Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
But the war on drugs is. Discuss.
Funny you say that, when the war on drugs specifically targets minorities such as blacks. So therefore you're a traitor to your own race. And stop trying to change the subject.
I would've thought that the war on drugs is good and drugs are bad? How is the war on drugs bad?
You want to see how it's bad, compare the rate of violent crimes before and during Prohibition.
prasp wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 23:14 Funny you say that, when the war on drugs specifically targets minorities such as blacks. So therefore you're a traitor to your own race. And stop trying to change the subject. It's hard NOT to target minorities when they're the ones doing most of the selling and transporting.
Quote: It's hard NOT to target minorities when they're the ones doing most of the selling and transporting. They weren't doing that until laws passed making the drugs illegal, and besides, I haven't seen any CIA officials jailed for helping terrorists in Nicaragua sell cocaine.
I don't support the War on Drugs. I just don't support the whole claim of racial profiling.
prasp wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 22:35 You want to see how it's bad, compare the rate of violent crimes before and during Prohibition. Your argument there makes no sense, because populations during prohibition were much, much lower than now. There would have been a lower crime rate regardless. Anyway, I think the 'war' on drugs is stupid, and the WRONG approach to removing harmful drugs like meth and crack-cocaine from our cities. Instead of enforcement and throwing people in jail, ruining their lives even more, they should rehabilitate them and get them actual treatment for their addictions, rather than letting them rot for years in a cell and getting worse. This, combined with proper (read: not lies and hyperbole that is often presented as truth. Example: Marijuana making you a failure in life) education on harmful drugs and their effects in schools and poorer communities where youth would be more at risk of becoming a heavy drug user would also help. Less harmful 'soft drugs' such as cannabis etc. should also be decriminalized, or legalized in my opinion.
I find that advertisements and things like that against drugs often are what lead people to try drugs. It is the effort that people put in to try and stop others from doing drugs that catches people's eye and make them want to prove them wrong. "Don't do drugs, it will ruin your future" "Oh yea? Well I'll show them!"
I really hate idiots who spew out mass amounts of bullshit against marijuana.
we've been through this before. Yes, they are. Addiction to anything isn't good.
maby you need to rephrase, i like drugs i spend my life making new ones i like ampicillin fucidic acid erythromyocin can you see where in going with this? a drug is a compound that alters the bodys natural performance, so that includes everything from herion to antibiotics, diuretics, steroids and pain killers. drugs keep people alive using drugs for getting high is wrong and stupid (drugs of abuse as they are currently called), using them to cure sick people is good, i personally do make an exception for ethanol, it is a drug, but in small amounts is it safe (plus i like beer) (my job is working in a research center developing antibiotics) and about marijuana, there is loads of scientific data that shows it causes neuron damage, if you care look it up on a scientific journal search engine, free ones include pubmed and google scholor, there are also journals that show no damage, but in general most say it causes damage, if you dont belive me look it up
LOL...You make a blanket statement like "Drugs are NOT bad", and make reference to the "War on drugs", which everyone knows is about Illegal, mind-altering drugs, and then when you get called out you are like "oh I mean everyday drugs that cure sick people". Nice back-pedal.
firazero wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 05:54 maby you need to rephrase, i like drugs i spend my life making new ones i like ampicillin fucidic acid erythromyocin can you see where in going with this? a drug is a compound that alters the bodys natural performance, so that includes everything from herion to antibiotics, diuretics, steroids and pain killers. drugs keep people alive using drugs for getting high is wrong and stupid (drugs of abuse as they are currently called), using them to cure sick people is good, i personally do make an exception for ethanol, it is a drug, but in small amounts is it safe (plus i like beer) (my job is working in a research center developing antibiotics) and about marijuana, there is loads of scientific data that shows it causes neuron damage, if you care look it up on a scientific journal search engine, free ones include pubmed and google scholor, there are also journals that show no damage, but in general most say it causes damage, if you dont belive me look it up You'd think an adult who works in a lab would at least type like an adult.
Um... Ethanol would kill you... Steroids generally harm the body, and are therefore not healthy at all. And it is spelled 'Fusidic Acid' .
Rocko wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 22:09 u suck cock
Rocko wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 23:09 u suck cock Real men swallow.
Don't let them take away my coffee! I must have my coffee!
Ryu wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 02:13 I really hate idiots who spew out mass amounts of bullshit against marijuana. I really hate idiots who spew out mass amounts of bullshit for marijuana.
BlueThen wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:02 Ryu wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 02:13 I really hate idiots who spew out mass amounts of bullshit against marijuana. I really hate idiots who spew out mass amounts of bullshit for marijuana. BlueThen FTW!
sadukar09 wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 12:29 firazero wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 05:54 maby you need to rephrase, i like drugs i spend my life making new ones i like ampicillin fucidic acid erythromyocin can you see where in going with this? a drug is a compound that alters the bodys natural performance, so that includes everything from herion to antibiotics, diuretics, steroids and pain killers. drugs keep people alive using drugs for getting high is wrong and stupid (drugs of abuse as they are currently called), using them to cure sick people is good, i personally do make an exception for ethanol, it is a drug, but in small amounts is it safe (plus i like beer) (my job is working in a research center developing antibiotics) and about marijuana, there is loads of scientific data that shows it causes neuron damage, if you care look it up on a scientific journal search engine, free ones include pubmed and google scholor, there are also journals that show no damage, but in general most say it causes damage, if you dont belive me look it up You'd think an adult who works in a lab would at least type like an adult. so you couldnt find anything wrong with what i ment so you insulted my spelling..... yes im terrible at spelling, im dyslexic (i hope thats spelt properly) doesnt affect you in lab work. any real argument against what i said, other than spelling? if it helps i check my spelling on important documents, i dont really consider these posts worth putting into Word and running the spell checker nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 12:47 Um... Ethanol would kill you... Steroids generally harm the body, and are therefore not healthy at all. And it is spelled 'Fusidic Acid' . yes it is, my bad, i mixed up the brand name (Fucidin) with the active ingreadient. steriods are not all bad, they are used to speed up metabolic rate in damaged cells, i once got a skin infection and was given fucidic acid with steroids (topical) to treat it ethanol is good though...... but i try to drink less than a damaging dose (usually fail)
Drugs aren't inherently good or bad. That's entirely up to the user. However, the War on Drugs needs to end. We spend an (estimated) $75 billion dollars a year on fighting drugs, as well as paying to incarcerate those in prison because of drug offenses (approximately 50% of the inmate population). You'd expect the availability and use of illegal drugs to decline after spending that much public money, but that's not the case. Teen drug use is nearly double what it was 15 years ago. It should be obvious at this point that prohibition doesn't help stop drug use at all, and only increases our already large inmate population. The only people that benefit from prohibition are drug traffickers and politicians. Just giving you guys something to think about. (bitching and name-calling from Starbuzz in 5...4...3...2...) editx3: This link explains what I'm talking about more clearly: Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition
xptek wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:43 Drugs aren't inherently good or bad. That's entirely up to the user. However, the War on Drugs needs to end. We spend an (estimated) $75 billion dollars a year on fighting drugs, as well as paying to incarcerate those in prison because of drug offenses (approximately 50% of the inmate population). You'd expect the availability and use of illegal drugs to decline after spending that much public money, but that's not the case. Teen drug use is nearly double what it was 15 years ago. It should be obvious at this point that prohibition doesn't help stop drug use at all, and only increases our already large inmate population. The only people that benefit from prohibition are drug traffickers and politicians. Just giving you guys something to think about. (bitching and name-calling from Starbuzz in 5...4...3...2...) editx3: This link explains what I'm talking about more clearly: Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition So you are saying that durgs should be legal and people should stop trying to banish them? Drugs, with the exception of medication, as far as I know, can alter the mental capacity, in a bad way and destroy the knowledge of what's wrong or what's right. People would be murdering from using drugs, and murdering for drugs. If all drugs, were to become legal and found in common stores like Walmart, then America, Britain, and the rest of the world would be very fucked up, and we'd probably have way more people in jail than now. By the way, to tell you the truth, I didn't research this. I didn't learn this in school (not entirely), this is common sense, which most drug users (with the exception of medication users) lack.
Alcohol is a drug which can alter ones mind. Tobacco alters a person's mind as well. Although I don't toke, I do support the legalization of Marijuana, simply because we can tax the f*ck out of it, make billions, and rip off idiot teen-agers who are lazy, and listen to Blink 182. If commercialized, Pot will no longer be a fun drug. Pot was, and still is about the 'anti-establishment' . What better way to get people from not doing it than making it part of the Capitalist establishment. Give the rights to grow the stuff to Marlboro, Players, et al, to grow the stuff. Have them use their market-power to eliminate the small suppliers, and make it illegal to grow your own.
For the people who are planning to use the argument "But this illegal drug is not as bad as this other drug, which is legal!!1", like in the previous drug debates, I'm gonna have to have a say in this... Comparison is not a logical excuse. Even if a illegal drug is not as bad as a legal drug, it still shouldn't be legal. I don't care if it's not as bad, it's still bad. It still kills. It still corrupts society. I know that some drugs are legal, and others aren't, but think, will legalizing the other drugs cause ALL the drugs aren't illegal will help anything? Let's try and stick with what we got, and do the best in all ways to illegalize all drugs. I really hate it when people think it's all or nothing. You can't start big, ya gotta make progress.
BlueThen wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 18:26 xptek wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:43 Drugs aren't inherently good or bad. That's entirely up to the user. However, the War on Drugs needs to end. We spend an (estimated) $75 billion dollars a year on fighting drugs, as well as paying to incarcerate those in prison because of drug offenses (approximately 50% of the inmate population). You'd expect the availability and use of illegal drugs to decline after spending that much public money, but that's not the case. Teen drug use is nearly double what it was 15 years ago. It should be obvious at this point that prohibition doesn't help stop drug use at all, and only increases our already large inmate population. The only people that benefit from prohibition are drug traffickers and politicians. Just giving you guys something to think about. (bitching and name-calling from Starbuzz in 5...4...3...2...) editx3: This link explains what I'm talking about more clearly: Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition So you are saying that durgs should be legal and people should stop trying to banish them? Drugs, with the exception of medication, as far as I know, can alter the mental capacity, in a bad way and destroy the knowledge of what's wrong or what's right. People would be murdering from using drugs, and murdering for drugs. If all drugs, were to become legal and found in common stores like Walmart, then America, Britain, and the rest of the world would be very fucked up, and we'd probably have way more people in jail than now. By the way, to tell you the truth, I didn't research this. I didn't learn this in school (not entirely), this is common sense, which most drug users (with the exception of medication users) lack. Wait, so using "common sense" is more reliable of a source of understanding than scientific research is? You sir, are a stereotypical, mindless drone that lets propaganda dictate your thought process. Look, most drugs are bad for you in excessive amounts. Most people are probably too stupid to know when to quit. However, it's not your life to live, and unless they do something that impedes on the rights of others while under the influence, there should be no drug-related crimes. Edit: I agree with xptek, completely. Prohibition of drugs (and alcohol during the '20s) is largely unsuccessful. It does absolutely nothing to curtail drug trafficking, selling, and usage. As he said, drug usage among teens is up nearly double than it was just (less than) 2 short decades ago. Also, watch the fucking link I posted. I didn't upload that movie for you nitwits to pass over it.
BlueThen wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 18:26 xptek wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:43 Drugs aren't inherently good or bad. That's entirely up to the user. However, the War on Drugs needs to end. We spend an (estimated) $75 billion dollars a year on fighting drugs, as well as paying to incarcerate those in prison because of drug offenses (approximately 50% of the inmate population). You'd expect the availability and use of illegal drugs to decline after spending that much public money, but that's not the case. Teen drug use is nearly double what it was 15 years ago. It should be obvious at this point that prohibition doesn't help stop drug use at all, and only increases our already large inmate population. The only people that benefit from prohibition are drug traffickers and politicians. Just giving you guys something to think about. (bitching and name-calling from Starbuzz in 5...4...3...2...) editx3: This link explains what I'm talking about more clearly: Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition So you are saying that durgs should be legal and people should stop trying to banish them? Drugs, with the exception of medication, as far as I know, can alter the mental capacity, in a bad way and destroy the knowledge of what's wrong or what's right. People would be murdering from using drugs, and murdering for drugs. If all drugs, were to become legal and found in common stores like Walmart, then America, Britain, and the rest of the world would be very fucked up, and we'd probably have way more people in jail than now. By the way, to tell you the truth, I didn't research this. I didn't learn this in school (not entirely), this is common sense, which most drug users (with the exception of medication users) lack. You're missing my point entirely. The effects and damages of specific drugs are entirely irrelevant in this discussion. My point is that prohibition of illicit drugs do nothing to stop the flow and use of illegal drugs in the country. The prohibition of illegal drugs and housing non-violent prisoners convicted of drug crimes costs billions a year, with absolutely nothing to show for it. I'm not sure if you realize this, but until the 1900s cocaine and heroin could be purchased over-the-counter (note: not suggesting this should happen again), but there was minimal crime associated with the two drugs. Because of the hyperinflation of cocaine/heroin prices caused by the War on Drugs, addicts turn to violent crime and robbery to fund their (extremely expensive) habits. The War on Drugs has also caused cocaine and heroin to be filled with potentially dangerous adulterants and cutting agents, which cause thousands of users to die each year (due to unsafe cutting agents and varying degrees of purity in black market goods). The War on Drugs has also restricted access to clean needles, resulting in elevated HIV rates in drug users and non-drug users. Don't think I can make it any clearer than that. It really doesn't matter if you support drug use or not. It should be painfully obvious at this point that current system of prosecuting drug users and distributors does not work and only benefits those engaged in illegal smuggling or those trying to stop the illegal smuggling. The War on Drugs has caused a rise in violent crime, drug overdoses, drug use rates, and the number of people incarcerated/living off our tax money.
Ugh... try this again... (I think I caught the forum in a backup. comments based off the titles of http://www.populistamerica.com/free_from_the_nightmare_of_prohibition Quote: The difficulty of enforcing victimless-crime laws leads to three bad consequences. The Rise in Violent Crime Black Markets Police State Tactics LOL. I love this logic. If only it were that simple. Guess what? If people would not break the small crimes, the police wouldn't have to waste their time enforcing them! There would BE no rise in violent crime, no Black Markets and no police state tactics required if people would not break the law. You have no one to blame but yourself, people! But then, "propaganda" tells me that people like this often try to blame someone else for their own acts... seems like it is true in this instant. Quote: HOW THE INNOCENT ARE HURT Oh, how I wish I could use this logic in any of my philosophy classes. I would be sitting with a 4.0. Unfortunately, this logic does not work with anyone who has even a shred of intelligence. Faults of the system that govern crime does not mean the crime should be legal. Heck, just look at how many people are arrested/jailed for murder they did not commit. I DARE you to say that murder should become legal because innocent people get caught in the system. Quote: Some Are More Equal Than Others The Honorable Hypocrites Corrupt politicians = crime should be legalized huh? Again, such wonderful logic there. I don't have much to say on this because I can't understand the logic myself... it is so horrible that even I don't know where to begin. Quote: TWO TYPES OF CRIMES Ah yes, the "victimless" crime reasoning. I could agree with this, provided someone can guarantee me committing the "victimless" crime will not involve a victim later. As Crimson pointed out one time, someone she knew got high and killed a person. Sure, getting high may have been victimless, but what about after? Sure, gambling can be victimless, but what about when you become a burden on society because you are now poor? Sure, drinking is fine, but what about getting drunk and doing something to someone who did not consent? "Victimless" crimes only count when the act and the CONSEQUENCES of the act do not involve another person. Quote: It may be difficult for a spouse to leave an alcoholic or a gambler, but it is the spouse's own free will that determines whether to stay or go. All parties are there voluntarily, however dismal the situation. Wrong. If a wife has been beaten to the point of being broken, she will not be there voluntarily. If a child is present, it will not be voluntary (a child legally lacks the capacity to agree to such things). A spouse does not take lightly the idea of leaving someone because of things they do. They may feel obliged to remain as they gave their vows they would. That does not imply consent. What if the spouse simply can't leave? Be it injury or financially unable to leave? Sorry, but this logic is also a failure.
prasp wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 22:14 Funny you say that, when the war on drugs specifically targets minorities such as blacks. So therefore you're a traitor to your own race. And stop trying to change the subject. You are a complete idiot.
Rocko wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 22:09 u suck cock <3 Rocko, your fucking hilarious dude.
BlueThen wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 17:26 Drugs, with the exception of medication, as far as I know, can alter the mental capacity, in a bad way and destroy the knowledge of what's wrong or what's right. People would be murdering from using drugs, and murdering for drugs. So wait a minute... You're saying that only prohibited drugs are bad, while medical painkillers proven to cause addictions and psychiatric drugs that alter the brain chemistry of thousands of kids put on them usually against their will are all 100% safe, legit, and unquestionable?
Medical drugs and "illegal" drugs do two completely different things. Medical drugs bring what is out of balance back into balance. Hence why they are allowed. (Interestingly enough, if they are addictive or "too dangerous" they ARE illegal... which is why you need a medical prescription to acquire them rather than purchase them over the counter) the "illegal" drugs bring what is in balance out of balance. Hence they are illegal.
All I'm gonna say is Alchohal seems worse than Marijuana and yet it's legal...
Only because its so integrated into society that the one time it WAS made illegal, everyone revolted. Well, that and the health benefits of minimal drinking. (And the idea that one drink won't make you drunk, yet one joint can make you high)
warranto wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 23:48 Only because its so integrated into society that the one time it WAS made illegal, everyone revolted. Well, that and the health benefits of minimal drinking. (And the idea that one drink won't make you drunk, yet one joint can make you high) Opiates go back to the fucking Chinese and Alexander The Great. I'd say that's pretty ingrained into human history.
Sorry, but I don't see opium being used on a regular basis when Canada, USA, Britain, etc. were developing. Tobacco and Alcohol, however, were. I said integrated into our society, NOT used in our history. Simple use does not mean it has been integrated into our society. Heck, cocaine was consumed in frequent amounts in our recent history... it doesn't mean its been integrated (ever wonder why it's call "Coca Cola"?). Unless you count the consumption of poppy seeds... then I can't really argue with you.
we dont use opium in medicin anymore because morphine was developed its an opiat (has a similar structure to opuim) and is considered safer as the difference between an effective dose and a lethal dose is greater than opiums. you cant really say that medical drugs are different to illegal drugs ("drugs of abuse") because marijuana extracts (canabinoids) can be used to treat Alzheimers disease, in the UK there was alot of political crap about making it less illigal (politicians arnt good at extreams). and morphine is more addictive that opium, making it a worse drug of abuse if people have access to it. most drugs of abuse have some medical applications but not in the forms they are commonly found, the caniboids i mentioned earlyer are made synthetically, its cheeper then purifying from canabis, but you cant argue that marijuana itself is good as im betting the stuff you can buy is not a purified active extract, and even they are experimental
Did I say I had an issue with cannabis being used for medical reasons? That doesn't mean it has to be made available to the general public to be used on an "as desired" basis.
i agree, i was just saying that that drugs made from canibis have uses, and that drugs can be halpful or harmful depending on the situation. on a funny note, recently a new heart medicine that exploded destroying the lab working on it has been droped by the drugs company...... and taken up by military scientists as a new high explosive im serious, i just cant remember its name
warranto wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 01:06 Sorry, but I don't see opium being used on a regular basis when Canada, USA, Britain, etc. were developing. Tobacco and Alcohol, however, were. I said integrated into our society, NOT used in our history. Simple use does not mean it has been integrated into our society. Heck, cocaine was consumed in frequent amounts in our recent history... it doesn't mean its been integrated (ever wonder why it's call "Coca Cola"?). Unless you count the consumption of poppy seeds... then I can't really argue with you. I still feel it has quite the effect. Regardless, The War on Drugs is failing, and it's a direct violation of my rights. I don't care if you love or hate drugs, nobody has the right to force one's will on another. I'm sure we'd all agree that it'd be silly for a government to mandate that we all drink a glass of wine every night or smoke a joint every day. I see it just as silly to say that we can't. My body, my life, and as long as I'm not impeding on your rights, I see no reason why I should be stopped.
If only things were so black and white. If we were to legalize cocaine, wouldn't a crack-head mother be imposing cocaine on her unborn child? I mean, it is her body after all...It just so happens someone else lives there too...
Jecht wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:59 If only things were so black and white. If we were to legalize cocaine, wouldn't a crack-head mother be imposing cocaine on her unborn child? I mean, it is her body after all...It just so happens someone else lives there too... Irresponsible people are going to be irresponsible regardless. The crack-whore is going to use cocaine when she's pregnant, regardless of the legality. Women still smoke tobacco and drink alcohol while they're carrying their child. Making something illegal doesn't make people responsible. In fact, it makes them less responsible because of the risks they take to get the drug they want/need.
So, what I've heard so far, everyone is saying that having some drugs illegal is making everything worse, and legalizing them will make things better? That's fucked up.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:25 So, what I've heard so far, everyone is saying that having some drugs illegal is making everything worse, and legalizing them will make things better? That's fucked up. Did you watch the movie that I linked to? Probably not. I'm not saying guaranteed that legalizing drugs would make the world safer, but making them illegal is obviously making violent crime rates increase, and it certainly isn't doing anything to curtail usage. It's just a waste of government money.
I know it'll be a LOT worse if drugs were legallized.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 10:28 warranto wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 01:06 Sorry, but I don't see opium being used on a regular basis when Canada, USA, Britain, etc. were developing. Tobacco and Alcohol, however, were. I said integrated into our society, NOT used in our history. Simple use does not mean it has been integrated into our society. Heck, cocaine was consumed in frequent amounts in our recent history... it doesn't mean its been integrated (ever wonder why it's call "Coca Cola"?). Unless you count the consumption of poppy seeds... then I can't really argue with you. I still feel it has quite the effect. Regardless, The War on Drugs is failing, and it's a direct violation of my rights. I don't care if you love or hate drugs, nobody has the right to force one's will on another. I'm sure we'd all agree that it'd be silly for a government to mandate that we all drink a glass of wine every night or smoke a joint every day. I see it just as silly to say that we can't. My body, my life, and as long as I'm not impeding on your rights, I see no reason why I should be stopped. I can't comment too much on the "war on drugs" and its success. However, if you can truly be alone when you do the, and the effect of taking them will have no unconsented impact on those around you or who could potentially be around you, then I can agree. Unfortunatly, unless you live on a remote island or lock yourself in your room, you will have an impact on someone around you. If not from the item itself, then from the resulting condition of the act.
If I'm not mistaken, "impact" and "impede" are two different things. I can impact someone without impeding on them. By impeding, I mean the obvious legality issues surrounding drunk driving and drunken in public. If my friends are around me when I'm drinking, they're willfully there. I'm not forcing myself into their homes and forcing them to be around me while I'm drinking. I'm not impeding on their rights if I'm not doing anything they disapprove of in their presence.
Right. Now, if you decide to go out and drive while drunk, would you say the same thing? Are the people on the road there voluntarily, and therefore drunk driving should be legal?
It's public property, so it doesn't have the same protections as a private residence or business. I'm sure you don't wish to outlaw sex in one's home, but I'm sure you also don't want sex in plain sight to be legalized, either.
Think of how corrupt society would be if drugs were legalized. We would cease from advancing.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:07 Think of how corrupt society would be if drugs were legalized. We would cease from advancing. Explain to me how it would be any more corrupt. The way I see it is that high drug prices due to smugging and selling would be cut drastically. If they're cut drastically, then there's no reason for people who use the drugs to go to such lengths to get their drug. We saw gangs rise during the 1920s due to Prohibition. They lost their effect when Prohibition was ended. The same principle can be applied to the War on Drugs. Also, most people drink alcohol, do they not? Most people aren't reckless, so we don't see a whole lot of negativity. Most people don't go abusing the drug, just like most people wouldn't be abusing clean drugs bought from a store. Of course, as there is with alcohol, there'd be exceptions to this with the legalization of drugs, but it'd rid of a lot more criminals.
I think this whole argument would end if they legalized marijuana. Most of you just stopped reading this post im sure. Just think about all the money the U.S. spends fighting it, yet it will never end. If we legalize it, think of how much we can make on taxing the stuff? Then we can finally pay off the debts we owe the other countries. Give it the same rules as alcohol. don't smoke and drive, don't drink and drive. Don't be high publicly, don't be drunk in public either. Plus, think of all the people who smoked pot and are in jail at the moment for that taking up the space for people that are actually hurting others. Drugs that you do in your own home may harm only you. The guy that just shot that old lady is that should be focused on. Next year alone the United States government plans to spend 12.7 billion fighting drugs. Instead of fighting it, let people sell it and use it in the privacy of their own home and turn that 12.7 billion into taxes on the product. Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10373/#2 PROFIT. Think of when you were little. Johnny, dont throw baseballs at her house. What do you do? You throw that damn baseball at her house to see what happens. I think the same concept comes into this situation. You tell us no, were going to do it to see what happens.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:06 It's public property, so it doesn't have the same protections as a private residence or business. I'm sure you don't wish to outlaw sex in one's home, but I'm sure you also don't want sex in plain sight to be legalized, either. Right, nor would I want the immediate effects of sex (if there were any, and no I don't mean kids) to be dealt with outside of the home either. Be it alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or tobacco, I do not want to deal with people who would be under their effects or deal with whatever "harm" (stench or physical) that they would cause. Sex in private is legal done because everyone who could be effcted by it is concenting. If you were sitting your child down to watch however, sex, no matter how private, would be (and is) illegal.
As I said earlier, I believe that drugs can drastically change one's mind.. and can drive him or her insane, and can lose the ability to know what's right and what's wrong. In addition to that, I doubt drugs will be any cheaper, since demand would raise highly since there will be no legal consequences to drug use. Death rate will be high, and so would pollution, which will cause a good deal of deaths. Legalizing drugs will be murder.
spazbeast wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:31 I think this whole argument would end if they legalized marijuana. Most of you just stopped reading this post im sure. Just think about all the money the U.S. spends fighting it, yet it will never end. If we legalize it, think of how much we can make on taxing the stuff? Then we can finally pay off the debts we owe the other countries. Give it the same rules as alcohol. don't smoke and drive, don't drink and drive. Don't be high publicly, don't be drunk in public either. Plus, think of all the people who smoked pot and are in jail at the moment for that taking up the space for people that are actually hurting others. Drugs that you do in your own home may harm only you. The guy that just shot that old lady is that should be focused on. Next year alone the United States government plans to spend 12.7 billion fighting drugs. Instead of fighting it, let people sell it and use it in the privacy of their own home and turn that 12.7 billion into taxes on the product. Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10373/#2 PROFIT. Because as we all know if you can profit from it, go a head and do it! Heck, why not make murder for hire a government-authorized and taxed business. That could become highly profitable, and you would no longer have to spend resources on fighting it! Wait... are these the same people who are fighting for the right to download music for free?
warranto wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:32 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:06 It's public property, so it doesn't have the same protections as a private residence or business. I'm sure you don't wish to outlaw sex in one's home, but I'm sure you also don't want sex in plain sight to be legalized, either. Right, nor would I want the immediate effects of sex (if there were any, and no I don't mean kids) to be dealt with outside of the home either. Be it alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or tobacco, I do not want to deal with people who would be under their effects or deal with whatever "harm" (stench or physical) that they would cause. Sex in private is legal done because everyone who could be effcted by it is concenting. If you were sitting your child down to watch however, sex, no matter how private, would be (and is) illegal. So we should start regulating showers, then? Should we make not taking a shower, at least, 4 times a week illegal? "You smell, therefore you're under arrest." Yup, makes sense. If I'm drinking alcohol (or doing any other drug) around people who (again, as I stated earlier) are willfully there, I see no reason why it should be illegal. @BlueThen: Should we just live in a fucking bubble, then? Let's ban alcohol, drugs, guns, knives, automobiles, manufacturing, and everything else that could potentially harm the environment or each other. WOULDN'T LIFE BE FUN, THEN?
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:42 @BlueThen: Should we just live in a fucking bubble, then? Let's ban alcohol, drugs, guns, knives, automobiles, manufacturing, and everything else that could potentially harm the environment or each other. WOULDN'T LIFE BE FUN, THEN? Let's try and minimize the damage to society, instead of just legalizing everything cause if we aint perfect, then it aint worth trying. It's like ONLY give money to charity if you have 1000000 donations, but if you don't, let's keep the money! That's just fucked up and illogical.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:46 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:42 @BlueThen: Should we just live in a fucking bubble, then? Let's ban alcohol, drugs, guns, knives, automobiles, manufacturing, and everything else that could potentially harm the environment or each other. WOULDN'T LIFE BE FUN, THEN? Let's try and minimize the damage to society, instead of just legalizing everything cause if we aint perfect, then it aint worth trying. It's like ONLY give money to charity if you have 1000000 donations, but if you don't, let's keep the money! That's just fucked up and illogical. Illogical? I'm not the one who suggested that an increase in drug usage would cause noticeable amounts of pollution. Again, you're making assumptions based on what you think you know about people. However, I look back at Prohibition, and I see how violent crime went down after Prohibition was repealed. I see a direct correlation between telling people that they can't enjoy recreational drugs within their private residences and telling people they can't drink alcohol. Again... Watch. The. Fucking. Movie.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:42 warranto wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:32 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 14:06 It's public property, so it doesn't have the same protections as a private residence or business. I'm sure you don't wish to outlaw sex in one's home, but I'm sure you also don't want sex in plain sight to be legalized, either. Right, nor would I want the immediate effects of sex (if there were any, and no I don't mean kids) to be dealt with outside of the home either. Be it alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or tobacco, I do not want to deal with people who would be under their effects or deal with whatever "harm" (stench or physical) that they would cause. Sex in private is legal done because everyone who could be effcted by it is concenting. If you were sitting your child down to watch however, sex, no matter how private, would be (and is) illegal. So we should start regulating showers, then? Should we make not taking a shower, at least, 4 times a week illegal? "You smell, therefore you're under arrest." Yup, makes sense. If I'm drinking alcohol (or doing any other drug) around people who (again, as I stated earlier) are willfully there, I see no reason why it should be illegal. Actually, if it comes to the person reeking so bad that it causes others near them to faint/throw up or have trouble breathing (as is what happens when I smell either tobacco or marijuana smoke), then yes. Tell you what, if you can guarantee me that whenever ANYONE gets high or drunk that they will not, under any circumstances, affect those around them during the term that they are impaired, then I will agree that it should be made legal.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:07 Think of how corrupt society would be if drugs were legalized. We would cease from advancing. Bluethen, you are saying that if we legalized some drugs, it would destroy our society. Look at the Netherlands for example. They decriminalized Cannabis for personal use, and nothing happened. The city didn't explode in an orgy of blood, violence, and crime. People like you only seem to think that stuff they don't like and have issues with should not be allowed period. People like you are in office, and are continuing to keep these mundane laws around that harm millions. People like you need to stop crying and listen to someone else's point of view for once. We need to get smart about drugs. Not tough.
Canadacdn wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:04 BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:07 Think of how corrupt society would be if drugs were legalized. We would cease from advancing. Bluethen, you are saying that if we legalized some drugs, it would destroy our society. Look at the Netherlands for example. They decriminalized Cannabis for personal use, and nothing happened. The city didn't explode in an orgy of blood, violence, and crime. People like you only seem to think that stuff they don't like and have issues with should not be allowed period. People like you are in office, and are continuing to keep these mundane laws around that harm millions. People like you need to stop crying and listen to someone else's point of view for once. We need to get smart about drugs. Not tough. That's just a single drug, everyone wants to legalize ALL drugs.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:08 Canadacdn wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:04 BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:07 Think of how corrupt society would be if drugs were legalized. We would cease from advancing. Bluethen, you are saying that if we legalized some drugs, it would destroy our society. Look at the Netherlands for example. They decriminalized Cannabis for personal use, and nothing happened. The city didn't explode in an orgy of blood, violence, and crime. People like you only seem to think that stuff they don't like and have issues with should not be allowed period. People like you are in office, and are continuing to keep these mundane laws around that harm millions. People like you need to stop crying and listen to someone else's point of view for once. We need to get smart about drugs. Not tough. That's just a single drug, everyone wants to legalize ALL drugs. No, not everyone wants to legalize all drugs. There goes another broad, sweeping statement coming straight from your ass. Most drug legalization movements are geared towards legalizing 'soft drugs' like Cannabis etc. Full out legalization would be a stupid idea, as there are genuinely harmful drugs out there like Meth and Crack that can seriously fuck up your life and health. Those need to be controlled, while others should be legalized, because enforcing them is a waste of time, money, and prison space.
Quote: because enforcing them is a waste of time, money, and prison space. I agree. So stop breaking the law, and that money, time and prison space will no longer be an issue.
warranto Tell you what, if you can guarantee me that whenever ANYONE gets high or drunk that they will not, under any circumstances, affect those around them during the term that they are impaired, then I will agree that it should be made legal. So you're wanting it to remain illegal for the simple fact that a minority of people would impede on the rights of others? Great idea!
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:45 warranto Tell you what, if you can guarantee me that whenever ANYONE gets high or drunk that they will not, under any circumstances, affect those around them during the term that they are impaired, then I will agree that it should be made legal. So you're wanting it to remain illegal for the simple fact that a minority of people would impede on the rights of others? Great idea! Well, I should apologies then... I didn't realize your right to do what you want when you want automatically trumps my right not to be affected by it. I also didn't realize you were all for legalizing drunk driving (only a minority of people do that), minor theft (only a minority of people do that) and even spousal abuse (only a minority of people do that). After all, if you want your argument about not letting the minority dictate the law to hold, then you are forced to acknowledge that ANY law where only a minority of the people act against that law should be abolished.
Actually, we're going backwards anyway. ("We would cease from advancing")
warranto wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 17:54 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 15:45 warranto Tell you what, if you can guarantee me that whenever ANYONE gets high or drunk that they will not, under any circumstances, affect those around them during the term that they are impaired, then I will agree that it should be made legal. So you're wanting it to remain illegal for the simple fact that a minority of people would impede on the rights of others? Great idea! Well, I should apologies then... I didn't realize your right to do what you want when you want automatically trumps my right not to be affected by it. I also didn't realize you were all for legalizing drunk driving (only a minority of people do that), minor theft (only a minority of people do that) and even spousal abuse (only a minority of people do that). After all, if you want your argument about not letting the minority dictate the law to hold, then you are forced to acknowledge that ANY law where only a minority of the people act against that law should be abolished. Theft and abuse are illegal, regardless. Once you do the act, you've impeded on someone else's rights. If you drink alcohol or smoke marijuana, you're not necessarily going to impede on the rights of others unless you walk out into the public and make a spectacle of yourself. My argument isn't that a law where only a minority of people commit should be abolished. That's far from what I'm getting at, and either you're knowingly playing semantics, or you're just simply not understanding it. It has nothing to do with a minority of people breaking the law. It has everything to do with allowing people to do an act even though there are people that are going to do something stupid as a result of the act. It's not the act itself that's impeding on the rights of others.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 16:33 As I said earlier, I believe that drugs can drastically change one's mind.. and can drive him or her insane, and can lose the ability to know what's right and what's wrong. In addition to that, I doubt drugs will be any cheaper, since demand would raise highly since there will be no legal consequences to drug use. Death rate will be high, and so would pollution, which will cause a good deal of deaths. Legalizing drugs will be murder. Why are you even replying to this thread?
Quote: If you drink alcohol or smoke marijuana, you're not necessarily going to impede on the rights of others unless you walk out into the public and make a spectacle of yourself. Because, as we all know, the fact that making smoking marijuana legal means they are only going to smoke it inside when they are alone... right... Hey, you're the one who was disagreeing with the argument about a minority controlling the law (to summarize it). Why else would you have called me stupid for making that point if you didn't agree with the opposition? Quote: It has nothing to do with a minority of people breaking the law. It has everything to do with allowing people to do an act even though there are people that are going to do something stupid as a result of the act. It's not the act itself that's impeding on the rights of others. Ah, but why should they be allowed to do an act in public if it is doing it in public that causes the problem in the first place? I mean, seriously... "getting high" is ok, but "causing an accident because you are high" is not? Why put even more strain on the already over-burdened police force on controlling the action of those who are high when it can be stopped at the source? (Wait... I thought legalizing it would relieve the strain on the police... guess not, it just means they go from "arresting those who use" to "giving out tickets to those who use while doing something they shouldn't be while high". Besides, you yourself just said it can cause people to do stupid things... I thought this wasn't a harmful drug?
warranto Because, as we all know, the fact that making smoking marijuana legal means they are only going to smoke it inside when they are alone... right... Why would that be much different than alcohol? I don't go drinking while walking down the street. I drink it while at home or in a bar with a few friends around me. warranto Hey, you're the one who was disagreeing with the argument about a minority controlling the law (to summarize it). Why else would you have called me stupid for making that point if you didn't agree with the opposition? I called you stupid? When? Again, I made it clear that the act doesn't guarantee that someone else's rights are being impeded on. warranto Ah, but why should they be allowed to do an act in public if it is doing it in public that causes the problem in the first place? I mean, seriously... "getting high" is ok, but "causing an accident because you are high" is not? Why put even more strain on the already over-burdened police force on controlling the action of those who are high when it can be stopped at the source? (Wait... I thought legalizing it would relieve the strain on the police... guess not, it just means they go from "arresting those who use" to "giving out tickets to those who use while doing something they shouldn't be while high". Besides, you yourself just said it can cause people to do stupid things... I thought this wasn't a harmful drug? I never said that they should be allowed to smoke or drink in public. Though, I'm not seeing why one shouldn't be able to. Being drunk or high doesn't necessarily make you a danger to society. Driving impaired, on the other hand, is much more detrimental to others than being slightly intoxicated while in public. Over-burdened police force? The police around here have to pull people over to meet their ticket-quotas for the month. If anything, they have too much time on their hands. I'm sure my county isn't an anomaly. Can it be stopped at the source? If the past 3 decades have been any indication of things... there's no chance in Hell it can be stopped. The War on Drugs hasn't been successful, isn't successful, and shows no signs of being successful. Edit: I realize that you don't smoke alcohol... you drink it. >.>
Quote: Can it be stopped at the source? If the past 3 decades have been any indication of things... there's no chance in Hell it can be stopped. The War on Drugs hasn't been successful, isn't successful, and shows no signs of being successful. So that means they should give in... right... Since political catchphrases seem to be so overused these days, I'll borrow one. for the past ??? number of years, no one has been able to stop TERRORISM (over-dramatic music goes off). I guess we should legalize that too! After all, if you can't fight it, why bother trying? Quote: Why would that be much different than alcohol? I don't go drinking while walking down the street. I smoke it while at home or in a bar with a few friends around me. Guess what, though? Drinking out on the street is illegal! Imagine that! And here you are wanting to make smoking pot legal across the board, yet the very thing used in comparison is also illegal! Smoking in a bar, huh? Can I assume every single person that walks into that bar will consent to you doing that? If not, you are a hypocrite and pretty much proved my previous point. Quote: I called you stupid? When? Again, I made it clear that the act doesn't guarantee that someone else's rights are being impeded on. You implied I was stupid when you sarcastically said I was doing a good job. If that is not what you meant, I suggest you stay away from using sarcasm until you understand what it is used for. You may have said that, but it does nothing to defeat my argument. You can not guarantee that someone else's rights WON'T be impeded on, either. Meaning some sort of other qualification must be used. Quote: Over-burdened police force? The police around here have to pull people over to meet their ticket-quotas for the month. If anything, they have too much time on their hands. I'm sure my county isn't an anomaly. Hmm... what happened to that argument that the police can't stop the more dangerous crime because they have to deal with enforcing the minor crimes? Guess you defeated your own argument there, if the police have too much time on their hands. Quote: Being drunk or high doesn't necessarily make you a danger to society. Driving impaired, on the other hand, is much more detrimental to others than being slightly intoxicated while in public. Right, unfortunately being drunk or high ENABLES the act of driving drunk, etc. Why put out the resources to stop drunk driving, when you can stop it completely by not allowing people to be drunk in public (or at all, but that's my personal view)
warranto So that means they should give in... right... Since political catchphrases seem to be so overused these days, I'll borrow one. for the past ??? number of years, no one has been able to stop TERRORISM (over-dramatic music goes off). I guess we should legalize that too! After all, if you can't fight it, why bother trying? Terrorism is a direct attack on the rights of others. Doing drugs itself is NOT impeding on someone else's rights. What don't you understand about that? How can you ban an act because it could potentially lead to something else? Should we ban automobiles because it could potentially lead to manslaughter? warranto Guess what, though? Drinking out on the street is illegal! Imagine that! And here you are wanting to make smoking pot legal across the board, yet the very thing used in comparison is also illegal! Smoking in a bar, huh? Can I assume every single person that walks into that bar will consent to you doing that? If not, you are a hypocrite and pretty much proved my previous point. It shouldn't be. I drink in public on most Saturdays (during football season), and I cause absolutely no harm to those around me. In fact, most patrons have open alcohol. Little to no harm done. Hmm... imagine that. If the bar's owner wants to allow smoking weed in his place of business, he has every right to allow it. If the patron doesn't like it, oh well. The patron can leave. It's not his business to run. warranto You implied I was stupid when you sarcastically said I was doing a good job. If that is not what you meant, I suggest you stay away from using sarcasm until you understand what it is used for. Sure, warranto, because saying "good job" sarcastically MUST mean that I think you're stupid. Or it could mean that I disagree with you... warranto You may have said that, but it does nothing to defeat my argument. You can not guarantee that someone else's rights WON'T be impeded on, either. Meaning some sort of other qualification must be used. Our police force is a responsive authority. It's not a preventative. Just because something COULD happen doesn't mean it will. Again, shall we ban automobiles because of the potential danger? warranto Hmm... what happened to that argument that the police can't stop the more dangerous crime because they have to deal with enforcing the minor crimes? Guess you defeated your own argument there, if the police have too much time on their hands. Yes, let's put words in my mouth, so you can use those words to make me sound like I'm contradicting myself. Well played... if only I didn't realize what I said. warranto Right, unfortunately being drunk or high ENABLES the act of driving drunk, etc. Why put out the resources to stop drunk driving, when you can stop it completely by not allowing people to be drunk in public (or at all, but that's my personal view) It's called personal responsibility. Don't punish those of us that take responsibility for our actions while sober or intoxicated. I have yet to drive drunk (and I have no plan to). I have yet to steal for drug money (partly because I've never done any illicit drugs).
Oh, and I realize I changed the subject on the "it hasn't worked" issue. Terrorism is something ingrained in the hearts of our enemies, and fighting it seems about pointless, but it's an attack on a nation. Drugs are different. It's not worth fighting a losing battle for. It's a recreational activity that shouldn't be criminalized because there's a potential danger outside of just to the user.
The problem with legalizing one is: the door is then open to legalize all narcotics. The addiction of some of these drugs is so strong that people steal for it, sell all of their belongings for it, and sponge even further off of government welfare for it. I saw a court case on television where a mother used the $5,000 she received for her daughter completely on crack cocaine. I refuse to pay taxes for people to get high. The system is already broken enough. The world isn't so black and white. If drugs were made legal on a federal standpoint, I would honestly consider relocating to a different country. That's because the effect would transfer to those who don't want drug abuse in one way or another, and probably in a pretty detrimental way.
im happy with the government buying me my weed
Those who do drugs such as Heroin are in need of mental and physical help. I don't support their legalization, but in theory, if they were legalized, the people addicted to them may be more willing to seek treatment because the social stigma of using illicit drugs would be gone.
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 01:39 Those who do drugs such as Heroin are in need of mental and physical help. I don't support their legalization, but in theory, if they were legalized, the people addicted to them may be more willing to seek treatment because the social stigma of using illicit drugs would be gone. i'd think it would be the other way around but watevers clevers holmes
Quote: Terrorism is a direct attack on the rights of others. Doing drugs itself is NOT impeding on someone else's rights. What don't you understand about that? How can you ban an act because it could potentially lead to something else? Should we ban automobiles because it could potentially lead to manslaughter? You obviously missed the reference. You are saying that because it can not be enforced effectively, it should not be illegal. If you are going to make that claim, then you must also make that claim for EVERY law that can not be enforced effectively. It is innate in the use of drugs to change the chemical makeup of the brain (no matter how temporary the effects). Marijuana, in particular, (and from what I have seen of "friends" who got high, and have openly admitted to me) makes people ignorant and blissfully unaware of things that are happening. This changed state is what causes the potential to do harm. With automobiles, if the person is in such a state that he is blissfully unaware (not suggesting drug use, just ANY instance of this), then yes... he should not be allowed to drive during that instance. The potential for danger when doing something with such a change in brain chemistry is far too dangerous. Driving automobiles is innately bad? No. Smoking pot is innately bad? No. Driving while you have an abnormal brain chemistry (I'm being grossly over-general here) bad? Yes. Getting high and causing that abnormal brain chemistry bad? Yes. Quote: It shouldn't be. I drink in public on most Saturdays (during football season), and I cause absolutely no harm to those around me. In fact, most patrons have open alcohol. Little to no harm done. Hmm... imagine that. If the bar's owner wants to allow smoking weed in his place of business, he has every right to allow it. If the patron doesn't like it, oh well. The patron can leave. It's not his business to run. Just because it is done, doesn't make it legal, sorry this does nothing to even dent my argument. Too bad smoking pot is illegal, huh? I guess that business can't do as he pleases, or he would be doing it already. Quote: Sure, warranto, because saying "good job" sarcastically MUST mean that I think you're stupid. Or it could mean that I disagree with you... As I said, then don't use sarcasm if you don't understand its implications. Quote: Our police force is a responsive authority. It's not a preventative. Just because something COULD happen doesn't mean it will. Again, shall we ban automobiles because of the potential danger? Not really much to comment on, it doesn't even address my argument. Quote: Yes, let's put words in my mouth, so you can use those words to make me sound like I'm contradicting myself. Well played... if only I didn't realize what I said. You are right here. I mixed up the link you posted and the link xptek posted. It's him who argued about the police being over-burdened because of the requirement to enforce this law. It's his argument you defeated for me. Quote: It's called personal responsibility. Don't punish those of us that take responsibility for our actions while sober or intoxicated. I have yet to drive drunk (and I have no plan to). I have yet to steal for drug money (partly because I've never done any illicit drugs). If only things were that simple. People try time and time again to get out of personal responsibility. This is why the court system is back up, this is why people are not caught when a crime occurs, and this is why people are trying to fully legalize abortion. They have no sense of personal responsibility. You may have it, but the majority of the world has shown they lack any sort of semblance of personal responsibilty. Quote: Terrorism is something ingrained in the hearts of our enemies, and fighting it seems about pointless, but it's an attack on a nation. Drugs are different. It's not worth fighting a losing battle for. It's a recreational activity that shouldn't be criminalized because there's a potential danger outside of just to the user. Oh, I certainly think protecting people from their own stupidity is definately a worthy cause. Even Mill, who pretty much invented the modern view of Liberty thought that stupidity isn't somthing that should be sought.
There's nothing more I can say. You've made it clear that you don't give a damn about my liberties. You've made it clear that you can't see the correlation between the War on Drugs and Prohibition. Just because people like you are too afraid of other people under the influence, doesn't give you the fucking right to take away my liberties, so you feel safer. Do you honestly think that you don't interact with people who are high or drunk, already? You'd be pretty fucking naive to think that everybody who seems "normal" is sober. People can function just fine. Again, it's a minority of people that wield knives and stab others. It's a minority of people who use their cars to maul down people. It's a minority of people who use guns to kill people. It's a minority of people who commit suicide. It's a minority of people who destroy their lives due to drugs. Should we outlaw knives, cars, guns, and should we throw everybody into padded cells in case we hurt ourselves, too? Who would you be protecting, then? Certainly not me. You'd only be protecting yourself. Most people know the consequences of their actions, and they take full responsibility for them. Like, for instance, myself and xptek. Oh, I know you're going to redirect me to your argument of "well, only a minority of people commit murder", but then you'd just be completely ignoring my point. Murder, theft, assault, rape, molestation, etc... are all laws regarding the impediment of another being's rights. As I've stated before, and you've actually agreed, the act of being intoxicated isn't a guarantee that another's rights will be impeded on.
Jecht wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 22:44 The problem with legalizing one is: the door is then open to legalize all narcotics. The addiction of some of these drugs is so strong that people steal for it, sell all of their belongings for it, and sponge even further off of government welfare for it. I saw a court case on television where a mother used the $5,000 she received for her daughter completely on crack cocaine. I refuse to pay taxes for people to get high. The system is already broken enough. You already pay taxes for plenty of people to get high. How is keeping the drug illegal going to ensure you don't? If anything, because of inflated prices caused by illegality of the drugs they're spending more of your tax money. Jecht wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 22:44 The world isn't so black and white. If drugs were made legal on a federal standpoint, I would honestly consider relocating to a different country. That's because the effect would transfer to those who don't want drug abuse in one way or another, and probably in a pretty detrimental way. The opposite has been proven time and time again in countries that have taken steps to decriminalize recreational drug use. Lower crime rates, lower drug use rates, etc.
cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 08:52 There's nothing more I can say. You've made it clear that you don't give a damn about my liberties. You've made it clear that you can't see the correlation between the War on Drugs and Prohibition. Just because people like you are too afraid of other people under the influence, doesn't give you the fucking right to take away my liberties, so you feel safer. Do you honestly think that you don't interact with people who are high or drunk, already? You'd be pretty fucking naive to think that everybody who seems "normal" is sober. People can function just fine. Again, it's a minority of people that wield knives and stab others. It's a minority of people who use their cars to maul down people. It's a minority of people who use guns to kill people. It's a minority of people who commit suicide. It's a minority of people who destroy their lives due to drugs. Should we outlaw knives, cars, guns, and should we throw everybody into padded cells in case we hurt ourselves, too? Who would you be protecting, then? Certainly not me. You'd only be protecting yourself. Most people know the consequences of their actions, and they take full responsibility for them. Like, for instance, myself and xptek. Oh, I know you're going to redirect me to your argument of "well, only a minority of people commit murder", but then you'd just be completely ignoring my point. Murder, theft, assault, rape, molestation, etc... are all laws regarding the impediment of another being's rights. As I've stated before, and you've actually agreed, the act of being intoxicated isn't a guarantee that another's rights will be impeded on. I care as much about your liberty of being able to smoke pot as you do of my liberty of not having to deal with it. If you can show me why YOUR liberty is better than MY liberty, then we'll talk about how it affects liberty. Tell you what. You promise to give your child every thing he or she ever asks for, and perhaps I will see your point. All I see right now is a child crying that it can't get what it wants and does nothing but whine about it. This same child provides no other reasoning for getting that thing other than "I want it!!!". Sorry, but I'm sure that as any parent worth their title as parent, the child should not always get what they want. The "I deserve it because I want it... and you can't stop me!" argument does not fly, regardless of what you are trying to argue for.
xptek wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:43 (bitching and name-calling from Starbuzz in 5...4...3...2...) Nice self-pwnage. xptek wrote on Tue, 20 November 2007 16:43 However, the War on Drugs needs to end. We spend an (estimated) $75 billion dollars a year on fighting drugs... You'd expect the availability and use of illegal drugs to decline after spending that much public money, but that's not the case. American National Guardsmen are afraid of shooting at smugglers inside their own damn border. See why it's not working? But the fault lies in the fucking rules...change it to "shoot first" and we can see your drugs disappear. But the divisive peacemongering feeble-minded American public won't let that happen. And Americans acting on personal feelings and emotion (like "illegal immigrants deserve a chance" bullshit) rather than seeing theirself as a powerful nation is the root of all problems.
warranto I care as much about your liberty of being able to smoke pot as you do of my liberty of not having to deal with it. If you can show me why YOUR liberty is better than MY liberty, then we'll talk about how it affects liberty. Again, you've even admitted that someone being under the influence doesn't always impede on your rights. More times than not, they don't. I'm not defending those who impede on your rights. Those people should be punished for impeding on other rights. However, my drinking inside of my home should not be (and thankfully is not) illegal. The same, logically, should be for smoking pot. warranto Tell you what. You promise to give your child every thing he or she ever asks for, and perhaps I will see your point. Heh. It's my job as a parent to teach my child the difference between a want and a need. It's my job as a parent to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong. That's not the job of my government. My government's job is to protect me from external threats, not myself. I don't need nor want my hand held, especially by my government. If you want your hand held, then you can seek that help. Don't force it upon me because you're too fucking selfish to realize that I have the right to do whatever I please in the privacy of my own home or place of business that's willing to let me do as I please. warranto All I see right now is a child crying that it can't get what it wants and does nothing but whine about it. This same child provides no other reasoning for getting that thing other than "I want it!!!". Sorry, but I'm sure that as any parent worth their title as parent, the child should not always get what they want. The "I deserve it because I want it... and you can't stop me!" argument does not fly, regardless of what you are trying to argue for. What I see is someone so pretentious that they can't understand why people should be responsible for themselves. I'm an adult, and if I'm allowed to die for my country and vote for my elected leaders, I should have the responsibility of determining what goes into my body and how I react because of it. I have no problem with restricting people from being obnoxious in public. That's public property, and the government has the responsibility to protect you from people being a public nuisance. When it comes to private property, the government should have no say. I don't care if they do. That doesn't make it right. The "I deserve it because I want it" argument DOES fly because I'm a legal adult deciding my own fate. You choose what food you eat. You choose when you leave the house, take a shower, go to bed, watch TV, access the internet, etc... What makes this any different? Because it *could* lead to something else? Again, our authority SHOULD NOT BE a preventative force. If you really want that, then go submit yourself to a mental hospital, so they can put you in a padded room where you can be protected from yourself and others. I'll take my chances and my liberties, thank you very much. This is what responsibility is all about. Making the decisions on your own and suffering the consequences of your actions. If my actions affect myself and/or those who allow themselves to be affected, then I should be left alone. If I subject you to something you don't want, and it's not on private property, then I have over-stepped my liberties, and I deserve to be punished for that. Until I do, however, I should not be subjected to control by my government, especially when I'm the one who puts the fucktards in control, in the first place.
warranto wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 11:12 All I see right now is a child crying that it can't get what it wants and does nothing but whine about it. This same child provides no other reasoning for getting that thing other than "I want it!!!". Sorry, but I'm sure that as any parent worth their title as parent, the child should not always get what they want. The "I deserve it because I want it... and you can't stop me!" argument does not fly, regardless of what you are trying to argue for. We live in a free country. Part of living in a free country should be the ability to do whatever the hell you want to do to your own body. If you don't like it, go to China.
Quote: Again, you've even admitted that someone being under the influence doesn't always impede on your rights. More times than not, they don't. I'm not defending those who impede on your rights. Those people should be punished for impeding on other rights. However, my drinking inside of my home should not be (and thankfully is not) illegal. The same, logically, should be for smoking pot. Guess what, you are arguing for the legality of drugs... NOT the legality to use it in your own home. There is a HUGE difference there. Using drugs in public DOES affect my right to be free from that kind of influence. IT may not impede on my specific rights at any given time, but unless you are suggesting I stay in my house, there is the potential that it will. All I have to do is walk outside, near someone who is smoking it. THEN it affects my right to be free from that influence. Quote: Heh. It's my job as a parent to teach my child the difference between a want and a need. It's my job as a parent to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong. That's not the job of my government. My government's job is to protect me from external threats, not myself. I don't need nor want my hand held, especially by my government. If you want your hand held, then you can seek that help. Don't force it upon me because you're too fucking selfish to realize that I have the right to do whatever I please in the privacy of my own home or place of business that's willing to let me do as I please. The same is said for the law. The external threat of pot is the altered brain chemistry that may affect someone else. Stop it at its source, and you no longer have to worry about it. An automobile is controlled by humans, therefore if a human is of the sort that will hurt others by being in the vehicle, stop the human from driving. A drug is of the sort that controls the human by altering the brain chemistry. If the drug is of the sort that will hurt others by being consumed, stop the drug from being consumed. Quote: What I see is someone so pretentious that they can't understand why people should be responsible for themselves. I'm an adult, and if I'm allowed to die for my country and vote for my elected leaders, I should have the responsibility of determining what goes into my body and how I react because of it. Oh, I understand why people should be responsible for themselves, the problem is that people ARE NOT ACCEPTING that responsibility. I bet, with 100% certainty, that should you ever get into legal trouble for committing an act while high, you will claim that you should not be responsible because you were high at the time and did not know what you were doing. People already do that with Alcohol, what makes you think pot will be any different? Quote: The "I deserve it because I want it" argument DOES fly because I'm a legal adult deciding my own fate. You choose what food you eat. You choose when you leave the house, take a shower, go to bed, watch TV, access the internet, etc... What makes this any different? If it flies for this, it flies for everything someone would want to do. Are you sure you want to admit that? I'm a legal adult deciding my own fate. I should be allowed to kill as well. You have yet to provide an argument that can not be extended to allow violent crimes as well. The difference is that the simple act of eating, leaving the house, showering, going to bed, watching TV, accessing the internet, and yes, even smoking (whatever) does not affect anyone to any extent. Guess what? There are reasons why trans fats are becoming illegal and tobacco smoking is becoming illegal... because they harm to an excessive extent."Eating" does not, by nature, harm to any extent. Eating certain types of food do that regardless of how little is eaten. "smoking" by default, does not harm the body (for argument's sake). Smoking certain things, however, does. Changing your brain chemistry does the same thing during the time you are high. Harm to the extent of a reduction of mental capabilities to that of ignorance during the time the person is high. Quote: This is what responsibility is all about. Making the decisions on your own and suffering the consequences of your actions. Then accept the responsibility that it is illegal, and stop making excuses as to why you do not like the law.
warranto Guess what, you are arguing for the legality of drugs... NOT the legality to use it in your own home. There is a HUGE difference there. Pulling arguments out of our ass, are we? warranto Using drugs in public DOES affect my right to be free from that kind of influence. IT may not impede on my specific rights at any given time, but unless you are suggesting I stay in my house, there is the potential that it will. All I have to do is walk outside, near someone who is smoking it. THEN it affects my right to be free from that influence. Hence why I support that being ILLEGAL. How many times do I have to say it? Apparently I still have to. warranto The same is said for the law. The external threat of pot is the altered brain chemistry that may affect someone else. Stop it at its source, and you no longer have to worry about it. Again, why are you trying to make authorities into being a preventative force? If my brain isn't fucked up, why assume that it WILL be? Could it be? Sure, but it isn't, so don't punish me for something that hasn't happened. warranto An automobile is controlled by humans, therefore if a human is of the sort that will hurt others by being in the vehicle, stop the human from driving. How are you going to prevent them from driving? Random stops along the road? Nope, that won't have detrimental effects. warranto Oh, I understand why people should be responsible for themselves, the problem is that people ARE NOT ACCEPTING that responsibility. I bet, with 100% certainty, that should you ever get into legal trouble for committing an act while high, you will claim that you should not be responsible because you were high at the time and did not know what you were doing. People already do that with Alcohol, what makes you think pot will be any different? Let's make baseless assumptions! I take full responsibility for my actions whether or not I get in trouble for them. I was in legal trouble because I was caught stealing. I wasn't the one who came up with the brilliant (and incredibly fallible) plan, and I was gullible at that time during my life. However, that's not an excuse, and I would never use that as an excuse. I was 17 at the time, so I had the maturity to not be so stupid. warranto If it flies for this, it flies for everything someone would want to do. Are you sure you want to admit that? I'm a legal adult deciding my own fate. I should be allowed to kill as well. You have yet to provide an argument that can not be extended to allow violent crimes as well. PLEASE try and read what I say. I've explained SEVERAL times why it should not be extended to violent crimes. I guess I'm going to have to say it again: the simple reason why my reasoning doesn't get extended to that is because those crimes IMPEDE on the rights of others. warranto The difference is that the simple act of eating, leaving the house, showering, going to bed, watching TV, accessing the internet, and yes, even smoking (whatever) does not affect anyone to any extent. Guess what? There are reasons why trans fats are becoming illegal and tobacco smoking is becoming illegal... because they harm to an excessive extent."Eating" does not, by nature, harm to any extent. Eating certain types of food do that regardless of how little is eaten. "smoking" by default, does not harm the body (for argument's sake). Smoking certain things, however, does. Changing your brain chemistry does the same thing during the time you are high. Harm to the extent of a reduction of mental capabilities to that of ignorance during the time the person is high. Quote: This is what responsibility is all about. Making the decisions on your own and suffering the consequences of your actions. Then accept the responsibility that it is illegal, and stop making excuses as to why you do not like the law. Again, driving under the influence is and SHOULD REMAIN illegal for those reasons. Alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is illegal, and there's no reason why legalizing drugs would make it legal to drive under the influence.
xptek wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 10:10 Jecht wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 22:44 The problem with legalizing one is: the door is then open to legalize all narcotics. The addiction of some of these drugs is so strong that people steal for it, sell all of their belongings for it, and sponge even further off of government welfare for it. I saw a court case on television where a mother used the $5,000 she received for her daughter completely on crack cocaine. I refuse to pay taxes for people to get high. The system is already broken enough. You already pay taxes for plenty of people to get high. How is keeping the drug illegal going to ensure you don't? If anything, because of inflated prices caused by illegality of the drugs they're spending more of your tax money. Jecht wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 22:44 The world isn't so black and white. If drugs were made legal on a federal standpoint, I would honestly consider relocating to a different country. That's because the effect would transfer to those who don't want drug abuse in one way or another, and probably in a pretty detrimental way. The opposite has been proven time and time again in countries that have taken steps to decriminalize recreational drug use. Lower crime rates, lower drug use rates, etc. I don't believe that would happen in America. People here are far too stupid with their liberties. Hell, most of us don't even vote. If the legalization of drugs would make for less use rates, then I'm all for it. However, I highly doubt it.
I don't want my president to be a drug addict. I don't want the police who guards my city be drug addicts. I don't want the tearchers who teach kids be drug addicts. I don't want everyone who drives in the streets of my city be drug addicts. Imagine if they were.
Your president has done drugs. And are you honestly telling us you don't think there are policemen, teachers and drivers out there who are on/addicted to drugs?
BlueThen wrote on Sat, 24 November 2007 15:28 I don't want my president to be a drug addict. I don't want the police who guards my city be drug addicts. I don't want the tearchers who teach kids be drug addicts. I don't want everyone who drives in the streets of my city be drug addicts. Imagine if they were. Yep, none of them have ever or will ever do drugs regardless of legality.
I'm talking about EVERYONE. Not just the people who doesn't realize the consequences. Illegal drugs, not medication.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 24 November 2007 16:52 bluethen u r retarded. ^
Call me retarded, but I'm actually smart enough to not use illegal drugs. I don't fucking need illegal drugs to make myself feel better. If you need illegal drugs to feel better, you honestly need to see a professional. I don't care what scientific shit you guys have on illegal drugs, there is much proof with deaths and diseased people caused by illegal drugs. So it's a bit ironic, when you take drugs to feel better, but in the end, they make you worse. It takes common sense to realize that. I want illegal drugs to stay illegal so I don't have to be extra cautious to the people around me, and so I don't have to trust riding with anyone driving who, if illegal drugs were legalized, potentially is a drug addict, which dis-functions the brain, and endangers me and everyone else putting their lives at hands to that person when riding in a car with him or her. If you think that illegal drugs are fine, then honestly, YOU are the one that's retarded.
Bluethen is one of the few rational people here in regards to this topic in my opinion. This goes back to my Black and White arguement earlier. Yes there are city officials using drugs, but I don't want them to be able to use them freely and loosely. There isn't much you can do about those that don't get caught, but just because you don't doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Oh, I've gone over this several times in this thread. The people you are round daily probably drink on a regular basis. If that knowledge doesn't shake you, then neither should the idea of people around you doing "illegal" drugs. Also, don't judge anybody for wanting to use drugs to experience an altered state of mind. It's quite closed-minded to do so. I enjoy getting drunk on the weekends. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as I don't abuse it, my body won't care too much. If you want to stay away from it, that's your choice, but don't you be an asshole by judging people.