Drugs- Prohibition or not

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by welsh, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    anyone who says things like:

    "pot doesnt kill people"

    are... idiots.


    AIDS/HIV causes no damage to any internal organs that causes them to fail. all it does is destroy white blood cells, the bodies defense against infection/invasion.

    if you think pot doesnt kill people, then you must admit that AIDS/HIV does not kill people. just like actively using pot does not kill you ( unless its like a collapsed lung from bong hits ), AIDS/HIV "kills" in the same vein, not overtly, but simply by being there.

    if you think pot does not kill people, then you must admit that LSD does not kill people as well. LSD is another "passive" drug that causes no overt damage to the body ( other than the permanent buildup of LSD in the spinal column ) so you would have to admit LSD also does not kill anyone.

    if you think pot does not kill people, then you must also admit that unless a death from alcohol was caused by failing liver or kidneys, alcohol was not the cause of their death.


    the belief "pot doesnt kill people" is ONLY even remotely true if you believe that anything you do while under the influence of a MIND ALTERING DRUG is not the cause of the drug.


    guy gets high on pot, then drives from his home to his girlfriends house, while driving hits and kills a family of 4 in their car. pot did not kill the other family, the driver did.

    guy gets drunk off alcohol, then drives from his house to his girlfriends house, while driving hits and kills a family of 4. alcohol did not kill the other family, the driver did.

    50 year old guy has HIV/AIDS and is constantly getting hospitalized for medical problems. one time he gets a really bad case of penumia and the hospital is unable to cure it. he subsequently dies while the person next to him without HIV/AIDS but the same penumia makes a full recovery. HIV/AIDS did not kill the guy, penumia did.
     
  2. Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude

    Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Jul 9, 2004
    I guess, but look at when they were made legal. Alcohol in the 30s or something, and I don't even know when smoking was, but I'm sure it was long before that.

    It's been quite a long time, and if anything; regulations regarding the two have gotten more strict, instead of relaxed.
     
  3. roggles

    roggles First time out of the vault

    23
    Nov 12, 2008
    Yes it does hold up. We treat alcohol in a non-retarded way and should do the same with pot. Just see how much less crime there is related to alcohol in comparison to the popular illegal drugs. THIS should be the argument, but because of the debate climate people usually end up being apologetic about wanting to legalize some drug.

    Of course, I think that sending anyone to jail over doing or distributing drugs is a heinous crime. Sending people to jail over things they do voluntarily is just an expression of how the government and its voters think they own other people. It is sad that someone will say "libertarians will argue that all civil rights are good", as if the immorality in punishing people who haven't committed a crime against anyone isn't extremely obvious. Anyone in favor of keeping drugs illegal is from my viewpoint simply evil.

    As for the original question, yes, there will be more addicts if the drug is legalized. Crime is founded in desperation, and in a free market drugs would be quite cheap. It is not harder to grow weed than tobacco, and it is not particularly hard to make heroin either. I would hope that in our information heavy society people do not start recreationally using opiates just because they are cheap and legal.
     
  4. Mr. Grandma

    Mr. Grandma C3H5N3O9 + NaOH Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    Bahaha. The government is right to keep drugs illegal! If that comparison of HIV/Pot is any indication of the irrelevant thinking of the population, you would all be dead in a month!

    Now go plug so physics equations into quantum physics run computer processors and wonder why the machine doesn't work!

    Do me a favor, get addicted to bottled water, and go drink around 40 bottles. After you wake up in the emergency room, go take the same volume of THC.

    After you wake up on the sidewalk naked and an empty fridge, call me.

    People who drive while stoned are either 2 things

    1. Stupid enough to think that being stoned and driving is a good thing, or have an excuse because they are "Stoned"

    2. Are very good drivers.
     
  5. Stealste

    Stealste First time out of the vault

    70
    Jan 15, 2009
    So you're saying we should ban cars?
     
  6. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Coca is not the same as cocaine, smarty-pants. And whether or not these drugs have valid medical uses (which are superseded by other, better suited medication anyway), the tolls they take on society should be obvious.
    These are highly addictive substances that can destroy people's lives without having to go into overdose territory (I don't even know why you brought that up).

    We'll never know because the relevant legalization happened what, 4000 years ago? The prohibition was not prolonged enough to have the effect we're talking about, and it was widely flaunted anyway.

    This argument sounds nice but is nonsensical. You can replace drug use with theft, murder or any other crime and your argument would remain equally valid (that is: not at all valid).
    Punishment is a negative incentive. Negative incentives certainly do work.
    There are a lot of problems with drug legislation, including increased exposure to drugs in prison, the status an ex-con gets within American gangs, and for many young blacks it is seen as inherently racist.
    But to say that you should just throw away all laws because people will do what they want anyway is bullshit.

    Alcohol and smoking have always been legal, with a few small historical periods where alcohol was banned (most significantly the prohibition).

    If you had been paying attention, you would've noticed that we take along these deaths.
    You would also notice that pot does not kill anywhere near the amount of people any other drug kills either directly or indirectly.
    In fact, I cannot for the life of me remember any news report or study reporting an actual death caused by pot - directly or indirectly.

    So if I voluntarily murder someone it's okay, 'cause it's my own choice to do so?
     
  7. Mr. Grandma

    Mr. Grandma C3H5N3O9 + NaOH Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    yes, im aware. But guess what cocaine is before it is processed into a drug to be made more potent and addictive? coca...

    And my point is information should be judged by people who have an education on the subject, but i guess that point flew over your head.
     
  8. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    No shit sherlock. And for some reason coca itself is still treated similarly to cocaine. But it is nowhere near the same thing.
    Treating these things differently is fine, but hardly the point or relevant.

    No, it did not. But you are mixing two arguments here. You are somehow binding education to legalization - which is ludicrous. Education is important, but there is no need to legalize drugs if you want to educate people.
     
  9. Mr. Grandma

    Mr. Grandma C3H5N3O9 + NaOH Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    Huh? Keeping drugs illegal is an action of suppression that costs money and effort.

    Education and categorization is far more cheaper, and doesn't involve political action, more like inaction, since drugs are only one subject under an education system, and a small one compared to other topics.

    But political oppression is a big subject, and costs vast resources.

    Stop arguing small shit and accept the bigger picture of my argument.
     
  10. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Some would argue that the societal gain outweighs the money and effort and education also costs money and effort.

    Regardless - the two serve wholly different purposes. One is a negative incentive that serves to discourage drug use and facilitate the stopping of criminal organisations that deal in drugs.

    Education is none of those things. It is there to educate people about drugs so that if they get into it, they know what to look out for and they at least get to make an educated choice about it - which is better than an uneducated choice.

    These things are not interchangeable and do not serve the same purpose.

    You are creating a false dichotomy here.
    It is, again, not either education or criminalization. I have no clue why you keep saying that education is to be used instead of criminalization, nor is there any reason to assume that education will serve to reduce drug use - although it may reduce accidental problems with drug use.

    Education does not stop heroin from being highly addictive and destructive.

    Ehm, no, because I disagree with your bigger picture.

    I'm also not arguing small shit. Stop trying to ignore my valid arguments by marginalizing them.
     
  11. Mr. Grandma

    Mr. Grandma C3H5N3O9 + NaOH Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    The idea of criminalization of drug use is to protect society as a whole, or at least that is the argument used to facilitate the drug-war. But, this argument is already counter productive to a society that is based on the citizens making their own free choices democratically. Education serves as the logical and only force that can help deter people from making dangerous and unwise decisions in a free society. Any step taken further to enforce the population is an act of tyranny and oppression, and is economically unsound and contradictory to system of free market.

    Education, full education, given to citizens about drugs, and to have drugs under control of certified persons who specialize in drugs, under the control of a corporation who is government regulated by another drug specialist, will funnel the fallout of addiction and misuse into a small, controllable portion of society that can be monitored that can receive help alot easier than a rampant plague of junkies and addicts.



    Nevermind that statement. You wanted a decent debate, I was lazy and wanted to argue my points without fully bringing all of my arguments to the forefront without backing. But your under the false assumption that our ideas are not the same. Ignoring the logical points scenarios of my valid arguments is your ego rubbing it's dutch cock everywhere you drunk fiend.
     
  12. Ravager69

    Ravager69 Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Dec 21, 2007
    You both misunderstood me.

    I'm not saying alcohol is safe. I'm saying that we don't need more destructive, mind-altering substances available openly to the public. We already have alcohol and cigs legal, which should be enough for people who want to artificialy make themselves happy. Making drugs legal will solve some problems, while generating the same, if not bigger amount of them.

    So why bother? It won't make things any better. Some adjustment in dealing with drug users is fine, education about drug usage and not sending people to jail for having a joint - OK, but not more.

    *EDIT*
    just saw this:

    "Education, full education, given to citizens about drugs, and to have drugs under control of certified persons who specialize in drugs, under the control of a corporation who is government regulated by another drug specialist, will funnel the fallout of addiction and misuse into a small, controllable portion of society that can be monitored that can receive help alot easier than a rampant plague of junkies and addicts."

    This is complete bullshit. Assuming that kind of thing is optimistic at best. Everyone in society is well-educated about alcohol, many people see it's bad effects on example of their family and friends, but does it solve anything?
     
  13. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    That assumes that your society is based on citizens making their own free choices. It is not. It is based on majority rule within the bounds of the constitution. It puts an emphasis on individual liberties, sure, but it has always limited those liberties.

    There's also a very valid argument to be made for an approach that optimizes society and the country. You don't do that simply by letting everyone do whatever they want.

    Also, the principle of the free market does not exist and the idea that any regulation is economically unsound sounds nice but does not actually make all that much sense if you look at the actions people take - including people

    Heh, this government monopoly also interferes with the free market. It also smacks of controlling people. ;)

    This might work, but only as an overarching policy. Such an organization will necessarily limit availability of the drug, as their objective is to reduce drug dependency. It won't eliminate the problem of drug use among those people who start with it, it might mitigate the effect of people who have started, though.
    No, we didn't. You compared alcohol to all drugs, in doing so you lumped all drugs in one big group which is nonsense. Furthermore, your statement that alcohol isn't half as destructive as those drugs is, again, patently nonsense and hence shows that your knowledge of the subject is insufficient to discuss the topic at a decent level.

    These are statements, not arguments.


    Alcohol is a special case due to its acceptance by society. Prohibition only created a bigger problem. But education may have gone a long way to mitigate problems alcohol causes.
    At the very least the campaigns against drunk driving have gone a long way to decrease the amount of drunk driving by making it both heavily punished, and socially frowned upon.

    You cannot just say 'well there are still alcohol addicts' and thus conclude that education is useless - you should compare it to the alternative.
     
  14. Mr. Grandma

    Mr. Grandma C3H5N3O9 + NaOH Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    Well, the bases of system evolution toward better means of productivity while keeping principles of liberty is almost a necessity given the knowledge of repercussions from the current status quo.

    The idea of drug control isn't a simple equation to be fixed. It is cut and fit, ambiguous, and pragmatic, determined by many other forces acting upon it, and thus must be approached with broad insight. That is why education is important! The current government is trying to control a problem they seem to know nothing about!

    Well, that is the argument in it's light. I personally believe that the reason there is a problem now has more to do with corruption, and theorize drug cartel conspiracies and the idea of drug lobbies pushing drugs that can be profitable and cutting out drugs that are not, like marijuana, that can be grown and distributed by the individual. Marijuana will also make about 60% of all produced drugs that are used for things like depression obsolete.


    Not if the government is run in democratic decency. Government by the people for the people, atleast that is what is said. But how can the people make their own decisions rationally if they are not educated? BIG problem with society today. People are calling for democracy but they don't know how to run it themselves. They appoint people who are smarter than they are, and they end up being controlling by them, and don't care what happens until gas prices rise and taxes go up.

    True democracy requires alot of responsibility from it's citizens. If they cannot accept it, putting power into someone elses hands, then it is not a democracy.
     
  15. Zaij

    Zaij Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 10, 2004
    Man, no wonder the war on drugs is still going given the ignorance I've seen in this thread.

    A myth. That's right, a damn myth. The fact is that responsible use of anything should never see you come to harm.

    The 'pot doesn't kill' thing is talking about internal harm; that is, pot doesn't damage your liver and your brain the way the alcohol does. Yes, people can get killed because dudes under the influence do stupid things. No one is debating that. The AIDS/Pot comparison is just ridiculous too.

    Yes, we should. It's a bit hard to do that, though, when the govenment has criminalized it and spreads a misinformation campaign about the damn drug. You need to be educated about the issue to be able to make informed decisions. Indeed, Australia can be seen as leading the pack in this respect. Can't walk 10m in a public space without seeing anti drug posters displaying a guy lying on a gurney surrounded by paramedics saying stuff like "Extasy doesn't seem so fun now" (but it's catchier than that, I just can't remember it at the moment) for all kinds of drugs these days.

    It's this that government's should be working towards, not sending people to prison for on ecky. Information is key to responsible use, you'll never get that with strong sentencing instead.

    I really think that it's only hard drugs should continue to be illegal; Meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. Soft drugs like shrooms, LSD and pot, however, are fine.

    No, you're right, we should just let the government take care of everything for us. They should also install internet filters to stop our children being able to watch anything morally wrong and ban all video games.

    Hey, you know what else we should do? Promote abstinence rather than safe sex! I hear that works really well!!!!
     
  16. jero cvmi

    jero cvmi Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    399
    Oct 8, 2008
    How are drugs connected to crime, other than that they're controlled by the same circles that control all the rest illegal activities?
    Why is that any reason to fill up prisons with substance users? Where i'm from, the majority of prisoners are users and small time dealers.
    How is drugs legislation stopping the criminal organisations? All it does is securing their market. Legalization would mean a huge income loss for them, since users would rationally prefer legitimate sources.

    and sander, where did i say we should throw away all laws? you misunderstood. all i meant is that negative incentive doesn't work with strongly motivated people. It might stop me from, say, parking my car where i'm not allowed, but won't stop people who already know they're risking their life and destroying their health.
     
  17. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I think if any country is leading the pack on drug policies and education it would be the Netherlands.

    Do you have a source for that number? Because given marijuana lackluster, boring effects I'd highly doubt that number.

    I agree with the point that drug policies is a complicated subject that cannot be simply fixed with a catch-all policy.

    True democracy is a pipe dream.

    People are not rational beings, and many people will not make smart decisions no matter how much education you throw at them.
    Nonsense. You can be as responsible as you want with alcohol, it still kills brain cells. Some things are just inherently harmful. With others, simple bad luck can cause responsible use to still be harmful.

    The point is that the extent of the harm needs to be compared to the benefits.

    Don't be a tard.
    Government interference and control is how any society works, and the idea of a purely anarchist society is just as much a pipe-dream as pure communism is.

    Yes, there needs to be balance and education is importance. He is not disputing that education is important.

    And again you can extend this argument to encompass any criminal act.

    Yes, drug production is part of the criminal circuit because it is illegal. But also because there's a social stigma and societal disapproval.
    Legalizing it won't just pull drugs from the criminal circuit, as criminals often manage to get good profit margins and already have a well-established business model and distribution channels that any legal business lacks. Furthermore, it will provide a legitimate front for criminals that will remain involved in the business.

    Legalizing drug production will not lead to a cut and dry situation like you are supposing here.

    The group of drug users does not consist of solely strongly motivated people who do not care for the consequences.
     
  18. Zaij

    Zaij Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Feb 10, 2004
    No shit it's harmful, the point I was clearly trying to make is that you're not going to destroy your liver or your brain drinking RESPONSIBLY.

    Also, don't be a fool. Alcohol doesn't kill brain cells.

    Well, I didn't mean that we should remove all government interference, but since you said I did I must've.

    You must've only glanced over my post, because I did say there was a role for government in educating its citizens and enforcing bans on hard drugs.
     
  19. JayGrey

    JayGrey It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Jun 8, 2009
    Mega Reply

    Prohibition, De-illegalization, Legalization?

    In terms of pot, I've known a good few. One whom can't really be without it -- it's her coping mechanism for stress in her life (in that sense, she is addicted). I've worked with some (table saws and a guy who gets high at break: fun), and hung around with a few. Equal to cigarettes or alcohol, more or less. Some people, it has a greater affect on (just like the fore mentioned two). Health risk? Yep. Vaporization, as opposed to combust-ation, would take much of the risk out of tobacco and pot, though.
    Hemp may well be a more viable source for plant fibers, too (a replacement for cotton, certain construction materials).

    As a public health concern? I had thought it already was. They get sick: We take care of them. (And the instances of illness is higher among heavy users of drugs, I assume).

    In terms of the war on drugs: A valuable, rare, commodity should inspire good capitalism! . . . Right?



    I'm for the decriminalization of most drugs (at least in small amounts).

    I'm not for the treatment, as opposed to prosecution, of someone who's convicted of possessing a dime bag of weed, though.

    Decriminalization != legalization

    ". . . Or a insidious effort to get our children stoned?"
    This would imply they aren't getting stoned already and that they're highly prone to getting stoned -- if not for the dear loving laws keeping it form occurring.

    "[drug users need medical help not criminal retribution."
    One size does not fit all, though. They need three things: to be left alone; to be punished; to be medicated. (And not necessarily all three.)

    ". . . seeking fresh sources of tax revenue . . . "
    Greater supply, lower value? Create a tax that takes the profits and invests it in drug education and rehabilitation then -- not hard to do it transparently.
    How does deillegalization, or even legalization, cause the number of addicts to rise? So, it's easier to get -- for Johnny ByTheLaw. So, maybe they'll start marketing brands? "Coke-a-Cain: Draw a line"

    Now, my friend tried cocaine. Said it gave her a full-body buzz. That was enough to keep her from it.
    I take Adderall, a schedule II controlled substance, I routinely go off it for a weekend or a week. Both are addictive.

    I read a report that in Canada, there are about 3 million users of weed . . . In a country of only 29 million, that's quite a few. Crime has increased -- yes. Recently penalties for those carrying small amounts of any weed have been enforced with greater vigor: to the point where crime rose about 90% in my area (a section of Southern Ontario) thanks to possession busts.

    "Would legalization lead to increased addiction (and crime related to it)?
    Doubt it. I've got a good feeling that the people already doing it, will keep doing it. Those that don't, will stay away.

    "If addiction is a public health problem for a society, is allowing more addiction really something a government should support?"
    We support alcohol. We support tobacco. We support the re-use of of animal by-products to feed live stock . . . No, it shouldn't' be supported. People have the right to make a choice, though. Or so I've been told.

    --Sander--

    LSD has been used in therapy to treat those with sociopaths.
    Putting someone in prison for a non-serious act also devalues the justice system -- and bankrupts it (unless you're a private security/prison firm).

    Sidenote: How much a factor does "because it's illegal" have with drug use? Specifically, one-time drug use compared to addiction? That's what I'd like to know.

    --Welsh x2--

    I don't think I've yet heard of a single death being caused by pot. Now, some where it was believed to be a factor (combined with excess of alcohol in drug-toxicity screenings) in car accidents . . .

    In terms of regressing a generation on the rate of drug use: How many of the current generation are hard users, compared to light users? I'd like to see those statistics for the past two generations. >.o Further, the ages they start at; Could it be that the current decrease in drug use is in the older generation? (After all, being 50 and snortin' coke might result in some unpleasant heart failure . . . )

    "Negative reinforcement does work." Err . . . Drug use in prisons seems to be where the highest concentration is at, so I've read.

    "If you could get your opiates through a perscirption than from a corner dealer, wouldn't you?" If I could get MORE opiates from a dealer, damn right I would. (Assuming I'm addicted! Role-playing is fun!)

    "Would make owners rich . . . " Again, taxation as it was meant to be back in the day it was created: To prevent that from happening!
    Again, how many of the middle, lower, and lowest, classes would become addicted if these drugs were legalized -- or at the very least de-illegalized -- to a certain extent?

    " a highly addictive drug, you have an increase in the size of the addict population. This was true in Switzerland and UK and pretty sure the Netherlands as well." -- I had heard the exact opposite . . . Damnit, you make me with I kept sources.

    --UnidentifiedFlyingRard--

    What health benefits are too big to ignore? Further, how does smoking tobacco differ from smoking weed -- in terms of lung cancer? There are different methods, yes. Vaporization/boiling does decrease this tremendously (as much of it is suspended in water, unlike nicotine and canniboids*) *Spellcheck

    --Black--

    Legalization to a point is the key: Opiates (such as morphine): Legal in a hospital, perhaps? >.o

    --Sander x2--
    (Two wrongs make a right if they're both 90 degrees >.o)

    "isn't inconceivable that the medical uses of a specific drug du not outweigh the downside of legality."
    I'm pretty sure many illegal substances can be prescribed by a general practitioner, as their discretion, making them "legal", as is . . .

    "Drug laws are not doing their job as incentives . . ."
    This does imply a certain rationality on the user, too. "Do I want to get high, or do I want to take a one-in-seven chance that I'll get bused, spend 24 hours in central holding?" . . .

    I'm all for monitoring, though. Mm statistics!
    Perhaps the commercialization of certain drugs, for certain markets, in certain forms, should be illegal? That only seems rational, as opposed to jumping in and saying, "Legalization = everyone can have it! Yay."

    Edit: Arg. A great deal of what I just said, was just said by other people . . . My apologies. :)
     
  20. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Then say what you mean. You instead said that "responsible use of anything should never see you come to harm" which is a damn far cry from the idea that responsible use won't *destroy* your liver or brain.

    You're right, it destroys brain connections instead. Not a real significant difference.

    No, but you ridiculed Ravager's stance by taking an extreme version of his argument. Hence, I took an extreme version of the argument you used and ridiculed you for it.