimes. So does being angry. Should those things be illegal?

That's because you don't want to believe the statistics that I've provided.

Well, I just explained why I don't believe the numbers. However, I have to say that even without questioning the numbers at all, I don't understand why that necessarily means that alcohol and drugs should all be illegal. It's a slippery slide directly into Dan's rubber room again. Here's something I posted in another thread:

I saw a TV show once on this type of subject. They said to the studio audience, without identifying the substance in question: "There's a chemical compound that causes X number of explosions and house fires in the United States every year, causing $Y in property damage and Z deaths and injuries. Yet this compound is perfectly legal in all 50 states and is transported on our public highways in regular trucks."

The studio audience promptly voted, with about a 95-5% margin, to outlaw propane and natural gas.

Where do you stop? How safe is 'safe'? You're willing to give up a huge amount of your freedom in order to feel safe - which is perfectly fine. But why do you think you have the right to give away everybody else's freedom, just so you can feel safe?

You place privacy over public safety. Why?

Because people like you are willing to place your vision of 'public safety' over anything.

I agree. However, my goal is not to reduce crime to zero, reduce accidents to zero, eliminate drug use etc. We both know that that is impossible. However, allowing people to do what they want is only going to make things worse.

Ahhhh, once again, the claws are starting to show. Can't trust those pesky individuals [everyone that's not like me] to make good choices [to choose what I would choose]. Better make them conform for the public good [so I feel safe and don't have to deal with them].

Why is personal freedom more important than society?

Why is society more important than the individuals that make it up?

And guess what? Your goals here will make peoples' lives more and more miserable. Too many choices = no order, disarray, anarchy.

And now the claws are all the way out, and we have a wild fascist in the room. Too many choices for you to deal with and so you feel compelled to limit the choices everyone gets to make down to the narrow few that you can manage. Everything not forbidden is compulsory. Too many choices for individuals = too difficult for powers-that-be to control.

That's what it boils down to. You want the world to be totally predictable, totally understandable, and therefore totally controllable. Since you value that comfort and safety and power much more than you value your own freedom (which you don't seem to value in any great way), you assume that you have the right to set the value of everybody else's freedom as well.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I was simply saying it wasn't anarchy.

So you're saying allowing people to eat ketamine sandwiches, LSD fries, and drink marijuana tea with no restrictions will lead to an "ordered" society.

And LSD is bad, mmk?

I'm aware.

 

[ledhed]

You do not know what it will lead to do you ? But of course everyone given freedom to jump into a vat of boiling water would suddenly turn into a drooling boob because they had the choice to jump . All reason would leave them and they would suddenly ingest copious amounts of whatever drug was legal and run naked through the streets ...simply because they were left with the freedom to choose. people cannot be trusted to do whats right with thier own bodies and need to be protected from themselves. Choices must be strictly limited by those who know whats best for you ! booze must be banned or everyone will run drunkenly amok raping and pilliaging and singing and farting through the streets dooming society as we know it !
WE MUST BE PROTECTED FROM OURSELVES !
National testing should be created to keep the nincompoops from voting ! they may choose the wrong guy ..or he may even have had a beer and lost his mind.
No one can ever be safe in a society of people who can CHOOSE . Restrict everyone to protect the idiots from themselves. Strip us all of our rights over our own persons for the sake of a few idiots ? Who the frick wants to live in a society like that anyway ?
Jefferson is turning over in his grave .

 

[Famine]

You're not making a case for the legalization of illicit drugs, you're making a case for the criminalization (or at the least, regulation) of caffeine and nicotine.

Indeed I am. Based on your assertion that drugs which "are not designed to help people" should be illegal.

Is this a common occurence? I didn't know 450,000 people died every year because doctors are killing their patients so that they can get their "fix"?

Actually, we'll neve know WHY Shipman did what he did, only that he's Britain's worst ever serial killer (~600 deaths are potentially attributable to his deliberate actions), stole from many victims, changed their wills and was a pethidine addict - a drug designed to help people.

Let's compare how many deaths each year the "not designed to help people", and therefore ought to be regulated, caffeine causes.

*turns paper over*

*turns it over again*

Must be in here somewhere...

*tries to separate the paper into two sheets, despite it obviously being just the one*


Ah, right.

Caffeine, which is 500 times more potent than crack cocaine, yet directly causes no deaths, is not "designed to help people" and should be legislated against by "the state". Pethidine, which is relatively harmless yet addictive (like morphine) is an attributing factor in the worst serial killer in the history of the UK but, like morphine, is "designed to help people" and so should NOT be legislated against by "the state".

Are you not seeing a massive incongruity here?



Taking drugs in the privacy of your own home is your own choice. There are no effects on anyone else directly. Why does "the state" need to be involved at all?

Shooting up then leaping into a car is already legislated against - it's called DUI. Stealing to fund a habit (caused by the illegality... Dealers charge what they want. People get addicted, get into debt and commit offences to clear it. And let's not even mention what would happen to guerrila-controlled Colombia, with pharmaceutical companies buying their stocks for far less money. Or what would happen to the quality of the drugs as they're turned into pharmaceutical products, without cutting it with cat litter and talc) is also legislated against. Both of these cause loss, or potential loss, to other people, thus infringing their freedom to choose their own lives. Having a spliff in your bedroom doesn't cause any loss to anyone but for the person smoking it, doesn't infringe anyone's liberties and should be illegal... why?

 

[ledhed]

Because it makes you turn into a butterfly and create typhoons and eat alot thus making the Sudanese starve .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

At this rate, I'll never get the opportunity to go outside. However, I refuse to stand back and be called a fascist.

1) I'm glad you're such an expert; thanks for clearing that up. Did your research include asking each and every one of them?

No. And I wasn't being candid when I made that statement. Happy now?

2) Peer pressure isn't a valid reason for doing anything. Again, making stupid choices is not something we should be legislating against. If it was, we'd need an infinite number of laws to cover all the myriad stupid choices people can make. Not that that would bother you.

Don't tell me what would and what wouldn't bother me -- you don't know me.

Making stupid choices is not something we should legislatate against? So running down an innocent jogger while under the influence is not something we should legislate against. OK.

3) I play GT4 for 'escapism'. Do I need to worry about you lobbying congress to criminalize that? It has an effect on my family - I stay up late instead of going to bed with my wife; I ignore my kids; I curse when I try to coax that damn MINI around Tsukuba at more than a snail's pace. Definitely bad for my blood pressure, in addition to being 'escapist'. Sounds like the butterfly effect to me - BAN GT4!. And no, I'm not being facetious.

How often to video games kill? You can't make a comparison between something that is supposed to be used for entertainment and something that is illegal.

100,000? Where'd you get that number? There were around 44,000 traffic accident deaths in America in 2003, according to the numbers I found. ALL traffic deaths. Assuming they were ALL alcohol-related, that still leaves 56,000 other 'alcohol-related' deaths to find. The CDC shows about 19,000 alcohol-induced deaths.

Alcohol-induced means they drank themselves to death. Traffic accidents are traffic accidents. I'm talking about ALL deaths related to alcohol consumption.

Nope, it's not what I want. That's why I never confused telling people it's legal to take drugs with telling people it's harmless to take drugs.

Tell that to ledhed.

I fully support disclosure requirements for all foods, medicines, and chemicals. People can only make informed decisions if they have access to information. Note that I said access to. If they choose to ignore that information, hey, that's their right. They should have to deal with the consequences.

Would you say the same thing to your family?

"Well I don't care if you choose to do drugs, that your right. You deal with the consequences."

I've been all over the CDC's 2003 death statistics, and I'm just not seeing anything like these numbers. Sorry.

I clarified where I found my numbers. That's not the only source that says 100,000 alcohol-related deaths -- there's more.

Being poor leads to other crimes.

That's why we have social services. But being a Libertarian, you obviously don't believe in those.

So does being angry.

Anger management.

Should those things be illegal?

Of course not.

Well, I just explained why I don't believe the numbers. However, I have to say that even without questioning the numbers at all, I don't understand why that necessarily means that alcohol and drugs should all be illegal. It's a slippery slide directly into Dan's rubber room again. Here's something I posted in another thread:

I saw a TV show once on this type of subject. They said to the studio audience, without identifying the substance in question: "There's a chemical compound that causes X number of explosions and house fires in the United States every year, causing $Y in property damage and Z deaths and injuries. Yet this compound is perfectly legal in all 50 states and is transported on our public highways in regular trucks."

The studio audience promptly voted, with about a 95-5% margin, to outlaw propane and natural gas.

That's all fine and good. But guess what? Propane and natural gas are legal because they are designed to help people. They are designed to increase productivity. They are designed to do a lot of good things. Show me where marijuana, LSD, ketamine, cocaine, crack, meth etc. help people.

Where do you stop? How safe is 'safe'? You're willing to give up a huge amount of your freedom in order to feel safe - which is perfectly fine.

Never said that. It's called "balance" -- a balance between freedom and order.

But why do you think you have the right to give away everybody else's freedom, just so you can feel safe?

Never said that.

Because people like you are willing to place your vision of 'public safety' over anything.

Never said that.

Ahhhh, once again, the claws are starting to show. Can't trust those pesky individuals [everyone that's not like me] to make good choices [to choose what I would choose]. Better make them conform for the public good [so I feel safe and don't have to deal with them].

Never said that.

Why is society more important than the individuals that make it up?

They are equally important. You are the one that's placing the individual ABOVE society. I'm trying to bring them back down (so-to-speak) so that the two are equally important. However, you are the ones twisting what I'm trying to say making it sound like I'm trying to put society above the individual.

And now the claws are all the way out, and we have a wild fascist in the room.

Wrong. 👎

Too many choices for you to deal with and so you feel compelled to limit the choices everyone gets to make down to the narrow few that you can manage.

Wrong. 👎 Now you're just making stuff up.

Everything not forbidden is compulsory. Too many choices for individuals = too difficult for powers-that-be to control.

So if no one has any control, what would you call that?

anarchy = Absence of any form of authority [usu. political].
anarchy = Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

That's what it boils down to. You want the world to be totally predictable, totally understandable, and therefore totally controllable.

Wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with predictability, understanding, or control. But I can see why you would say something like that. You want total freedom not for personal reasons, but for economic reasons.

Since you value that comfort and safety and power much more than you value your own freedom (which you don't seem to value in any great way), you assume that you have the right to set the value of everybody else's freedom as well.

I value my freedom. However, I'm not stupid enough to believe that total personal freedom can actually work.

You seem to love freedom so much, that you really don't care what happens to people who are affected by drug use.

Drug use causes crime. Purchase-related crime (because legalization would lower prices and increase consumption), drug-induced crime (because of increased consumption due to lower prices), and black market crime (because unless you legalize ALL drugs, you'll still have a black market; the difference is, there won't be anything to DISCOURAGE the black market).

Drug use by pregnant women causes damage to the fetus. Children born of cocaine mothers have three times the mortality rate and four times the low birth-weight as children born from mothers who don't do drugs. Not to mention the fact that "crack babies" tend to have emotional traits similar to those found in people with antisocial personality disorders. To make matters worse, the same mothers who are most likely to damage their children in this way are also the least likely to seek professional help and treatment.

Third, drug abuse closely correlates to child abuse. For example, in Philadelphia, cocaine is implicated in 50% of the cases in which parents beat their children to death, and in 80% of all abuse cases. In the Washington DC, 90% of those reported for child abuse were substance abusers.

But these problems are not just statistics - they are horror stories. In San Francisco, a woman who was freebasing cocaine gave birth to twins on her living room floor. She continued to freebase and let her children die unattended. I forgot where, but there was another situation where parents forced their children to panhandle for them so that they could support their heroin addiction.

Drug use is responsible for a large percentage of automobile accidents in the United States. In Maryland, 32% of car crash victims tested positive for marijuana.

Since ledhed loves to talk about history, need I remind everyone of January 4th, 1987? Conrail/Amtrak? Is it coming back yet? Both the brakeman and the engineer were high on marijuana when their train collided with another train killing 16 and injuring nearly 200 people.

I guess that's OK, though. Freedom is more important than life. I get it. 👍

You do not know what it will lead to do you ?

Alaska tried it, and Switzerland tried it. How many more Needle Parks do we need before it start's to sink in? How many more state Supreme Court Cases do we need before it start's to sink in?

But of course everyone given freedom to jump into a vat of boiling water would suddenly turn into a drooling boob because they had the choice to jump . All reason would leave them and they would suddenly ingest copious amounts of whatever drug was legal and run naked through the streets ...simply because they were left with the freedom to choose. people cannot be trusted to do whats right with thier own bodies and need to be protected from themselves. Choices must be strictly limited by those who know whats best for you ! booze must be banned or everyone will run drunkenly amok raping and pilliaging and singing and farting through the streets dooming society as we know it !

You know that's not the effect of alcohol. We do know that alcohol-related incidents are numerous because it's legal.

WE MUST BE PROTECTED FROM OURSELVES !
National testing should be created to keep the nincompoops from voting !
they may choose the wrong guy ..or he may even have had a beer and lost his mind.

You're not funny.

No one can ever be safe in a society of people who can CHOOSE .

So let me get this straight then... society either has NO choice, or they have total personal freedom. Got it. 👍 I guess we live in a fascist society then... Give me a damn break. 👎

Restrict everyone to protect the idiots from themselves. Strip us all of our rights over our own persons for the sake of a few idiots ? Who the frick wants to live in a society like that anyway ?

Certainly not me! I don't know where the hell you people make this crap up from! I never said every single aspect of society must be controlled by the state.

Jefferson is turning over in his grave .

Only because the meaning of freedom is being taken out of context by a bunch of Libertarians.

Let's see what some people have to say about Libertarianism:

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end." --James Madison

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

"All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[Famine]

Since ledhed loves to talk about history, need I remind everyone of January 4th, 1987? Conrail/Amtrak? Is it coming back yet? Both the brakeman and the engineer were high on marijuana when their train collided with another train killing 16 and injuring nearly 200 people.

And what happened to the brakeman and engineer?

 

[smellysocks12]

The example of the brakeman and engineer doesn't give any reason at all to prohibit drugs. If they would have been drunk, the substance would have been legal. The substance doesn't cause the problem, it's because the brakeman and engineer were so retarded to go to work while under the influence.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The Constitution is above all a definition of a strengthened government, and the Federalist Papers are an extended argument for it. The Founders were smart enough to negotiate a balance between a government that was arbitrary and coercive (their experience as British colonial subjects) and one that was powerless and divided (the failed Articles of Confederation -- which sounds strikingly similar to Libertarianism).

The example of the brakeman and engineer doesn't give any reason at all to prohibit drugs.

So I guess that means the other examples do.

If they would have been drunk, the substance would have been legal.

Not the point. Substance abuse was the problem. Legalization INCREASES substance abuse.

The substance doesn't cause the problem, it's because the brakeman and engineer were so retarded to go to work while under the influence.

And guess what? If it were legal, more people would go to work while under the influence.

And what happened to the brakeman and engineer?

They survived, and they testified. I don't remember the penalty, though.

 

[ledhed]

Since ledhed loves to talk about history, need I remind everyone of January 4th, 1987? Conrail/Amtrak? Is it coming back yet? Both the brakeman and the engineer were high on marijuana when their train collided with another train killing 16 and injuring nearly 200 people.

And what was the cause of the accident ?
A freight train improperly passed a stop signal and entered a main line track and stopped. A passenger train travelling at 120 miles per hour crashed into the freight train killing 15 passengers, the engineer and injured 174 others. Both the freight train engineer and brakeman were found to be heavy or frequent users of marijuana and were impaired by marijuana at the time of the crash (NTSB, 1988b).
At the time driving a train while impared was a crime similar to drunken driving.
so what is this supposed to illustrate ? we already know that driving or operating equipment while impared is not a smart thing to do and will get you arrested or dead. how is this an argument for making pot legal or illegal ?
You did notice that no one so far is in favor of completely UNREGULATED drug use ?
I said I was in favor of making POT legal. And that other drugs use should not be a CRIMINAL offense.
since its already illegal to run a train impared is this supposed to mean that I am in favor of high drivers ?

And guess what? If it were legal, more people would go to work while under the influence.

And your proof of this is ?
And how is this any different from booze ?

 

[Famine]

Not the point. Substance abuse was the problem. Legalization INCREASES substance abuse.

And guess what? If it were legal, more people would go to work while under the influence.

I'd love to know the evidence you base this upon. Care to share?

smellysocks12 made my point perfectly. The two people in the case were "under the influence". The substance didn't matter - whether it was the illegal marijuana they had, or the legal alcohol, or whether they were snorting fumes from whiteboard markers. Hell, if they'd been not paying attention because they were too busy jacking-off over porn mags, legally, it'd have had the same effect. The PEOPLE were at fault for allowing their private lives to interfere with their public lives and endangering other people and NOT doing their job properly as a result.

Legislation exists to cover this, so why is more legislation needed to say whether they committed a crime (DUI, I guess) under the influence of a legal mind-altering substance or an illegal mind-altering substance? Why should their idiocy impinge upon the personal habits of people who CAN keep their private and public lives separate?


Edit: Checking into reveals this from the Journal of Forensic Science, attributed to the National Transportation Safety Board...

"Evaluation of NTSB's report does not support marijuana impairment as a cause of the accident, but it does reveal many safety problems."

Oh, and not to mention this:

"The engineer and brakeman of the Conrail train at fault were found to have recently smoked marijuana, though it was never firmly proven that marijuana caused the accident. The Conrail engineer had an extensive record of speeding and drunken driving offenses and was known by management to have drinking problems. Critical safety equipment that would have averted the accident was missing or disabled. A subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Conrail improve both its management and equipment, but did not recommend random testing."


Edit edit: It appears that the driver was sentenced to five years for criminal negligence. A contributing factor was the other train's excessive speed (125mph compared to the 105mph maximum rating for that construct).



Incidentally, you complained earlier at being called a "fascist". Apparently "fascist" is described as "A proponent of fascism", which itself is listed as "Oppressive, dictatorial control."

Given that you want the state to say perfectly reasonable people can't drink beer at home, unless it's non-alcoholic, I wouldn't say it was totally inaccurate.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

At the time driving a train while impared was a crime similar to drunken driving. so what is this supposed to illustrate ? we already know that driving or operating equipment while impared is not a smart thing to do and will get you arrested or dead. how is this an argument for making pot legal or illegal ?

This isn't the only argument I have for keeping pot illegal. I'm only trying to address the topics that you bring up. I already gave several reasons as to why I believe pot should remain illegal.

You did notice that no one so far is in favor of completely UNREGULATED drug use ?

Of course. Only a junkie whose motives are to justify their habits would want complete unregulation -- which is why after the criminalization of pot, when it was legalized it was regulated.

I said I was in favor of making POT legal. And that other drugs use should not be a CRIMINAL offense.

Why? Because it's a victimless crime?

since its already illegal to run a train impared is this supposed to mean that I am in favor of high drivers ?

Of course not. However, if drugs were to legalized (even if it were regulated), usage will still increase.

And your proof of this is ?

Read my earlier posts.

And how is this any different from booze ?

It's not... but legalizing pot certainly won't make thing any better.

And guess what? If it were legal, more people would go to work while under the influence.

I'd love to know the evidence you base this upon. Care to share?

Read my earlier posts.

Incidentally, you complained earlier at being called a "fascist".

Yes, I did. Go on...

Apparently "fascist" is described as "A proponent of fascism", which itself is listed as "Oppressive, dictatorial control."

That's the second, euphamistic definition. You completely ignored the first one which reads:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

1. I do not want a dictator. We've already seen what life could be under a dictatorship.

2. I do not believe in "stringent" socioeconomic controls -- but there has to be a balance. A balance between freedom and restraint.

3. I do not believe in suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. Everyone should be able to voice their opinions -- without the fear of being terrorized or censored.

4. Nationalism is the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. This is why Germany went around trying to take control over Europe etc. Personally, I think the UN should be more effective.

5. Don't even get me started on racism either. I have my own reasons for hating racists.

Total freedom = anarchy
Total restraint = fascism

What goes in between the two is what I strive for. Libertarians are bent on total freedom and anyone they encounter that tries to show them potential problems, they automatically label the person a fascist -- mainly because in the eyes of the Libertarian, the government represents everything that's wrong with society. That's a very monomaniacal way to look at politics. That all or nothing attitude is the reason why Libertarianism is so unpopular -- and I'm embarrased to say that a growing number of Republicans are actually starting to buy this nonsense.

Given that you want the state to say perfectly reasonable people can't drink beer at home, unless it's non-alcoholic, I wouldn't say it was totally inaccurate.

Given that you want the state to say perfectly reasonable people can drink beer at home, even if it's with alcohol, does that make you an anarchist?