Washington State's I-1068/Pot legalization... What do YOU think?

B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Washington State's I-1068/Pot legalization... What do YOU think?

http://sensiblewashington.org/read-i-1068/

I personally have been working to get signatures for this, since I think the only thing prohibition does is create a large black market. What do you think? Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success or failure? It looks like this has a good chance of winning, along with California's almost identical initiative. So... your opinions?

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I really wish that people

I really wish that people would not insist on using the term “war” to describe what has been done with drugs. It pretty much requires a situation where the normal concepts of success and failure are turned on their heads.

 

What would the idea of a successful war be in other areas of activity? To me, that is something that can be won. As in the reason for starting it in the first place goes away as a direct consequence of the efforts of the people involved. We once made Nazi Germany go away. We did not make Germany go away and we can more more make drugs go away. Drugs are not in a category of things that go away.

 

By that standard, the war on drugs can never be successful.

 

On the other hand, the war on drugs is a huge cost in the federal budget. If we did make the assumption that it was a winnable thing, then the victory condition would, as above be to make it such that the money could be freed up for other things. The people who are getting the money now would not like that very much.

 

Yet, the people getting the money can keep themselves on the gravy train simply by not ever winning the war. Paradoxically, continued failure on the federal level means that the cash stream never ends. So this war is a success only if it never ends.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Good ol' 1984

Perpetual war... Orwell is TOTALLY rolling over in his grave...


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've already said most of

I've already said most of what I have to say about drugs in my "blog" here. But the US really needs to be dealt with on the federal level before any state legislation really matters. Until drugs are wiped from federal law, you can always still get busted.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Until drugs are

Vastet wrote:
Until drugs are wiped from federal law, you can always still get busted.

But almost all of the people doing the busting are state employees. If a state adopted a policy of not enforcing drug laws, then most drug convictions just wouldn't happen. But you are right: the feds could still hypothetically get you. In practice they won't unless you are a smuggler or producer. And as far as we can tell they don't even get most of the smugglers or producers. Getting rid of drug laws on the state level would do wonders by itself.

California is voting on whether or not to legalize weed soon. I'm voting to legalize it and I'm never going to use it.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Prohibition of drugs

Also, calling a civilian issue a legitimate war makes the Posse Comitatus Act seem less relevant to the public. I think that it would be in our best interest to call it what it is: Prohibition of drugs.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 It is prohibition, there's

 It is prohibition, there's no doubt. But first the US would have to rescind all of its treaties that demand other nations not produce poorly-regulated "narcotics". There's a good deal of ceremony to be overcome before the influence of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs dies off.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I'm

Jormungander wrote:

I'm voting to legalize it and I'm never going to use it.

hear, hear!

i've never used marijuana and i never plan to.  for personal reasons, i prefer my slow death on tobacco and alcohol, but i goddamn sure don't begrudge anyone their weed.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

California is voting on whether or not to legalize weed soon. I'm voting to legalize it and I'm never going to use it.

This is so the right attitude. 

 

Whether you use it or not is irrelevant, others have the right to responsibly, and you should vote for that right.

Cheers. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Drugs are irrelevant to me

Drugs are irrelevant to me unless they're the prescribed variety. HOWEVER...

Answers makes a valid point! Right now The "War on Drugs" is a GIGANTIC pork barrel in budget spending. It simply means more drug enforcement employees, basically.

 

 

None of what either of you suggests means Speedballs should be offered freely to whomever wants to buy it.  Drug consumption should be stifled when it comes to HARDCORE substances; most stimulants, cocaine and heroin derivatives are the type that destroy friendships, family, jobs, and young minds... kids grow up to be failures while hooked on these things.

Many depressants lead to self-destructive use as well.

 

Cannibis, acid, shrooms and peyote... on the other hand, have no such known side effects.  The "War on Drugs" keeps people off of self-destructive habits, nevertheless


My conclusion is thus: if it doesn't cause dependence, legalize it! If it does... keep it off the fucking streets.

(And no, "WoD" isn't symmetrical to prohibition, at all.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:What do you

B166ER wrote:
What do you think? Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success or failure?
(emphasis mine)

Looking at social/domestic issues in black n' white is convenient when straw-manning an argument in such a way that it agrees with you.

Drug use is not black and white nor is it a question of "success or failure". I don't care who uses cannibis, as long as they're 21 and passed the "Lord of the Flies" stage of life, though. Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I wrote: What do you think?

I wrote:
What do you think? Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success or failure?

Kapkao wrote:
Looking at social/domestic issues in black n' white is convenient when straw-manning an argument in such a way that it agrees with you.

I'm sorry, I better not ask people if they agree or disagree with a policy and how, since that's just trying to make the world fit into a two dimensional, absolutist box. So, Kapkao, what should I ask then? I had no intention of any of that at all because I don't care if everybody agrees with me. There are people who think that drugs should be prohibited, and while I disagree with them, I would like to hear the reasons for it because discussion on topics is healthy and necessary for a free society.

Plus, I don't plan on misrepresenting anybody's position, so I have no clue where the straw man argument line comes from.

Kapkao wrote:
  I don't care who uses cannibis, as long as they're 21 and passed the "Lord of the Flies" stage of life, though.

21: no, on the initiative it will be 18

Post "Lord of the Flies" stage: yes (hopefully, but some people NEVER outgrow that stage...)

 

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually:

B166ER wrote:

I wrote:
What do you think? Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success or failure?

Kapkao wrote:
Looking at social/domestic issues in black n' white is convenient when straw-manning an argument in such a way that it agrees with you.

I'm sorry, I better not ask people if they agree or disagree with a policy and how, since that's just trying to make the world fit into a two dimensional, absolutist box. So, Kapkao, what should I ask then? I had no intention of any of that at all because I don't care if everybody agrees with me. There are people who think that drugs should be prohibited, and while I disagree with them, I would like to hear the reasons for it because discussion on topics is healthy and necessary for a free society.

Plus, I don't plan on misrepresenting anybody's position, so I have no clue where the straw man argument line comes from.

Kapkao wrote:
  I don't care who uses cannibis, as long as they're 21 and passed the "Lord of the Flies" stage of life, though.

21: no, on the initiative it will be 18

Post "Lord of the Flies" stage: yes (hopefully, but some people NEVER outgrow that stage...)

(regardless of what age it is allowed for, since I never cared for MADD and their "wait til 18 to allow drinking" histrionic bullshit anyways! )

Well, my original point is simply that we can't legalize everything, and that comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.


Vastet makes a valid point as well regarding federal regulation of recreational substance use.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Huh?

Kapkao wrote:
comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.

How is the current "War on Drugs" not a prohibition? I think showing the historical similarities between the Al Capone's of the past and the drug lords of today is important. Both examples have become amazingly rich and powerful simply because they got into selling a product designated a "no-no" and made a killing (a lot of times literally) because of it's black market status.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote: Kapkao wrote:

B166ER wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.

How is the current "War on Drugs" not a prohibition? I think showing the historical similarities between the Al Capone's of the past and the drug lords of today is important. Both examples have become amazingly rich and powerful simply because they got into selling a product designated a "no-no" and made a killing (a lot of times literally) because of it's black market status.

Counterpoint:Kiddie rape porno is a no-no!

Your point doesn't stand on solid foundations.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:B166ER wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

B166ER wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.

How is the current "War on Drugs" not a prohibition? I think showing the historical similarities between the Al Capone's of the past and the drug lords of today is important. Both examples have become amazingly rich and powerful simply because they got into selling a product designated a "no-no" and made a killing (a lot of times literally) because of it's black market status.

Counterpoint:Kiddie rape porno is a no-no!

Your point doesn't stand on solid foundations.

That's an odd comparison: when someone purchases and consumes a drug, there may be some incidental, indirect, or "collateral" damage to family members, but in the case of child pornography, an easy case can be made for the direct exploitation of a child for malicious purposes. A really easy case, and the damage is very direct (possibly equivalent to kidnapping in addition to rape ... for profit).

With prohibition, substances were disallowed, or only allowed by prescription. With the war on drugs, substances are "controlled", and only available only by prescription. I'm having a hard time making the jump from either the war on drugs or prohibition to child pornography.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
War on Drugs has been a huge

War on Drugs has been a huge success accomplishing the following main goals:

1) criminalising superflous population that the "free market" has no answer for and removing them from the political scene altogether

2) creation of a multi billion dollar incarceration industry

3) institutionalisation of slavery on a level never seen before

4) keeping the police force leadership incompetent, racially charged and/or corrupt through the incentive policy: rewarding the number of arrests rather then importance is an incentive for arresting ordinary users, rather than trying to make meaningful (big) arrests inside organized crime circles.

5) excuse for cooperation with violent regimes

6) excuse for military activity on large areas of middle and south america

 

All in all, war on drugs makes sure that there are plenty of drugs on the street, that the unwanted population is kept out of the loop entirely, that the law enforcement is at virtual war with ordinary civilians and gives credence to military operations in the southern hemisphere.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Yet another ancillary

Yet another ancillary benefit is that the government can make money for "black budgets" by selling the drugs themselves and keep their cronies fat by being able to launder the money through their banks, sans penalty of course.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Kapkao

HisWillness wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

B166ER wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.

How is the current "War on Drugs" not a prohibition? I think showing the historical similarities between the Al Capone's of the past and the drug lords of today is important. Both examples have become amazingly rich and powerful simply because they got into selling a product designated a "no-no" and made a killing (a lot of times literally) because of it's black market status.

Counterpoint:Kiddie rape porno is a no-no!

Your point doesn't stand on solid foundations.

That's an odd comparison: when someone purchases and consumes a drug, there may be some incidental, indirect, or "collateral" damage to family members, but in the case of child pornography, an easy case can be made for the direct exploitation of a child for malicious purposes. A really easy case, and the damage is very direct (possibly equivalent to kidnapping in addition to rape ... for profit).

With prohibition, substances were disallowed, or only allowed by prescription. With the war on drugs, substances are "controlled", and only available only by prescription. I'm having a hard time making the jump from either the war on drugs or prohibition to child pornography.

The "Black market" argument is one that I'm already familiar with, however.  Drugs (besides cannibis, which does little else except 'tar-up' the lungs and shorten attention spans) destroy individuals on such a wide scale that (in some cases, primarily those associated with opiates) their use drags society down as a whole, not in part.

 

(Whether this is because of the drugs by themselves or because of how many drugs tend to interact with human societies OR EVEN because of a fatal flaw in the basic substance and superstructure of the human psyche -i.e. the Reward:Punishment complex of most vertebrates- ........... is an ongoing controversy without a clear answer.)

Never-the-less, ZuS makes some valid counterpoints himself.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What harm does opium cause

What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
making something illegal

making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.  if i wanted a joint right now--or almost anything harder, for that matter--i know at least six people i could go to, one of them being my brother.  drugs are not hard to get.

the only thing anti-drug legislation has accomplished is creating drug-related crime.  with or without the war on drugs, you will have drugs.  without the war on drugs, however, you will not have pablo escobar.  simple as that.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"Illegal" to which nation?

Gauche wrote:

What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?

Harm? Oh... you might want to check the historical records of late Victorian China, and 'ask' Chinese historians what they think  about the British and other Colonial Europeans peddling opium to the natives for so many decades.

(Hint: it wasn't an act of charity)

Counter-question: Why is it legal to destroy people's lives, without them permitting it in an informed manner?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Gauche

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?

Harm? Oh... you might want to check the historical records of late Victorian China, and 'ask' Chinese historians what they think  about the British and other Colonial Europeans peddling opium to the natives for so many decades.

(Hint: it wasn't an act of charity)

Counter-question: Why is it legal to destroy people's lives, without them permitting it in an informed manner?

By your rationale if a person buys drain cleaner at the grocery store, takes it home and drinks it then the grocery store destroyed their life. I tend to disagree. I don't think the grocery store destroyed your life because they sold you the drain-o you had for breakfast. Despite that I'd be interested to find out exactly how opiates destroy your life in a way that is illegal.

 

example:

Opiates are destructive to your health.

Destroying your health is illegal.

Therefore opiates should be illegal.

 

Of course destroying your own health isn't illegal and it's very poor reasoning to suggest that something should be illegal because of the possibility that it might bring about some result or state of being that isn't prohibited anyway.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Kapkao

Gauche wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?

Harm? Oh... you might want to check the historical records of late Victorian China, and 'ask' Chinese historians what they think  about the British and other Colonial Europeans peddling opium to the natives for so many decades.

(Hint: it wasn't an act of charity)

Counter-question: Why is it legal to destroy people's lives, without them permitting it in an informed manner?

By your rationale if a person buys drain cleaner at the grocery store, takes it home and drinks it then the grocery store destroyed their life. I tend to disagree. I don't think the grocery store destroyed your life because they sold you the drain-o you had for breakfast. Despite that I'd be interested to find out exactly how opiates destroy your life in a way that is illegal.

example:

Opiates are destructive to your health.

Destroying your health is illegal.

Therefore opiates should be illegal.

Of course destroying your own health isn't illegal and it's very poor reasoning to suggest that something should be illegal because of the possibility that it might bring about some result or state of being that isn't prohibited anyway.

Intentionally misconstrueing my "rationale" does not equate an argument against my little 'opium hypothesis' on controlling psychoactive substances. Indeed, I dare say I could argue that your original post in this thread is little else besides a loaded question; i.e. a supposition to which no rational argument can be utilized against because of the fallacious premise on which it is founded...

Quote:
What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?

... and it is ultimately irrelevant.

"Harm is illegal? Who knew!" Ah! But Illegal where? And who is being harmed in your loaded question? The world may never know...

 


(*sigh* with the fallacious debate tactics out of the way, hopefully...)

If you take a dose of heroin, you're hooked for life. And indeed, many families, communities and even entire cities are destroyed because of innately self-destructive opium use. China learned the "Poppy Blight" lesson of history quite well because of the use of opium in subduing the native Chinese during the late colonial period of Victorian Era.

 

It seems Europe and America are about to learn that lesson as well, thanks to Afghanistan being liberated from the Taliban.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Iwbiek must not have been sober while making this post...

iwbiek wrote:

making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.  if i wanted a joint right now--or almost anything harder, for that matter--i know at least six people i could go to, one of them being my brother.  drugs are not hard to get.

the only thing anti-drug legislation has accomplished is creating drug-related crime.  with or without the war on drugs, you will have drugs.  without the war on drugs, however, you will not have pablo escobar.  simple as that.

Yay. You have a personal anecdote about how easy it is for you to access narcotics. How droll; this must automatically mean that strict legal control of narcotic substances is an abject failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or not.


BTW, ZuS already beat you to the punch about criminalizing otherwise harmless narcotics use. Your post is redundant.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Intentionally

Kapkao wrote:
Intentionally misconstrueing my "rationale" does not equate an argument against my little 'opium hypothesis' on controlling psychoactive substances. Indeed, I dare say I could argue that your original post in this thread is little else besides a loaded question; i.e. a supposition to which no rational argument can be utilized against because of the fallacious premise on which it is founded...

Actually your thesis seems clear and unambiguous.
Quote:
Drugs...destroy individuals on such a wide scale that (in some cases, primarily those associated with opiates) their use drags society down as a whole

Is this not your case for interdiction? I believe there could be no better, though it is deficient in various ways.

Quote:
What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?
Quote:
... and it is ultimately irrelevant.

"Harm is illegal? Who knew!" Ah! But Illegal where? And who is being harmed in your loaded question? The world may never know...


Actually the most common arguments for drug prohibition are that drugs harm those who use them or that they harm people other than the ones who use them. You seemed to be rather committed to the former until now. The argument goes something like this:
(1) Drug use is very harmful to users.
(2) The government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves.
(3)Therefore, the government should prohibit drug use.
Of course that's assuming that the proper function of government includes preventing people from harming themselves. If harm is irrelevant then I have to wonder why it is all you've presented by way of a reason for interdiction. In fact you're going to do it again after making quite a commotion about how I've misrepresented you.
Quote:
If you take a dose of heroin, you're hooked for life. And indeed, many families, communities and even entire cities are destroyed because of innately self-destructive opium use. China learned the "Poppy Blight" lesson of history quite well because of the use of opium in subduing the native Chinese during the late colonial period of Victorian Era.
Is this your argument or is this an aside? Are you saying that heroin should be illegal because it destroys families and communities?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I would say you've either

I would say you've either (intentionally) put words in my mouth that weren't there, or you've (as I said before) misconstrued the point I originally attempted to make while setting up an interesting straw man.

As clear as I can possibly frame it, my original point is:

gauche wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
Intentionally misconstrueing my "rationale" does not equate an argument against my little 'opium hypothesis' on controlling psychoactive substances. Indeed, I dare say I could argue that your original post in this thread is little else besides a loaded question; i.e. a supposition to which no rational argument can be utilized against because of the fallacious premise on which it is founded...

Actually your thesis seems clear and unambiguous.


Quote:
Drugs...destroy individuals on such a wide scale that (in some cases, primarily those associated with opiates) their use drags society down as a whole


Is this not your case for interdiction? I believe there could be no better, though it is deficient in various ways.

That isn't a "thesis", it's merely a generic assertion.

And... I believe 'firm legal control' is beneficial in stymieing the (inevitable) societal and even economic decay resulting from (essentially) putting 'poison' in the hands of 'children'. And yes it is "deficient" in the sense that not even government authority can trusted to put a cap on the "opium blight" I mentioned earlier.

gauche wrote:

Actually the most common arguments for drug prohibition are that drugs harm those who use them or that they harm people other than the ones who use them. You seemed to be rather committed to the former until now. The argument goes something like this:
(1) Drug use is very harmful to users.
(2) The government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves.
(3)Therefore, the government should prohibit drug use.

Which would be valid if  "the most common arguments" had anything to do with my posts.

They don't; I could not honestly give a flying fuck if the only harm of narcotics use was done soley to the users themselves- it's social darwinism in action! China has already learned from the decades leading up to Sun Yat Sen's governance that this is not the case. Opiates destroy societies in addition to users.

I might convinced otherwise if someone here could make a reasonable argument that it's possible to responsibly use opium and it not effect anyone else but the user. Anyone of modest intelligence should be capable of understanding that the negative consequences of smack can not ever be limited to the user (without help from methadone, anyhow.)

Thus... the only possibility left that I can imagine is to simply agree to disagree.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:That isn't a

Kapkao wrote:

That isn't a "thesis", it's merely a generic assertion.

And... I believe 'firm legal control' is beneficial in stymieing the (inevitable) societal and even economic decay resulting from (essentially) putting 'poison' in the hands of 'children'. And yes it is "deficient" in the sense that not even government authority can trusted to put a cap on the "opium blight" I mentioned earlier.

Is this also a generic assertion? By "firm legal control" don't you mean a ban, prohibition, creating some penalty for individuals who use these things in order to prevent this societal and economic decay you're talking about? As I said this argument is deficient in various ways, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the individual or society as a whole.

 

Quote:

Which would be valid if  "the most common arguments" had anything to do with my posts.

They don't; I could not honestly give a flying fuck if the only harm of narcotics use was done soley to the users themselves- it's social darwinism in action! China has already learned from the decades leading up to Sun Yat Sen's governance that this is not the case. Opiates destroy societies in addition to users.

They seem to have a lot to do with your posts, and how could they not, there really aren't other arguments that even make sense. When you say that it destroys society I assume you're not talking about the infrastructure. It's not that using heroin makes bridges collapse and causes water mains to burst, and even if that was the case it wouldn't matter but for the negative effect it has on people. So you are making a case that drugs are harmful to the user and/or people other than the user, and that provides sufficient reason for prohibition. What am I missing here? What is the hidden part of the iceberg that you think I don't understand? It is my contention that neither the harm to the user nor the harm to others justifies prohibition. 

 

 

Quote:
I might convinced otherwise if someone here could make a reasonable argument that it's possible to responsibly use opium and it not effect anyone else but the user. Anyone of modest intelligence should be capable of understanding that the negative consequences of smack can not ever be limited to the user (without help from methadone, anyhow.)

It wouldn't matter if such a case was made because the argument that drugs should be prohibited because of the harm done to people other than the drug user or society is equally defective. Though you haven't been very clear about the nature of this societal destruction, others have and I doubt at this point you're going to express some completely unique perspective. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy:

ONDCP wrote:
Democracies can flourish only when their citizens value their freedom and embrace personal responsibility. Drug use erodes the individual’s capacity to pursue both ideals. It diminishes the individual’s capacity to operate effectively in many of life’s spheres—as a student, a parent, a spouse, an employee—even as a coworker or fellow motorist. And, while some claim it represents an expression of individual autonomy, drug use is in fact inimical to personal freedom, producing a reduced capacity to participate in the life of the community and the promise of America.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/346764/05569Strategy2002

Now imagine a person who for reasons having nothing to do with drugs does all the bad things to his family, friends, coworkers, and society that the ONDCP says may result from drug use. They are a bad student, employee, spouse, parent, friend, neighbor, and citizen who doesn't value liberty or responsibility. Should the government pass a law prohibiting this behavior and send police to arrest the individual? It would be absurd to suggest that one should be arrested for behaving this way, it is even more absurd to suppose that one should be jailed for drug use on the grounds that drug use has these potential effects.

Quote:
Thus... the only possibility left that I can imagine is to simply agree to disagree.

I'm sorry I don't agree to that.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche, Kapkao

Quote:

Experts Rate Problem Substances

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas.

  • Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
  • Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
  • Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.
  • Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
  • Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do.
1 = Most serious     6 = Least serious
HENNINGFIELD RATINGS
SubstanceWithdrawalReinforcementToleranceDependenceIntoxication 
Nicotine34215
Heroin22122
Cocaine41433
Alcohol13341
Caffeine56556
Marijuana65664

BENOWITZ RATINGS
Substance WithdrawalReinforcementToleranceDependenceIntoxication
Nicotine 3*4416
Heroin22222
Cocaine 3*1133
Alcohol13441
Caffeine45355
Marijuana56564
*equal ratings

 

A reprint from a NY Times article: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Henningfield_Benowitz.html

I could also hunt up stats for comparing societal costs - medical, lost productivity, actual cost to purchase to support the habit, etc.  Want to bet which one is the most expensive?  The societal costs argument against opiates fails against actual statistics.  If we are going to prohibit opiates based on cost, we should also prohibit any substances with societal costs.  Who is going to give up coffee?   <crickets>

The only reason people want opiates banned is because they make you feel real good.  Period.  Do some people abuse them to the point of ruination?  Do some people abuse alcohol, coffee, marijuana, .......  Yeah, and some people gamble to ruination.  I generally don't want the government trying to protect us from ourselves.  Costs too much.

The one drug that I am certain should be banned is crystal meth.  That one ruins people physically and is the scourge of the rural western US.  Nasty, nasty, stuff.  Some poorer rural towns have had to burn down a meth house because they didn't have the money to properly dispose of the contaminated structure.  It gets worse as meth-addicted women are unable to keep it together enough to use birth control and authorities have had to remove babies crawling in the spilled chemicals on the floor.  This one, the societal costs do justify the government intervention.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:A reprint from a NY

cj wrote:

A reprint from a NY Times article: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Henningfield_Benowitz.html

I could also hunt up stats for comparing societal costs - medical, lost productivity, actual cost to purchase to support the habit, etc.  Want to bet which one is the most expensive?  The societal costs argument against opiates fails against actual statistics.  If we are going to prohibit opiates based on cost, we should also prohibit any substances with societal costs.  Who is going to give up coffee?   <crickets>

The only reason people want opiates banned is because they make you feel real good.  Period.  Do some people abuse them to the point of ruination?  Do some people abuse alcohol, coffee, marijuana, .......  Yeah, and some people gamble to ruination.  I generally don't want the government trying to protect us from ourselves.  Costs too much.

The one drug that I am certain should be banned is crystal meth.  That one ruins people physically and is the scourge of the rural western US.  Nasty, nasty, stuff.  Some poorer rural towns have had to burn down a meth house because they didn't have the money to properly dispose of the contaminated structure.  It gets worse as meth-addicted women are unable to keep it together enough to use birth control and authorities have had to remove babies crawling in the spilled chemicals on the floor.  This one, the societal costs do justify the government intervention.

If the flaw with such arguments was merely logistical improbability I might be inclined to agree with you, but it probably isn't the proper function of government to prohibit people from harming themselves. Many things are harmful in life including motorcycle riding, promiscuous sex, dead end jobs and unfulfilling relationships, is it that these things should be banned? Most would agree that none of them should be banned.

You might argue that drugs like crystal meth should be banned because they are more dangerous. It's difficult to determine but if we base an assumption of 30 million smokers and 7 million illicit drug users in the US on recent census bureau statistics, illicit drugs kill 2.6 out of every 1000 people who consume them while tobacco kills 15 out of every 1000, more than five times that amount. Yet almost no one is in favor of outlawing tobacco or arresting smokers.

Or one may suggest that drugs harm you in a different way, but is this actually true? What sorts of harms do drugs cause? One may be harmed financially, or their relationships or health may be damaged, but if you eat junk food every day your health will certainly be damaged and no one would consider arresting you. If you are rude and obnoxious it would definitely harm your relationships but it isn't a crime and no one would think of criminalizing it. If you quit your job and take all your money from the bank and throw it in the river you'll be in financial ruin but prohibition of such activity is completely out of the question. It is not illegal to directly bring about any of those consequences and beyond that it would be an abuse of government power to prohibit you from bringing them about. Surely the fact that drug use might indirectly bring them about is not a good reason to prohibit drug use.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
The War on Drugs is a

The War on Drugs is a joke--always has been, always will be.

The "war" will end when the government (be it local, state or federal) gets its cut.  Just look at Nevada in regards to prostitution.  It'll never be a moral issue, just a money issue.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:iwbiek

Kapkao wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.  if i wanted a joint right now--or almost anything harder, for that matter--i know at least six people i could go to, one of them being my brother.  drugs are not hard to get.

the only thing anti-drug legislation has accomplished is creating drug-related crime.  with or without the war on drugs, you will have drugs.  without the war on drugs, however, you will not have pablo escobar.  simple as that.

Yay. You have a personal anecdote about how easy it is for you to access narcotics. How droll; this must automatically mean that strict legal control of narcotic substances is an abject failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or not.


BTW, ZuS already beat you to the punch about criminalizing otherwise harmless narcotics use. Your post is redundant.

you know, you always like to theorize that i'm so fucking threatened by you, but you always go on the offensive first.  that means you yourself are at least as threatened.  probably because you like to appear as some kind of wacked-out misunderstood genius and i call you on what you really are: a shit-eating, mediocre leech whose only joy in his fetid, primate existence is masturbating to his own persecution complex while revelling in his pathetically cherished ability to manipulate fonts and upload images--not to mention boasting about "bullying" (i.e., irritating) those who are supposedly (in his fevered imagination) his "intellectual inferiors."

if i ever meet your intellectual inferior, you mealymouthed sack of compost, i'll know i've stepped back into the precambrian era.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The one drug

Gauche wrote:

cj wrote:

The one drug that I am certain should be banned is crystal meth.  That one ruins people physically and is the scourge of the rural western US.  Nasty, nasty, stuff.  Some poorer rural towns have had to burn down a meth house because they didn't have the money to properly dispose of the contaminated structure.  It gets worse as meth-addicted women are unable to keep it together enough to use birth control and authorities have had to remove babies crawling in the spilled chemicals on the floor.  This one, the societal costs do justify the government intervention.

If the flaw with such arguments was merely logistical improbability I might be inclined to agree with you, but it probably isn't the proper function of government to prohibit people from harming themselves. Many things are harmful in life including motorcycle riding, promiscuous sex, dead end jobs and unfulfilling relationships, is it that these things should be banned? Most would agree that none of them should be banned.

You might argue that drugs like crystal meth should be banned because they are more dangerous. It's difficult to determine but if we base an assumption of 30 million smokers and 7 million illicit drug users in the US on recent census bureau statistics, illicit drugs kill 2.6 out of every 1000 people who consume them while tobacco kills 15 out of every 1000, more than five times that amount. Yet almost no one is in favor of outlawing tobacco or arresting smokers.

Or one may suggest that drugs harm you in a different way, but is this actually true? What sorts of harms do drugs cause? One may be harmed financially, or their relationships or health may be damaged, but if you eat junk food every day your health will certainly be damaged and no one would consider arresting you. If you are rude and obnoxious it would definitely harm your relationships but it isn't a crime and no one would think of criminalizing it. If you quit your job and take all your money from the bank and throw it in the river you'll be in financial ruin but prohibition of such activity is completely out of the question. It is not illegal to directly bring about any of those consequences and beyond that it would be an abuse of government power to prohibit you from bringing them about. Surely the fact that drug use might indirectly bring them about is not a good reason to prohibit drug use.

 

I basically agree with you for most drugs.  They often harm the person taking them a lot more than their family or society.  A pity, but we all should be able to go to hell in the hand basket of our choosing.

Crystal meth is an exception.  The chemicals are readily available at most supermarkets and the process only requires standard kitchen equipment.  The byproducts of meth production are poisonous.  The people cooking it are usually high on meth and do not adequately protect themselves, their families, or their neighbors while these hazardous chemicals are being generated.  The byproduct chemicals get into the materials of the building and can not be easily removed except by disposing of the materials in a hazardous land fill.  They are so poisonous that the people who remove the material wear full hazmat suits.  I have heard of cases where some of the soil the house was sitting on must be removed and landfilled as well.  Rather than testing every board and tile in the house, the entire house is carefully removed and land filled.  This is expensive - if the owner of the building can afford it, they are liable.  If they can not afford it, your local tax dollars pay for the removal and landfill costs - or for torching the house.  If the environmental costs were not so high, we could treat meth like any other recreational drug.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
The issue is...

Cj, the problem is that even though it's illegal, these things are still happening. Having a prohibition on it has done nothing to stop this. I agree it needs to be stopped, but just prohibiting people from using and creating it has done nothing. We need to deal with the reasons why people turn to it in the first place, like poverty and depression.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Yay. You have a

Kapkao wrote:
Yay. You have a personal anecdote about how easy it is for you to access narcotics. How droll; this must automatically mean that strict legal control of narcotic substances is an abject failure.

Your failure to address his argument, instead focusing on an anecdote which was merely used to support it, amuses me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Drugs should be illegal

Drugs should be illegal because I don't like them.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote: Cj, the

B166ER wrote:

Cj, the problem is that even though it's illegal, these things are still happening. Having a prohibition on it has done nothing to stop this. I agree it needs to be stopped, but just prohibiting people from using and creating it has done nothing. We need to deal with the reasons why people turn to it in the first place, like poverty and depression.

 

Absolutely true.  And requiring a prescription for some of the easily available ingredients also seems to help.

OregonLive wrote:

In July of 2006, the state required a prescription for Sudafed and other common cold and allergy drugs containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine. In early 2006, OHSU's emergency department had seen an average of 18 patients a week for problems related to meth use. But in the year after the law went into effect, that average fell to 11.3 weekly meth-related visits, OHSU researchers said today at the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine meeting in Phoenix, Ariz.

 

Yes, one year does not a trend make.  We will have to see if the trend continues downward. 

For some detailed information see, http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/oem/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf) wrote:

1. Secure the property to prevent unauthorized entry.  The structure should not be reoccupied until after remediation is complete.
2. Hire a contractor to ensure these steps are completed correctly.
3. Ventilate or “air out” the structure with fresh, outdoor air [e.g., open doors and windows; use fans, blowers, and/or a negative air unit with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fi ltration system].   Continue ventilation during the remediation process.
4. Ensure worker safety and health.
5. Perform a preliminary assessment.
a. Conduct an off-site evaluation using relevant documentation.
b. Conduct an on-site evaluation.
c. Assess the need for pre-remediation and post-remediation samples.
6. Conduct pre-remediation sampling, if applicable.
7. Develop a work plan using information from the preliminary assessment. This should include a waste disposal plan.
8. Remove contaminated materials. Any materials or objects that will be disposed of should be discarded before cleanup begins.
9. Complete a “once over” or precursory washing of the walls and floors to cut heavy concentrations of contamination.
10. Clean and seal the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Do not run this system again until all other cleanup is complete.
11. Flush plumbing traps, unless wastewater from the detergent-water washing process will be flushed through the plumbing system. In this case, wait to flush plumbing until all wastewater has been flushed.
12. Vacuum using a vacuum with a HEPA fi lter.
13. Use a detergent-water solution to wash ceilings, walls, floors, non-porous furniture and other items that will be kept.
14. Conduct post-remediation sampling, if applicable.  (Ensure structure/items are completely dry before sampling.)
15. Encapsulate washed ceilings, walls and floors once they meet remediation standards.
16. Ventilate the structure once more after indoor cleanup is complete.
17. Perform outdoor remediation activities.
18. Secure the property once more to prevent unauthorized entry.
19. Develop a final report.

 

The picture on the cover of this federal report is downtown Portland, OR.

Again, the people addicted to meth and the damage to children in the house is bad enough.  It is the environmental costs of cleanup that are my concern.  Meth cookers are not just damaging themselves and any children in the house, they are actively damaging the local environment.  Which someone has to clean up.  Which usually is NOT the meth cookers.

You are right, just locking them up is not enough.  Because once they are out, they will often just start again.  And proceed to damage another neighborhood.  Making meth legal, however, will not work from the viewpoint of limiting damage to others.

This is my mantra-do no harm to others.  Most drug abuse harms very few people.  And if it were legal, it would harm even fewer people.  But meth cookers do a fuck of a lot of harm to a lot of people, not just themselves.  Solutions include but are not limited to education at a very young age, family intervention where appropriate, decent youth shelters for those almost old enough to be on their own but unable to live with their birth family, restrict access to the chemicals used in producing meth, legalize prostitution, effective neighborhood block watches, law enforcement that pays attention to busy-body old people who see this happening in their neighborhood.  Probably not a bad start for general neighborhood health.  I'm sure I haven't thought of a lot of other good ideas.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
There are hazardous chemical

There are hazardous chemical byproducts associated with the production of buttons, and pretty much anything else that is mass produced. Maybe if there wasn't a ban on crystal meth (which hasn't prevented any of these environmental problems) then it's production could be regulated like the production of anything else that creates hazardous waste.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm game for making weed

I'm game for making weed legal, but meth and things that make people steal and kill, no thanks.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
An open response...

To all those saying that certain drugs should be illegal, the question isn't if they are bad for you and the community or not (crack, heroin, and meth certainly are) but does prohibition end those damaging aspects of their use. I don't think prohibition works to stop their use and the damage they cause. Do I think people should be running out to go shoot up and start meth labs? Of course not! I have watched as my friend David has struggled with heroin addiction, trying to be as supportive as possible of him while still maintaining my complete opposition to his use. I just don't think that criminalizing works at ridding our society of the drugs damaging effects. I think the resources would be better used on more (and accurate) early childhood drug education, more help for users in the form of therapy and possibly drug replacement to deal with addiction, and more efforts to deal with one of the main problems that CAUSE drug addiction and dependence: namely poverty. Nothing motivates someone to start a meth lab or cook up some crack rocks and make some money like being poor and seeing no other way out. Not that I'm excusing the behavior, far from it. I just think we need to deal with the sickness and not the symptoms.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The way things are nowdays,

The way things are nowdays, if meth were legalized, and you could purchase it at the age of 18 or w/e it seems in my mind at least that a 12 year old would have a much easier time getting this stuff. I could not care less if an adult wants to fuck their life up, but keep this shit away from kids. Sure I know kids can get it now, but how much easier will it be when it's legalized? I distinctly remember buying cigarettes for my dad when I was around 10. I also remember giving a bum 5$ to buy some beer for myself and friends from the jiffy store.

I just think it will up the odds on kids getting it, thats all.

But I'm not really concerned with weed, I haven't heard about much death and killing over smoking a joint. I think there may still be some debate on brain cell loss or some such, but alchohol is supposed to be worse and it is legal.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
That's a lot different from my experience

robj101 wrote:
The way things are nowdays, if meth were legalized, and you could purchase it at the age of 18 or w/e it seems in my mind at least that a 12 year old would have a much easier time getting this stuff.

From what I've seen, it's usually easier for a teen to acquire drugs when they are on the black market and there are no ID's to speak of. That doesn't mean I think meth should be sold at the local supermarket though.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The way things

robj101 wrote:

The way things are nowdays, if meth were legalized, and you could purchase it at the age of 18 or w/e it seems in my mind at least that a 12 year old would have a much easier time getting this stuff.

Yes, just like you often see dead-drunk 12 year olds wandering the streets since the alchohol prohibition was abolished.

robj101 wrote:

I could not care less if an adult wants to fuck their life up, but keep this shit away from kids. Sure I know kids can get it now, but how much easier will it be when it's legalized?

It would be much harder, as it is with alcohol. There would be no dealers, since the 12-year old segment of the population just isn't a viable target for large scale drug production and smuggling.

robj101 wrote:

I distinctly remember buying cigarettes for my dad when I was around 10. I also remember giving a bum 5$ to buy some beer for myself and friends from the jiffy store.

Yea, that sounds like organized crime right there. Damn.

robj101 wrote:

I just think it will up the odds on kids getting it, thats all.

What, you think idiot dads wouldn't do the same if the drugs came from dealers, rather than an official store? Well, maybe not, because now you don't NEED to buy it from an imbecilic dad or a bum, you can just go to your friendly neighborhood dealer and maybe pay with a blowjob.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:robj101 wrote:The

ZuS wrote:

robj101 wrote:

The way things are nowdays, if meth were legalized, and you could purchase it at the age of 18 or w/e it seems in my mind at least that a 12 year old would have a much easier time getting this stuff.

Yes, just like you often see dead-drunk 12 year olds wandering the streets since the alchohol prohibition was abolished.

robj101 wrote:

I could not care less if an adult wants to fuck their life up, but keep this shit away from kids. Sure I know kids can get it now, but how much easier will it be when it's legalized?

It would be much harder, as it is with alcohol. There would be no dealers, since the 12-year old segment of the population just isn't a viable target for large scale drug production and smuggling.

robj101 wrote:

I distinctly remember buying cigarettes for my dad when I was around 10. I also remember giving a bum 5$ to buy some beer for myself and friends from the jiffy store.

Yea, that sounds like organized crime right there. Damn.

robj101 wrote:

I just think it will up the odds on kids getting it, thats all.

What, you think idiot dads wouldn't do the same if the drugs came from dealers, rather than an official store? Well, maybe not, because now you don't NEED to buy it from an imbecilic dad or a bum, you can just go to your friendly neighborhood dealer and maybe pay with a blowjob.

We will just have to agree to disagree.  I suppose putting meth on a store shelf in view of the general public might not make one whit of difference.

If they do legalize marijuana I might start smokin it, I don't now, it's not legal and jail is not fun.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:We will just

robj101 wrote:

We will just have to agree to disagree.

No, that's what people who aren't discussing anything do - opinion is not an argument. We should use arguments untill we at least reach some consensus.

robj101 wrote:

I suppose putting meth on a store shelf in view of the general public might not make one whit of difference.

How about in a medicine cabinet out of reach of anyone but the clerk? Maybe with a special counter that makes sure none of it dissapears? Something like the ordinary medicine.

robj101 wrote:

If they do legalize marijuana I might start smokin it, I don't now, it's not legal and jail is not fun.

So what? I would rather have you smoking pot because you are free to do so, than have the largest prison population in the world, basically institutionalized slavery. I would also rather see you walking down the street with 10 joins lit - 5 in your mouth, 2 out of your ears, 2 in your nostrils and one out of your ass - than have South America suffer our "War on Drugs".

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: If they do

robj101 wrote:

 

If they do legalize marijuana I might start smokin it, I don't now, it's not legal and jail is not fun.

Are you american?  Do you guys really get thrown in jail (or even arrested) if you get busted smoking weed?  It's so hard for me to imagine, most cops here (vancouver) don't care atall, many cops here smoke it.  When I watch your cop shows and see some kid getting tossed on his back and handcuffed cuz he has a dime bag in his pocket it makes me think, what a joke, what a waiste of time money.    


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
My personal opinion is it

My personal opinion is it should only be illegal to make or sell drugs. using them should be legal.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:My personal

Tapey wrote:

My personal opinion is it should only be illegal to make or sell drugs. using them should be legal.

How could you use drugs if nobody makes them? They wouldn't exist.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:My personal

Tapey wrote:

My personal opinion is it should only be illegal to make or sell drugs. using them should be legal.

There's one problem with that, see.. There are a couple of industries earning billions on incarceration of humans and they don't care much for what you think. They lobby to put more people in prison, because it helps their bottom line.

I don't think people realize just how detrimental to our own interests market mechanics not only have become, but have always been. I don't think people realize that survival of the human race might be riding on our ability to shake out of the stupor and start learning how to interact with the world around us for our benefit. People are afraid of being sued - why? Aren't courts supposed to be where we decide right from wrong? Why are we so disengaged? Look at the corporations - they have dozens and hundreds of lost cases behind them and they plow right on. What about an average Joe? He can get life for having pot on him 3 times some places in the US. First would be evening the playing field in the courts some, so that people can get some practice with being involved in legal matters. Before that's done, you should not sleep.

So how do you do this? We have to start somewhere, I suppose. How about pulling out the hose shoved down your throat with mother's milk that is continuously force-feeding you bullshit and this crap you call opinion?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Tapey wrote:My

Gauche wrote:

Tapey wrote:

My personal opinion is it should only be illegal to make or sell drugs. using them should be legal.

How could you use drugs if nobody makes them? They wouldn't exist.

People would still make them. They do now after all.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.