Drugs

[a6m5]

No it isn't going to promote it. Making something illegal, that makes teenagers want to try it out.

You do bring up some good points, but I strongly disagree with this one. You'd think drugs are popular now, if it's legalized, at least in the U.S., rate of drug useage will sky rocket.

While cigarettes contain over 2000. What the hell is the point you're getting at? Marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. If you cook it or eat it, it's the exact same effect as taking marinol tablets - which you have already asserted to saying are safe.
Yes, THC is fat soluble. The only thing that means is it can be cooked into anything with a high fat content. The fat solubility of THC means absolutely NOTHING in terms of the effects on a person's body. Do your research before you come up with these wild claims.
Cigarette smokers also take far more puffs off their cigs. They also typically go through several cigarettes a day. Marijuana users will typically never have more than 1 joint in any given day. 2 or 3 in extreme cases. That's still far less tar intake than the 5-10 cigs per day that a cigarette smoker will take in. Furthermore, Marijuana can be taken with food rather than smoked. Thus avoiding any smoke in the first place.

Woah, my eyes hurt! Government isn't banning marijuana because of the damage it will do the lungs, it's damage to the mind they are concerned with.

No, he's probably not. The body can very easily restore itself of minor damage if it's given time. Light smokers who quit will soon find it easier to breathe and given time, their lungs will typically go at least close to the way they were before the person started smoking.

Again, damage to the lungs would be the least of my concern with marijuana.

Anyone who promotes drug legalization is either short-sighted or EXTREMELY selfish -- PERIOD.

For an economics guy, you're the most short sighted person I've ever met. Do you have any idea as to the economic benefits to these things if they were legalized?

These kind of attacks gotta stop. I can tell both sides are getting pretty frustrated with eachother, but I'm familiar with many posts by you guys(emad, MrktMkr and and and................. smellysocks?) and you guys are way better than this. 👍

You call me short-sighted, yet you completely ignore the social impact of drug legalization. Why don't we leave economic gain out of this conversation and stick to correcting the potential PROBLEMS with drug legalization? Can't you people see that that's what I'm trying do?

I agree. I'm strongly against looking at legalizing drugs from economic point of view. 👎 Also, it's somewhat naive to think there won't be any "social impact" by legalizing drugs, IMO. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't.

 

[Goomba]

This thread is unbelievable...

Anyone who promotes drug legalization is either short-sighted or EXTREMELY selfish.

I don't want to get started off on the wrong foot here, the air already seems pretty tense from reading over the most recent posts. However, I have to say I disagree with this remark along with some other points brought up. I'm still unsure on whether or not to full out legalize any and all illegal drugs, but I do think many things should change.

I don't see why we should get rid of everything. I can see how some people say, "Well if this is okay, then this should be!", I don't think it always works that way. For instance, comparing marijuana to tobacco or alcohol for a comparison isn't the most convincing. While your showing that alcohol is much worse than marijuana, however your proving that both of these substances are bad. However, there are bad things around us all the time. I'm sure if we had only public transportation driving deaths would decrease and polution would slow down a bit. However, thats not going to happen. Same thing for say... McDonalds. Everyone knows their food isn't the best for you, but we're not going to get rid of it. And yes, alcohol and gambling does cause many bad things, but they're not going anywhere. Also, I think there would be major economical downfalls if we shut down every tobacco and alcohol plant.

Still on that same topic, how could you eliminate everything? You can't simply go through the entire world and take out every marijuana leaf, every grain used in alcohol, and everything that contributes or is a drug. No way is it possible! I don't think we can go into South or Central America and say, "We're killing all of these cannabis plants.". I just don't see how its possible. Besides, hippies would tie themselves to the plants.

Also, why did America decide it was good practice to send drug users to jail? Jail and prison, in my eyes at least, are for people who rob, steal, kill, rape, and beat. Its not for drug users. First off, the justice system is only looking to punish them, which may work for robbers, murderers, etc. However, what about people who have a physical or psyiological dependency on these drugs? Sending them to prison doesn't help! These people are sick and they need help, regardless of whether or not they're dabbling in illegal or legal drugs. If someone is mentally insane, but kills someone gets help from the courts. They're sent to psychological facilities, right? Why aren't we helping these other people? Of course this is assuming they're arrested for possession and not trafficking or some sort of violent crime. However, America does have an easy solution for this problem.

Treatment.

I believe in 1998 or 1999 Arizona passed a law that made it treatment mandatory for people caught using drugs. Instead of being sent to prison (for first and second offenses), they were forced to go to treatment sessions. Amazing results. First off, it was effective; I believe over 70% of participants were tested for drugs and after a year and were still clean. It made more room for people who commited violent crimes by sending roughly 2,600 people away from prison and into treatment. Finally, by switching to treatment, it saved Arizona tax payers roughly 2.5 million. I've yet to see one reason why not to impliment treatment country wide.

Finally, before I pass out, I want to state my final opinion.

Drugs are not to blame, people are. Marijuana, LSD, heroin, mushrooms are not waved in front of our face by some large business looking to turn a profit. We only have ourselves to blame. Our children turn other children to do drugs because someone elses child pressured the first one to do it. In the same manor, we only have ourselves to blame when we abuse these things. If you think about it, every specific drug already has its effects already worked out before anyone ingests it. The problem is, people don't know themselves or their limits. They think because their friend can drink responsibly every weekend, they can, when they really can't. While each drug has the same effects, each person reacts to each drug differently.

I have met a number of people, who I consider friends who can act responsibly while high, or have consumed a good number of alcoholic beverages. They know when enough is enough. Its people like these who make me think that drugs are not a big problem and why I lean more towards legalizing them. However, at the same time I know a number of people who are the opposite, and they make me think differently. Thats where I get stuck. Should we take away drugs, or even anything from everyone, so that a group of people won't be tempted to use or have them? Or, should we allow everyone everything, and try to help those who may become addicted, or in trouble, or whatever the negative case may be?

I don't know.

 

[a6m5]

Goomba: I agree with many things in your post.

Still on that same topic, how could you eliminate everything? You can't simply go through the entire world and take out every marijuana leaf, every grain used in alcohol, and everything that contributes or is a drug. No way is it possible! I don't think we can go into South or Central America and say, "We're killing all of these cannabis plants.". I just don't see how its possible. Besides, hippies would tie themselves to the plants.

I know, I've said I'm not against banning alcohol, etc., but I do realize that government would never ban them. Even if they did, they won't be able to enforce the ban.

Also, why did America decide it was good practice to send drug users to jail? Jail and prison, in my eyes at least, are for people who rob, steal, kill, rape, and beat. Its not for drug users.

By taking illegal drugs, they broke the law. They were sent to jail, because they broke the law.

Treatment.

I believe in 1998 or 1999 Arizona passed a law that made it treatment mandatory for people caught using drugs. Instead of being sent to prison (for first and second offenses), they were forced to go to treatment sessions. Amazing results. First off, it was effective; I believe over 70% of participants were tested for drugs and after a year and were still clean. It made more room for people who commited violent crimes by sending roughly 2,600 people away from prison and into treatment. Finally, by switching to treatment, it saved Arizona tax payers roughly 2.5 million. I've yet to see one reason why not to impliment treatment country wide.

I think they are on to something. 👍

Drugs are not to blame, people are. Marijuana, LSD, heroin, mushrooms are not waved in front of our face by some large business looking to turn a profit. We only have ourselves to blame. Our children turn other children to do drugs because someone elses child pressured the first one to do it. In the same manor, we only have ourselves to blame when we abuse these things. If you think about it, every specific drug already has its effects already worked out before anyone ingests it. The problem is, people don't know themselves or their limits. They think because their friend can drink responsibly every weekend, they can, when they really can't. While each drug has the same effects, each person reacts to each drug differently.

I agree and disagree. I agree that (in almost all cases)we only have ourselves to blame for drug addiction. I disagree with the part about it's not the "large business" looking to turn a profit. It is a large business, marketing their product, IMO.

 

[K_Speed]

While cigarettes contain over 2000. What the hell is the point you're getting at? Marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. If you cook it or eat it, it's the exact same effect as taking marinol tablets - which you have already asserted to saying are safe.
Yes, THC is fat soluble. The only thing that means is it can be cooked into anything with a high fat content. The fat solubility of THC means absolutely NOTHING in terms of the effects on a person's body. Do your research before you come up with these wild claims.
Cigarette smokers also take far more puffs off their cigs. They also typically go through several cigarettes a day. Marijuana users will typically never have more than 1 joint in any given day. 2 or 3 in extreme cases. That's still far less tar intake than the 5-10 cigs per day that a cigarette smoker will take in. Furthermore, Marijuana can be taken with food rather than smoked. Thus avoiding any smoke in the first place.


No, he's probably not. The body can very easily restore itself of minor damage if it's given time. Light smokers who quit will soon find it easier to breathe and given time, their lungs will typically go at least close to the way they were before the person started smoking.


For an economics guy, you're the most short sighted person I've ever met. Do you have any idea as to the economic benefits to these things if they were legalized?


----

Anyways, I'm out of this arguement for a few days. I've had fun doing this, but it's not going anywhere, MrktMkr is just recycling the same select group of arguements over and over, and most of them are extremely short sighted - from the fact that you willingly want to limit people's right to choose, the fact that you don't see any of the economics related issues related to legalization as well as the fact that you have yet to provide any valid information on legalization's detrimental impacts on society. Of course, the lack of arguements is also causing the rest of us to regurgitate the same information to refute the same claims over and over.

If anyone would like to further comment on this topic, I'd strongly reccomend that you read the previous 5 or so pages of posts before you put in your input. If you have anything new to add, go for it. If anyone wants to help support MrktMkr by helping tossing in a greater variety of arguements against drugs/marijuana than has already been covered, that would be stellar.

Now, I'm off to study for my economics exam 👎

Yeah, Id make cigarettes illegal instead of marijuana.

But MrktMkr is right, legalizing all kinds of drugs would be horrible. Good for the economics yeah but the healthcare and society side, hell no! I wouldnt let my children out of the house if drugs were legal. Its never going to happen anyways.

Who answered to me and said something about a higher rising usage of marijuana, he stated it from 91 to 96 or something. to 96, great, that was 11 years ago.
It doesnt make a difference if its legal in germany or not, everyone smokes it anyways, or has tried it once so it doesnt matter if it slegal or not.....the usage will get worse anyways.

 

[ledhed]

Oh wow... so just because you and whoever you smoke with don't experience any effects, EVERYONE is suppose to feel the same way... got it.

Wow ...so because you feel that alcohol pot and cigarettes are bad and should be banned everyone is supposed to feel the same way...got it .
Lets just discount the fact that countless billions of people throughout history have been able to function and have absolutly no problems what so ever having a beer or a glass of wine or a cocktail after work...because a very small minority seem to have problems controlling THEMSELVES when it comes to intoxicants..LETS BAN THEM ! Screw the rest of you we must protect the idiots from THEMSELVES !
Lets get back to "why pot is illegal and the rest are not". They all should be banned is not an answer it is an evasion. The fact is alcohol and cigarettes ARE legal and there is little or no chance of that changing in OUR lifetime .
BTW back in the era of Kings and dictators and emporers and such BEFORE the creation of the US it was a comon belief amongst the elite that certain segments of society could not in fact govergn themselves that it was in fact the responsibility of the " betters " in society to govern them to " restrict and limit freedoms" so the " others" would not destroy themselves and society .
Things changed when the US was created and the credo " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIABLE RIGHTS SUCH AS LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS .......etc. etc. It was recognised that each individual was responsible for the OWNERSHIP of themselves . They said nothing about it being a lease purchase or a rental . Since all men are equal it seems to reason that no ones individual morals that do not in effect abridge the rights of other individuals would take precedence over anothers. In a nutshell your values work for you fine keep them and I'll keep mine . Accepting the premise that liberty can should be limited goes counter to the concept of democracy . Its the justification for an emporer maybe but not a democracy. When you say liberty should be limited you are saying that SOMEONE has to limit the freedom of the "OTHERS " . Who gets to be the limiter ? And do you want to be the limited ?
Unless of course you can explian how someones pot smoking is hurting you or anyone else .
BTW ..my view on drugs such as heroin and cocain is WAY different . Users should not be put in jail but in rehab ( mandatory ) . SELLERS should be imprisoned 10 years mandatory for any amount ..20 second chance ..life third strike . Minors jail till 18 counting as 1 st strike . Make it unprfitable . But untill the drug laws are fair whats the friggin use ? Pot being illegal is stupid as is putting people in jail for USING any drug.
BTW..you cant say pot has ne medical value..the fact is its being used succesfully as MEDICINE and is legal in some ares to be used as such .
http://www.essaysample.com/essay/003537.html
Unless of course you know better than the doctors. And the lawmakers...and the patients.

 

[Zero]

Cigarette smokers also take far more puffs off their cigs. They also typically go through several cigarettes a day. Marijuana users will typically never have more than 1 joint in any given day. 2 or 3 in extreme cases. That's still far less tar intake than the 5-10 cigs per day that a cigarette smoker will take in. Furthermore, Marijuana can be taken with food rather than smoked. Thus avoiding any smoke in the first place.

Joints? Not many people still smoke joints. I love weed, I wont lie thats why I usually smoke about a quarter ounce a day, everyday.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Joints? Not many people still smoke joints. I love weed, I wont lie thats why I usually smoke about a quarter ounce a day, everyday.

Until you get caught...

Anyway, before I start the "quote wars" again (something I had hoped to avoid), I have a few questions to ask of people who strongly believe that drugs (or at the VERY least marijuana) should be legalized:

1. Do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?
2. If drugs were legal, should they be limited to be over the age of 21? 18?
3. Should so-called "hard drugs" such as LSD, crack, heroin, meth etc. be made available as well if marijuana is legalized?
4. Who do you think should sell the drugs? Private corporations? The government? Both? Neither?
5. If drugs were in fact legalized, who would collect the revenue?
6. How would society care for and pay for the social costs of increased drug use?
7. Will people still need prescriptions for medication (antibiotics etc.) if drugs are legalized?
8. If drugs are legalized in the United States, how should the government deal with people who come to America from countries where drugs are illegal?
9. Why do you think drugs should be legalized? (short answer) << I ask this because I want to know what it is that motivates proponents of legalization.

I'll be back later to respond to the other posts.

 

[emad]

Now we're getting somewhere 👍

1) No, just the soft ones

2) I'd say 18 or 19 but legal age in the US is 21 if I remember correctly. The problem with having such a high legal age is that underage usage will skyrocket and it's only more fodder against it. In Europe, legal age is around 16. In Canada, the age is around 18 or 19 depending on the province you're in.

3) No. If marijuana is legalized, law enforcement officials will have the additional funding needed to crack down on the sellers of hard drugs. There's fewer people who sell them, and the ones that do are typically more dangerous.

4) Think of the policy in the Netherlands. Just allow small groups of stores/bars to carry it in properly zoned locales. Government intervention should only be in place for taxing them, regulating access (think liquor licence), and in regulating chemical additives if grow ops were to go corporate.

5) The people with the legal licences to sell and the government for the tax money.

6) If the millions of people per year that go to jail on posession of marijuana charges get released, then society has all the money they need in the form of saved tax money. Abusers should be allowed and encouraged access to rehab facilities.

7) I don't see why they'd need a prescription for OTC medications.

8) What's to deal with? They're tourists coming to the country to enjoy the things it has to offer, right? As long as they don't overstay their visit or attempt to remain illegally, it should be ok.

9) Here's what I can think of off the top of my head

-They're already readily available to us. If I go downtown, all I would have to do is ask a few random people and I'd have access to a source. If I'm on campus, then everyone will know where to get it.

-You've said it before. Some dealers are shady people, you don't know whether or not what you're getting is good or safe if you buy off a random person.

-legalizing it means that crime gangs lose a major source of income - ie, reductions in organized crime. Similarly, It frees up police resources to target dealers of more serious drugs. That in itself will help drive down the population of hard drug users.

Back to the exam preparations for me

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I've rephrased some of the questions... be back later.

 

[Danoff]

1. Do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?

Unfortunately no. I think that almost all drugs should be legalized. Antibiotics directly affect other individuals and should most likely be regulated. Abuse of antibiotics leads to resistant viral strains that hurt everyone. Other than that I think drugs should be legalized. Cocaine, heroin, X, pot, LSD, speed, etc.

2. If drugs were legal, should they be limited to be over the age of 21? 18?

Either is fine with me. They should be restricted to adults. Children cannot be expected to make responsible choices and until they are able to do so, some protections are necessary.

3. Should so-called "hard drugs" such as LSD, crack, heroin, meth etc. be made available as well if marijuana is legalized?

"made available"? No. Legalized? Yes.

4. Who do you think should sell the drugs? Private corporations? The government? Both? Neither?

Anyone should be able to sell drugs. Private corporations, people - but not the government. Everyone pays for the government so everyone has some say as to what it does - but it is not a necessary or proper role for the government to be selling drugs (or regulating them). Note that this calls for the removal of the FDA which is responsible for thousands of deaths.

5. If drugs were in fact legalized, who would collect the revenue?

Whoever was selling. Whether its a large cocaine company or the grocery store. Of course they are subject to the standard sales tax for all goods.

6. How would society care for and pay for the social costs of increased drug use?

Society will not care for or pay for any of the drug use (I won't comment here on whether it would increase). No unemployment checks, no government health insurance, no government sponsored rehab clinics...

7. Will people still need prescriptions8 for medication (antibiotics etc.) if drugs are legalized?

Only antibiotics.

8. If drugs are legalized in the United States, how should the government deal with people who come to America from countries where drugs are illegal?

Proper immigration procedure.

9. Why do you think drugs should be legalized? (short answer) << I ask this because I want to know what it is that motivates proponents of legalization.

Because there is no good reason for it to be illegal, it creates criminals who have harmed nobody and generates busy work for police officers. By "good reason" I mean that when someone does drugs, they're not violating your rights as an individual.

 

[194GVan]

MY ANSWERS ARE IN ALL CAPS, JUST SO ITS EASIER TO READ THEM

Do you think ALL drugs should be legalized? NO

If drugs were legal, should they be limited to be over the age of 21? 18? YES

Should so-called "hard drugs" such as LSD, crack, heroin, meth etc. be made available as well if marijuana is legalized? NO

Who do you think should sell the drugs? Private corporations? The government? Both? Neither? GOVERNMENT, GET SOME MONEY BACK TO PAY OFF THE RIDICULOUS DEBT.

If drugs were in fact legalized, who would collect the revenue? UMM...I DO BELIEVE I JUST SAID THE GOVERNMENT

How would society care for and pay for the social costs of increased drug use? WITH THE MONEY MADE FROM SELLING IT.

Will people still need prescriptions for medication (antibiotics etc.) if drugs are legalized? YES.

If drugs are legalized in the United States, how should the government deal with people who come to America from countries where drugs are illegal? THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF OUR COUNTRY. JUST LIKE HOW A US CITIZEN CAN TRAVEL TO AMSTERDAM AND USE MARIJUANA LEGALLY.

Why do you think drugs should be legalized? FOR THE RECORD, I ONLY THINK MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED, BUT SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ALCOHOL PRETTY MUCH, LIKE YOU SHOULDNT BE DRIVING HIGH OUT OF YOUR MIND, ETC... TO LEGALIZE DRUGS SUCH AS COCAINE, ACID, LSD, HEROIN, X, ETC.. THATS JUST STUPID. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF DRUGS WHEN ABUSED WILL PERMANENTLY 🤬 YOU UP. FOR THE RECORD I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE ABOVE BUT NOT ALL (NOT YET) SO IM NOT JUST SOME JOHNNY BE GOOD SHOUTING OUT OPINIONS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.


quote from my profile "never hold strong opinions about things you dont understand", its how i live my life.

 

[Danoff]

TO LEGALIZE DRUGS SUCH AS COCAINE, ACID, LSD, HEROIN, X, ETC.. THATS JUST STUPID.

It's nice to see that people can keep things civilized.

THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF DRUGS WHEN ABUSED WILL PERMANENTLY **** YOU UP.

So? Isn't it my choice to permanetly **** mysefl up? Isn't it your choice whether you want to permanently **** yourself up? Some people want to be ****ed up. Is it your right to stop them? Should you have been thrown in jail when you tried the above drugs?

 

[194GVan]

hey man, this is the opinions forum, i thought maybe i would share my opinion. im not saying im 100% right by any means, but your arguments arent going to change the way I feel about it. Yes, I believe people should have the rights to do whatever they want, but at the same time I dont agree that it should be a total free for all, and for safety reasons there should be some limitations in place. but what do i know? im a big fat hypocrite.

 

[Danoff]

hey man, this is the opinions forum, i thought maybe i would share my opinion. im not saying im 100% right by any means, but your arguments arent going to change the way I feel about it. Yes, I believe people should have the rights to do whatever they want, but at the same time I dont agree that it should be a total free for all, and for safety reasons there should be some limitations in place.

Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean I'm not going to ask you for reasoning.

I don't like it either. I don't feel like drugs should be legal either. I feel like it's bad. But it doesn't matter what I feel. I see no reason why I should have that control over others.

What are these "safety reasons" you refer to.

 

[194GVan]

like someone mentioned before, it probably would not be a very safe situation to have someone tripping hard on acid operating heavy machinery such as an automobile. I see where you were coming from in your first post now, you just wanted me to explain my reasoning but see now youre making me think. WHAT IF all drugs were legal, but had punishments such as alcohol to (hopefully) prevent abuse in public or while driving your car?

but when tragedies ensue, and people die as a direct result of said drugs being legal, who can you blame? its so interesting because society is so quick to blame drugs rather than the irresponsibility of the user, yet alcohol is still legal? dont get me wrong i love me some beers and i dont want it to be illegal but the whole system in place (at least in the US) is so hypocritical. if alcohol can be legal then AT LEAST marijuana can be legal. and thats my biased opinion.

 

[Danoff]

but when tragedies ensue, and people die as a direct result of said drugs being legal, who can you blame? its so interesting because society is so quick to blame drugs rather than the irresponsibility of the user,

Exactly, you blame the user and make the penalties such that nobody is willing to take the chance.

like someone mentioned before, it probably would not be a very safe situation to have someone tripping hard on acid operating heavy machinery such as an automobile.

Well if they were tripping on-the-job for example, their employer could take action. If they were tripping on the road they wouldn't be on the road long before they were pulled over for reckless driving and hauled in to jail.

More likley they would do what they do now. Sit in a room with lots of pillows and food and maybe a TV and a stereo - and just lay there and get high.

That's pretty much what drug users do. The sequester themselves and get high.

 

[smellysocks12]

like someone mentioned before, it probably would not be a very safe situation to have someone tripping hard on acid operating heavy machinery such as an automobile. I see where you were coming from in your first post now, you just wanted me to explain my reasoning but see now youre making me think. WHAT IF all drugs were legal, but had punishments such as alcohol to (hopefully) prevent abuse in public or while driving your car?

but when tragedies ensue, and people die as a direct result of said drugs being legal, who can you blame? its so interesting because society is so quick to blame drugs rather than the irresponsibility of the user, yet alcohol is still legal? dont get me wrong i love me some beers and i dont want it to be illegal but the whole system in place (at least in the US) is so hypocritical. if alcohol can be legal then AT LEAST marijuana can be legal. and thats my biased opinion.

Exactly, that isn't a biased opinion, it's a good opinion based on logical reasoning. The user is responsible, not the drug... although with drugs like heroin and cocain often the dealer is responsible for letting weak minded people try it out for free once, or even worse, forcing them to do so, trying to build up a loyal customer base. When drugs are legal, there is no profit to be made by people like this, so there wouldn't be a reason for them to get people hooked to it. That is also one reason why no commercial institution should be in charge of the distribution of these drugs to the current addicts.

 

[smellysocks12]

By the way, I don't use drugs myself in case anyone thought otherwise, my reasoning for making drugs legal aren't based on me wanting to be able to buy it freely and use it legally. As a matter of fact, this world would be better off without drugs, especially the hard drugs. My whole reasoning behind my idea of legalizing drugs is based on the fact that making something illegal doesn't eliminate it from society, unless you want to do it the despotism nazi way.... but that would make people even worse off.

 

[smellysocks12]

You call me short-sighted, yet you completely ignore the social impact of drug legalization. Why don't we leave economic gain out of this conversation and stick to correcting the potential PROBLEMS with drug legalization? Can't you people see that that's what I'm trying do?

Social impact??? I LIVE in a country where certain drugs have been legalized years ago and the social situation here seems to be better than in the USA, where most addicts get locked up in prison and treated like criminals, instead of curing them of their disease. Addiction is a disease, heroin is their cure.... you don't lock up cancer patients either, do you?

Many cities here have indoor places for addicts to shoot up their drugs and supplied with clean needles without being harrassed by police, while they won't be confronting other people with their drug habits. It still isn't legal for them to buy their drugs, but at least they get the opportunity to safely use it, this is a benefit for both the addicts as well as the other inhabitants of the country.

 

[Danoff]

instead of curing them of their disease. Addiction is a disease, heroin is their cure

Oh yes, the poor heroin addicts have a disease. There was nothing they could do. You might have caught the disease too but you were lukcy.

Addition is not a disease, it's a choice.

Many cities here have indoor places for addicts to shoot up their drugs and supplied with clean needles without being harrassed by police,

So you're paying for your addicts to have a place to shoot up and clean needles? That's absurd. Let them pay for thir own addiction.

 

[PS]

Still on that same topic, how could you eliminate everything? You can't simply go through the entire world and take out every marijuana leaf, every grain used in alcohol, and everything that contributes or is a drug. No way is it possible! I don't think we can go into South or Central America and say, "We're killing all of these cannabis plants.". I just don't see how its possible. Besides, hippies would tie themselves to the plants.

WRONG. I happen to personally know a man, Dr. Paul Wylie, who was in Panama, Nicaragua, and some other place where he did studies on hemp agriculture and marijuana. He had a field of hemp which he was studying and the DEA, FBI, AND CIA shut it down, and banned him from the United States and Canada and incarserated him with no trial or rights given to him. They even shut down his website. After that he wrote a book to be published about his experiences with the CIA, FBI, and DEA and how they raided his farm, and also about how he knows and talked to/interviewed 2 ex-CIA agents that were incarserated with him. Now, my mom's friend Pauline can never see her boyfriend again and I'll never see him either. All this because in some foreign countries, he was studying hemp. The USA is a LOT more invasive and censored than you'd like to think.

 

[smellysocks12]

You do bring up some good points, but I strongly disagree with this one. You'd think drugs are popular now, if it's legalized, at least in the U.S., rate of drug useage will sky rocket.

Yeah, it will sky rocket, I am aware of that. I already explained that in another post I typed earlier in this discussion (might have been the smoking topic, though).


Making drugs legal in the USA will increase sales immediately, when looking at the short term effect. If you look at the long term effect you will see that it will decrease below the level it is right now. Once everyone tried it out, and they realized that "weed" isn't all that great or exciting, they will stop using it. At least most people will... there will be some people who continue to use it, but it's a nice alternative for people who don't like the effects of alcohol.


Right now, with it being illegal many rebelious youth think it is cool to use it, they brag to friends about how many joints they smoked yesterday. If it is freely available and everyone above a certain age can buy it, the entire coolness factor is gone. Example: "I smoked weed yesterday!" reply: "oh.... great... I had a glass of milk today". If you ask that right now the average teenager will reply with something like: "Man, my weed is much better"

 

[smellysocks12]

Oh yes, the poor heroin addicts have a disease. There was nothing they could do. You might have caught the disease too but you were lukcy.

Addition is not a disease, it's a choice.



So you're paying for your addicts to have a place to shoot up and clean needles? That's absurd. Let them pay for thir own addiction.

Because addiction is self inflicted in the beginning doesn't mean that it isn't a disease. If you think that way you can say the same about someone with HIV.

"You could have used a condom, now you have AIDS, haha you die... now screw yourself."

Yeah, lets stop the development of a cure for AIDS.... they should have had safe sex. Lets not pay for it. Nonsense!

That is what a society is about, everyone chipping in a little to try to make the world a better place for everyone. Because someone made a mistake to use heroin to begin with doesn't mean you can condemn them to die in the streets getting beat up by police daily, if they didn't already get killed by an angry dealer. Their drug addiction might have been caused by society to begin with. You don't know every junkie's history, they might have been confused at the time and not have had the proper psychiatry to help them out, so instead they resorted to drugs. Maybe they weren't aware of the dangers that came with it, because they weren't properly informed about heroin.


The price of clean needles and that place to shoot up are to be neglected, a HIV infected junkie roaming the streets and ending up in the hospital weekly costs society more than a couple of needles every day and a roof above their heads.

 

[PS]

Because addiction is self inflicted in the beginning doesn't mean that it isn't a disease. If you think that way you can say the same about someone with HIV.

Not because it's self inflicted, but because it's a chemical inbalance making you addicted to it. IT IS NOT A DISEASE.

"You could have used a condom, now you have AIDS, haha you die... now screw yourself."

Their fault.

Yeah, lets stop the development of a cure for AIDS.... they should have had safe sex. Lets not pay for it. Nonsense!

...except AIDS/HIV is a VIRUS. NOT a disease, and it's transferable via blood, needles, and sex. It is an infection, not a chemical inbalance as a result of poor choices.

That is what a society is about, everyone chipping in a little to try to make the world a better place for everyone.

Yup.

Because someone made a mistake to use heroin to begin with doesn't mean you can condemn them to die in the streets getting beat up by police daily, if they didn't already get killed by an angry dealer.

LMAO! You actually think that happens?! rotfl!

Ok, in Vancouver, undoubtedly the druggiest place in Canada right now, the cops know the druggies on a personal first name basis! The drug dealers aren't killers! They aren't freakin DMX and Steven Segal shooting the place up if a deal goes bad! the cops know they can't really help them, and it's also pointless to beat them, all they can do is chip in their 2 cents worth of advice and check up on them now'n'then, see what they're up to, and how they're doing.

The price of clean needles and that place to shoot up are to be neglected, a HIV infected junkie roaming the streets and ending up in the hospital weekly costs society more than a couple of needles every day and a roof above their heads.

Maybe, but not necessarily. It's quite amazing how resilliant these druggies bodies become after they've been doing it for years. Of course they're completely screwed form all the drug use, but you'd be surprised how little trips to the hospital they make considering they're doing uber-hard drugs every/every other night.

 

[Danoff]

Because addiction is self inflicted in the beginning doesn't mean that it isn't a disease. If you think that way you can say the same about someone with HIV.

HIV is a virus. Addiction is not a virus. It's not bacteria. There is one way to overcome addiction - choose to overcome it. It is a choice to remain addicted AND to become addicted in the first place.

Their drug addiction might have been caused by society to begin with.

No. Their drug addiction is caused by them to begin with. I'm not going to take responsibility for their poor choices and I won't lay the blame on my neighbor. The choice was theirs alone.

To provide clean needles and a safe room for addicts is like providing fat people with stairmasters. It was their choice to get fat, it's their choice to remain fat - I should haven't to pay for any of it.

 

[smellysocks12]

Also, why did America decide it was good practice to send drug users to jail? Jail and prison, in my eyes at least, are for people who rob, steal, kill, rape, and beat. Its not for drug users.

By taking illegal drugs, they broke the law. They were sent to jail, because they broke the law.

Exactly, they are sent to jail because they broke the law. They used drugs that is illegal, they didn't bother anyone, they didn't hurt anyone. This is a clear example of how the law is short sighted and searching for a simple solution, not the best one, so it should be changed. One thing this law does correctly is identifying that these people have a problem, the error is in the solution: sending them to jail. They go to jail, a couple of years later they get released and still have the same problem. Eventually they go back to jail again or they die.


Even if drugs are going to be illegal in the USA, it would be a way better to make selling drugs illegal, but not using drugs. Drugdealers should be going to jail, drug users need therapy. They need help with their problem, since they obviously can't help themselves. So instead of sending junkies to jail, the police should be putting the dealers in jail. Right now mostly small time dealers and junkies go to jail, because they are an easy target. They are easy to identify, to solve the problem they should get to the root, not the leaves of it. If you cut off some leaves off a tree it won't die, new ones will grow, you have to get to the root. Although even then, if you killed the tree, another one might grow back there... since the ground there is fertile, there is a perfect base for another tree to feed from. Instead they should put tarmac on the place where the tree used to be, making the ground dead for any possible growth. No more nutrition (money) to be found(made), tree (drug criminality) gone forever.

 

[smellysocks12]

HIV is a virus. Addiction is not a virus. It's not bacteria. There is one way to overcome addiction - choose to overcome it. It is a choice to remain addicted AND to become addicted in the first place.

There are a lot of psychological diseases which don't have bacteria or a virus involved. They choose to continue using drugs because they have the mindstate of a drug user. They don't have a healthy view on the world anymore or any sense of responsibility. The only thing on their mind is right now, getting money for the next shot, they don't look forward to what the future might bring them. People can't always solve anything on their own, neither are they always able to make the right decissions themselves. Especially not when they are weakened mentally. Once they are back on track, these people will look back at their life and incredibly happy, being able to function in society again and pay taxes. Eventually the costs made to get them back on track will pay back.

No. Their drug addiction is caused by them to begin with. I'm not going to take responsibility for their poor choices and I won't lay the blame on my neighbor. The choice was theirs alone.

That is selfish, I have nothing else to say about this... people who think like this make me sick. I can't say it in a more polite way. I could have known it though, since you were also the one wanting to get rid of minimum wage, a law that is there to protect the poor, another weak group.

To provide clean needles and a safe room for addicts is like providing fat people with stairmasters. It was their choice to get fat, it's their choice to remain fat - I should haven't to pay for any of it.

Fat people often don't have the strongest mentality either, so I definitely agree that they should get stimulation to work for a better health. You unconsciously actually came up with a good idea, I haven't thought of that myself before. It's not like most people want to be fat (unless you're registered to feeders.co.uk), just like addicts, they don't know where to start to improve their situation and need help.

 

[smellysocks12]

Ok, in Vancouver, undoubtedly the druggiest place in Canada right now, the cops know the druggies on a personal first name basis! The drug dealers aren't killers! They aren't freakin DMX and Steven Segal shooting the place up if a deal goes bad! the cops know they can't really help them, and it's also pointless to beat them, all they can do is chip in their 2 cents worth of advice and check up on them now'n'then, see what they're up to, and how they're doing.

In Canada the problems with junkies are a lot less than in the USA, also the police is less violent. The drug dealers in Canada aren't killers if you say so, the ones who supply to the drug dealers over there do, they probably aren't Canadians either.


Actually Canada is one of the few countries that seriously is in the process of legalizing marijuana for a couple of years already. It might take a while to actually be changed by law, but my dad spoke to his Canadian collegue in the Canadian government years ago already, who told him about it.


For any comments on other things you said refer to my previous post.

 

[Danoff]

Fat people often don't have the strongest mentality either, so I definitely agree that they should get stimulation to work for a better health. You unconsciously actually came up with a good idea, I haven't thought of that myself before. It's not like most people want to be fat (unless you're registered to feeders.co.uk), just like addicts, they don't know where to start to improve their situation and need help.

No. I very conciously came up with a parallel situation that I thought any reasonable person would balk at. Your willingness to use force to make people do what you want is deplorable.

That is selfish, I have nothing else to say about this... people who think like this make me sick. I can't say it in a more polite way. I could have known it though, since you were also the one wanting to get rid of minimum wage, a law that is there to protect the poor, another weak group.

Minimum wage hurts the poor.... and I will donate to charities of my own accord. You wanting to force me to be charitable is what makes me sick.

There are a lot of psychological diseases which don't have bacteria or a virus involved. They choose to continue using drugs because they have the mindstate of a drug user.

You're running in circles. Drug addiction is not a psychological disease (although psychologists would love to have you think that), it is physical addiction to a substance. The only way for someone to rid themselves of the drug addiction is to CHOOSE for THEMSELVES to quit.

That's it, there is no other way.

 

[smellysocks12]

No. I very conciously came up with a parallel situation that I thought any reasonable person would balk at. Your willingness to use force to make people do what you want is deplorable.

Maybe you should have consciously thought about your plan and you would have realized that the idea isn't bad. With all the fat slobs sitting around on their couches doing nothing but eating bags of chips the yearly amount of heart operations and bypasses cost more than it would when the government would when paying a part of the subscription to a sports club for people with weight problems.

By the way, forcing people does work very well to remove certain problems from society. For example Hitler, he forced people to work, which made him the only country leader to ever reduce unemployment to zero. Also Mao Ze Tung, Stalin and Mussolini were very willing to force people. Great train of thought, keep it up. 👍

You're running in circles. Drug addiction is not a psychological disease (although psychologists would love to have you think that), it is physical addiction to a substance. The only way for someone to rid themselves of the drug addiction is to CHOOSE for THEMSELVES to quit.

I'm not running in circles at all, I'm replying to you. I'm going to run the same circle again if that's what you like to call it. Drug addiction is both physical and mentally. Their body is addicted to the substance, which affects their psychological state. They definitely have to be willing to quit an addiction before they can kick their addiction. As a matter of fact, most addicts are willing to do so. They can't do it on their own, because once in the process of kicking they don't want to anymore. That's where they need help to be able to quit.

Minimum wage hurts the poor.... and I will donate to charities of my own accord. You wanting to force me to be charitable is what makes me sick.

It has nothing to do with charity, it's a buffer. The minimum wage will also apply to you. If you ever end up in the situation of having to work a crappy job, minimum wage will also protect you. Though it is unlikely that you will, since you have probably been raised in a wealthy family, able to enjoy a good education. Unfortunately these situations also made you snobby, ego-centric and selfish.

That's it, there is no other way.

Stubborn.