Why Drugs Should Be Legal!

[BERBURT]

I think drugs should be legal. this is just a thought.
i think that they should sell drugs at the store for 25 cents a serving.
the drugs should be manufactured by the government and no extra charge
to make it. all drugs should have warning lables stateing side effects directions on
how to use, what a lethal dose would be and all other things that would pertain to the general bad and good of the drug.
now this may seem like a dumb thing to do, but think of all the time money and resources that it would save. there would be no more drug dealers because who is going to sell somthing for a quarter it woild be like dealing bublegum. people would not be getting killed who were not involved in drugs. also it would save money on policing and or any kind of task force that would be used on dealing with the drug problem. also these "make shift doctors" would not be dealing drugs such as methadone to help rehabilitate the users.
now you may tink this is a dumb idea, but if someone is going to use drug they are going to whether it was legal or not and they would probably come to the same fate anyway. the point in life and in drugs is to pace yourself. those who cant pace will not win the race, and this will also free up space in the prisons so that is like saving 50 thousand dollar per year per inmate to spend on the good of our country. for instants better schools. putting someone through college. as far as the college thing goes take a person like an ordinary joe maybe high school drop out or graduate. It doesnt matter. everyone has money problems.
lets say joe is broke and has no education so he goes and gets a job at mcdonalds making minimum wage paying minimum taxes working a 40 hour week minimum.
my calculations come to 10,712.00 a year just above poverty level. with taxes taken out 8,569.60 take home. so he is only paying 2,142.40 roughly. over a 20 year period he is roughly paying 42,848.00 in taxes. lets say uncle sam says here joe 50,000.00 to get your ass an education and he goes to college. he gets his BA or BS in whatever. joe gets out gets a job making an average 15.00 an hour. he makes 600.00 a week. making total 31,000.00 a year and after taxes take home is about 24,960.00. he pays 6,040.00 a year in taxes alone. say after 20 year of work he is paying in taxes 120,800.00 minus the 50,000.00 that uncle sam gave him. the 42,848.00 he would have payed working at mcdonalds. he has payed around 30 thousand dollars more in his 20 year working then would have payed without the education.
people would work more than 20 years if they enjoyed thier job. Also the goverment gets over a 20 year span 30,000.00 in taxes that they would have not have gotten,plus all the possesions he would have accumulated over the years like he may be able to afford a house
and a car.
now these figures are without a raise and things like that and i took an average of 20%
for taxes, do the math

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. I COULD BE WRONG.

[micael]

My few cents to the drug discussion.

If the drugs should be manufactured by the government they also should be responsible for the treatment and rehab of addicts who not could handle all free drugs in a good way.

I would not want my daughter to be introduced to drugs in such an easy way were I hardly could control if she started to use it or not. Its hard as it is today to monitor a kid without to be worried every time she is going to the store.

Better to live with our restrictions and those using drugs of any kind be responsible for their own actions.

[rcgreen]

The prohibition of drugs is a product of the liberal philosophy,
beginning with the reforms of the Progressive Movement
at the beginning of the 20th century.

Before then, there were no laws against drugs, no income
taxes, and the prison population was small.
Serious crimes got the death penalty.

They called it the "Robber Baron" era.
The rich were respected, and the poor worked
hard.

The "drug of choice" was alcohol. If you were an
alcoholic, it was your own problem.

A bunch of little old ladies went on a holy
crusade against alcohol, and it was outlawed (temporarily)
in the 1920s.

Drugs were outlawed at about the same time.
There was a new philosophy in criminal
justice. It was no longer considered humane
to punish criminals. Now they were labeled
as "sick" and sentenced to long terms to be
"rehabilitated"

Many new prisons had to be built.
Hollywood made lots of "gangster" films.

"Progress" often has many unintended consequences.
This is why I am a reactionary.
Idealists who always want to "reform"
everything should not have the power
to experiment with other people's lives.
:cool:

[BERBURT]

this is a view that i have sure it has its flaws but doesnt everything.
as far as children go hey we can just require an age say 18, 21 or what have u
but if u think they would be more accessible just ask your kids
im sure your kid knows someone who does drugs. just knowing someone gives access
it would be a mistake to think otherwise. Ive seen kids in elementary school
5 and 6 graders selling weed. oh and as far as the government having to take responsibility
there can also be a legal disclaimer.
one more point in most cases of death from drugs they were not pure or people
didnt know the drug with directions on them and the adverse effects on them also with the government manufacturing them they would be in the most part as pure as possible

please feel free to expand on the topic a really would like to hear the views.

together we may accually come to some kind of aggreement
thank you

also dont forget the benifits of no mo drug dealers

oh where i live "pennsylvania" they have state stores for the selling of alcohol
beer distributers and state stores for the purchase of liquer
we could have a "drug store" no not eckards but a real drug store monitored
by the police.

[BERBURT]

oh and not to piss any one off but u may see a rapid decline in rap music
cause rappin about haw much drugs u sell wouldnt be that big a deal

[stflook]

First off, if drugs are legalized, there need to be two categories: marijuana and hard drugs. I say this because because marijuana isn't nearly as dangerous as hard drugs, and it's not physically addictive. It can be habit-forming, but everything can potentially be. Now, it's not so simple as setting a price of 25 cents per dose. You have to figure manufacturing costs, which include supplies, employee salaries, upkeep of any machinery, etc. There also has to be a way to either prevent people from getting addicted easily, or a way for them to dig themselves out if they do become addicted. It would be much like the stop-smoking support groups out there, or AA. You would also want to tax the drugs in order to pay for such programs. You can't increase the national defecit to help people who lost control of themselves. After all, it's just as much their fault as it is the drug's. There is also the issue of the impact on the society as a whole. You don't want somebody experimenting with heroin on the roads, patrolling the streets, pregnant at the time, etc. There has to be ways to keep people from doing that, or at least to cut down on it and deal with those who won't listen.

Now, there are also benefits to legalizing drugs. First off, organized crime will drop tremendously. After all, the main purpose of their existence would be gone. This is also related to another problem with drug prohibition. Most people who overdose do it accidently. They're used to a certain dosage, and as you know, most of it is cut with an alternate substance. What happens is that they accidently get a hold of some that's not cut, and boom. Overdose. They may also get some that's been cut with a highly toxic filler, and get poisoned by that, instead. If drugs are legalized, the resulting regulation would theoretically cut down on overdose cases. There will always be those who use it as a method of suicide, but they don't really count, because suicide is suicide. It doesn't matter how you do it.

As far as pot goes, it doesn't need much regulation except for purity, keeping people off the roads and such while high, and keeping pregnant people off of it. There would need to be warnings as to the side effects as well, but that's true with any drug. Pot has medical uses as well, that would be beneficial to those who suffer from illnesses such as cancer and glaucoma. I won't get into the details, about that, though. Most people know that already. It also has mental benefits. People who have mood problems can benefit from a buzz. For example, the school system is especially hard on me. They cram crap down my throat that I want nothing to do with, rape me out of every opportunity I have ever had to get away and learn some more beneficial things, and get all pissy when I get mad at them. My peers can be even worse. It's a living hell for me. Needless to say, that's very frustrating, and often I have wanted to kill myself or others because of it. On an average of every two or three weeks, I have a little. It really helps me cope a lot. People with anger problems would benefit from it, as it would help them control themselves while they get help. It certainly wouldn't be a solution, though.

There are also disadvantages to legalizing drugs. For example, most hard drugs are highly addictive. It's the whole cigarette debate all over again. Also, heroin addicts don't respond to most pain killers. That can be a great burden for medical professionals. There will also be some people at first who think of at as an excuse to go wild, and they'll end up killing themselves or others. That would go way down before too long, but it needs to be factored in.


Considering everything, I think that legalizing drugs (with some restrictions) would be a good move in the long run.

[BERBURT]

now this is what im talking about. clap clap clap
definatly made a good point
keep it up stflook

[Mankan]

Did it ever occur to you that drug addicts can't hold a job? That they can't take care of their kids and that they need medical care?

Sure drugs could be legal in a happy world where there were no addicts but there are. Alcohol is legal in most of the modern world and in all of these countries there are the same problems with the addicts - They sooner or later need medical care, they easily become abusive to their family or whatever and they cost shitloads of money as the can't keep a job.

Now imagine these problems, but with hard drugs which hook you on an addiction in a matter of weeks and kills you in like 5 years or something.

That would suck.

[BERBURT]

ok who ever gave me neg points fine but dont hide yourdelf and not let me know who u are and in response to the obove post as ive stated before pace yourself and im not saying do the drugs either.
if someone becomes an addict they would have anyway and they would have spent alot more
money and hurt their families much worse.
acctually i know many fuctional heroine addicts they get good grades in school and do well in their jobs.
but the bitch about it is they take the shit just to keep from getting sick.

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post458696) by BERBURT
ok who ever gave me neg points fine but dont hide yourdelf and not let me know who u are and in response to the obove post as ive stated before pace yourself and im not saying do the drugs either.
if someone becomes an addict they would have anyway and they would have spent alot more
money and hurt their families much worse.
acctually i know many fuctional heroine addicts they get good grades in school and do well in their jobs.
but the bitch about it is they take the shit just to keep from getting sick.

I love fundamentally flawed arguments such as this. So basically Berburt, you're saying that since someone who becomes an addict will 'probably' become an addict anyways, you may as well GUARANTEE that this will happen?

Pardon me if I find that sentiment terribly terribly amusing.

All you'd be doing is encouraging people to do more drugs, which is probably a very bad thing.

stflook> I might have agreed with you a year ago, but Marijuana not being addictive is just a good 'ol lie. A friend of mine became addicted to the high provided by Marijuana, and it also did some other serious things to him, it screwed him up royally. I would still prefer people smoke pot than cigarettes, but if that was the case, I would hope that governments doing this kind of thing would tax the hell out of pot and make their buck off it. Drug use is something that shouldn't be encouraged.

[Ouroboros]

There's a difference between physical and mental addictions...

Most(if not all) drugs are addictive, after a fashion...even the ones that your doctor may prescribe for you. Cigarettes, for instance have a physical addiction that lasts for 21 or so days after the cessation of smoking. The mental addiction, however lasts much longer, and is much harder to get rid of. Oral fixation, etc...something in your head that makes you feel like you should be holding something (like a cigarette, for example), or that you should be feeling a different way than you do. That's mental addiction. Fine line, maybe, but it's still a line. That's where willpower comes in. Given sufficient willpower anyone can quit using any drug, but only if the physical addiction isn't too severe (such as heroin...hence the comment, "they keep taking it to keep from getting sick"). And anyone can prevent drug use from becoming overwhelming, under the same set of mental/physical addiction properties...hence, the 'casual drug user'. It's a Catch-22 in some respects, and varies greatly dependent on the user, but if you play with fire...

As far as the legalization of any substance goes, it's becoming a frustrating arguement, since most people forget that 2 of the most potentially harmful drugs are legal in the US (alcohol and nicotine), and any other substance, despite the studies, etc. done on them, are automatically villified, although I don't know of any potheads that beat the shit out of their wife/husband and kids, then go run down a half-dozen pedestrians in a blind rage. (I just pictured the party scene from the movie "Reefer Madness", for some reason:)).
Simply put, I think that if it exists in nature, legalize it. (And don't go throwing that 'heroin comes from poppies' thing at me...i've never seen anyone smoking a poppy seed cigarette) I'm thinking more along the lines of 'pulling my car over and grabbing a handful of ditch weed or a handful of psylocibin-containing mushrooms' kind of existing in nature.

Some people are addicted to money, some to alcohol, others to power, and some to nicotine. Life itself is a series of addictions, some 'permissable' and some not. Either way, I'll keep drinking a beer and smoking a joint when I feel like it, and just watch the static arguement rage on around me...hopefully generating enough willpower to not let any of it control my life.

Ouroboros

[valhallen]

legalising drugs throws up alot of issues - ok so the govment could get pharmacutical companies to manufacture it ensuring that the drug is not 'cut' with anything that is going to do you more harm than the drug itself and they could earn a tidy profit from taxing it like cigs and alcohol but what about costs of enforcing the new legislation governing its sale and use?

A age restriction would need to be applied then there would have to be people to over see that the restriction is being adherd to - and what about people caught DUI (driving under influence) a simple breatholiser test can clarify wither or not they are over the limit but its going to be a much harder process to see if someone is driving while under the influence of say exstacy or cannabis.

But then again people who want to use drugs are going to - but maybe what they need is more lax laws governing it - stop bullying the lil guy - start cracking down on dealers and those people bringing it into the country and leave the users be......maybe even help them a lil - set up clinics where they can have drugs tested for purity in complete anonamity?

Plus we still don't know the longterm side-effects of some drugs.....it ain't that long ago that peps thought tabbaco was harmless! Heh when it first came to ireland along with the potatoe it was recorded in a medical journal at the time that potatoes may lead to obescity, flatulence, laziness and general ill health where as the same journal remarked that tabacco was harmless :) Its a well known fact that certain drugs can cause 'flashbacks' - this I can testify to and sometimes they r anything but plesent and I wasn't a heavy user....imagine a heavy user who perhaps hasn't done any form of drug in a while is driving his 2 kids to school when he suddenly has a momentary flashback causing him to lose his concentration and he plows into the car in front of him - how do the courts prove that it was because of the drugs? ok so they maybe out of his system but the damage they have done to his psyche isn't!

Its a tough issue - there's alot of pros and cons to it which i doubt will ever be completely sorted....I still believe that its your body your choice but drug use has the potential to harm others not just the user.....all i can say is roll on the day when i can drop a pill do a couple of lines before i go out and then on my return take some wonder drug which wipes all traces of it from my body, repairs all the damage the drugs have done to me and leave me feeling like no substance has ever been introduced to my body!!

and when that day comes bill gates will announce that micro$oft is a monopoly and in order to make mends will donate all his wealth to all the lil companies he has bullied out of business ;)

v_Ln

[BERBURT]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post458813) by chsh


I love fundamentally flawed arguments such as this. So basically Berburt, you're saying that since someone who becomes an addict will 'probably' become an addict anyways, you may as well GUARANTEE that this will happen?

Pardon me if I find that sentiment terribly terribly amusing.

All you'd be doing is encouraging people to do more drugs, which is probably a very bad thing.

stflook> I might have agreed with you a year ago, but Marijuana not being addictive is just a good 'ol lie. A friend of mine became addicted to the high provided by Marijuana, and it also did some other serious things to him, it screwed him up royally. I would still prefer people smoke pot than cigarettes, but if that was the case, I would hope that governments doing this kind of thing would tax the hell out of pot and make their buck off it. Drug use is something that shouldn't be encouraged.


well chsh i just love how you draw conclusions.
i never said poeple should do drugs
i mereley made a motion that people start taking responsibility for thier actions and
the government to get off our ass. life is hard enough without the burden of carrying agroup of people who obviously do not have a will to live knowing the dangers of using drugs.
we do not need parents to watch us and make sure we are punnished for doing wrong cause some legislator make a law based on the good. and not what is nessesary.
there are many weak minded individuals out there and its starting to **** the jean pool.
its time this country cut the fat and let natural selection take hold
no one is gauranteed life or should be.


so before u start your whistle blowing, "use a little reason".
you can start with reading the entire post and all views this is open discussion not the inquisition.
I hope you find this a little more amusing than the last.
oh and by the way thank you for the negitive points :D
just next time justify them!

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post459079) by BERBURT
well chsh i just love how you draw conclusions.
i never said poeple should do drugs

That's fine if you didn't outright say it, but by legalizing everything and selling it for a quarter what kind of message (as the government) are you sending to your citizens? Especially if you're manufacturing these drugs as you said. There is really only one way that would be taken: Do drugs.

i mereley made a motion that people start taking responsibility for thier actions and
the government to get off our ass. life is hard enough without the burden of carrying agroup of people who obviously do not have a will to live knowing the dangers of using drugs.

No, you didn't make a motion that people start taking responsibility for their actions, just the opposite I might say. First, you started off saying that we should basically legalize drugs (you didn't specify which drugs, you just said 'drugs') and charge nothing for them so that people don't waste their money buying it. What do you think is likely to happen, that people will be MORE responsible and do the right thing?

And do you really think the government is 'on your ass'?? You could live elsewhere where they have different governments. Move up here to Canada, our government isn't 'on our asses' practically at all. They don't come charging into our homes with semi-automatic weapons for no good reason, and they certainly don't tell us how to live our lives. I don't think the US government does the same thing either.

we do not need parents to watch us and make sure we are punnished for doing wrong cause some legislator make a law based on the good. and not what is nessesary.
there are many weak minded individuals out there and its starting to **** the jean pool.
its time this country cut the fat and let natural selection take hold
no one is gauranteed life or should be.

And you think that legalizing all drugs will make this happen? You really truly believe that if you made drugs so inexpensive and free to use that it would be for the 'good'?

so before u start your whistle blowing, "use a little reason".
you can start with reading the entire post and all views this is open discussion not the inquisition.

Very good, it's open discussion, and I'm telling you that I disagree and am debating something here. Are you unable to handle this kind of discussion? When you reduce your opponent's arguments to 'whistle blowing' it starts to show that you're not interested in debating it. If that's the case, then all you are trying to accomplish is to see yourself post something in order to feel correct about it.
Never once have I stated in my debates that another's viewpoint is wrong, because that's not what debating is about. I presumed you posted this here for the purposes of debating it, rather than simply to read your own writing, but I could be mistaken.

I hope you find this a little more amusing than the last.
oh and by the way thank you for the negitive points :D
just next time justify them!

I always give reason and justification as well as my nick with my APs. If you feel my APs were not justified, then too bad. I felt they were justified, and I gave you the points. No sense in whining about it.

BTW, I did find it amusing. Berburt, if you patch the holes in your argument (the idea that legalizing and cheapening all drugs wouldn't increase drug use) it might be a good debate.

[BERBURT]

no chsh the reason i said 25 cents
is because thats a figure i came up with that itr would cost
remember the cost of the chemicals are expensive now but if were legalized they would go down dramaticly
also people could afford it .
why make expensive? why even tax it ?
i dont believe there should be annyone making money off this
if the government did thats like passing the drug dealing torch to them
we all know making money off of peoples misery is illeagal
because the government does not like competition.

and as far as the government it is corrupt. need i expand on this!
also i welcome a debate. so are there any other areas that are debatable
if u can convince me that this will not solve anything than i
will accept, but i believe there are some beneficial consequences also
how about u
can u honestly say there isnt?

[rcgreen]

This discussion isn't so much about drugs
as about how far we are willing to let
government micromanage our lives.

If I were a small child, I would need my parents
to teach me right from wrong.
An adolescent may still need some guidance
and occasional discipline.

When do they consider me to be an adult member
of society? What happens if they decide to outlaw
everything that has been shown to be unhealthy?

I began to be concerned along these lines a few years
back when Hillary Clinton wanted to give the USA
free health care.
Think about it. If they pay the doctor bills, then they have
a right to see to it that you don't waste their money
by making unhealthy choices, like smoking tobacco, drinking
coffee, eating bacon and eggs.

In the past, our laws recognized the fact that your liberties
had to be compromised with the liberties and safety of others.
Today, the thinking is that you must be protected
from yourself, even when there is little plausible
threat to others.
:cool:

[stflook]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post458813) by chsh

stflook> I might have agreed with you a year ago, but Marijuana not being addictive is just a good 'ol lie. A friend of mine became addicted to the high provided by Marijuana, and it also did some other serious things to him, it screwed him up royally. I would still prefer people smoke pot than cigarettes, but if that was the case, I would hope that governments doing this kind of thing would tax the hell out of pot and make their buck off it. Drug use is something that shouldn't be encouraged.

Please elaborate on this a little. Exactly what did it do to him? There are some side-effects that come with marijuana usage, as with any other drug. Are the things it did consistent with what pot is known to do to people? Also, there are some other chemicals in the smoke, some of them carcinogens, that aren't good for you. Maybe he reacted to one or more of those?

I never said marijuana wasn't addictive. There are ways in which it is addictive. I said it's not physically addictive, which is true. However, I also said that it's habit-forming, which is the same thing as a psychological addiction. Anybody who says it's not addictive at all is either horribly misinformed, or is just trying to justify it to themselves. I find it interesting that you said he became addicted to the high it provided, instead of simply saying he bacame addicted to it. It sounds to me like he is a perfect example of what I'm saying.

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post459984) by BERBURT
no chsh the reason i said 25 cents
is because thats a figure i came up with that itr would cost
remember the cost of the chemicals are expensive now but if were legalized they would go down dramaticly
also people could afford it .
why make expensive? why even tax it ?
i dont believe there should be annyone making money off this
if the government did thats like passing the drug dealing torch to them
we all know making money off of peoples misery is illeagal
because the government does not like competition.

#1, you'll notice I said I had no problem with legalizing marijuana, but other drugs are out of the question.
#2, If you tax the hell out of it, then it will discourage people from using/imbibing too much of it.

and as far as the government it is corrupt. need i expand on this!
also i welcome a debate. so are there any other areas that are debatable
if u can convince me that this will not solve anything than i
will accept, but i believe there are some beneficial consequences also
how about u can u honestly say there isnt?

Yes. Please elaborate on your 'beneficial consequences' please, and then I will debate them. Overall, legalizing and cheapening drugs will only encourage more people to use them (I sound like a broken record here, don't I?), and I think that's the wrong message to send.

Originally posted by rcgreen:
I began to be concerned along these lines a few years
back when Hillary Clinton wanted to give the USA
free health care.
Think about it. If they pay the doctor bills, then they have
a right to see to it that you don't waste their money
by making unhealthy choices, like smoking tobacco, drinking
coffee, eating bacon and eggs.

In the past, our laws recognized the fact that your liberties
had to be compromised with the liberties and safety of others.
Today, the thinking is that you must be protected
from yourself, even when there is little plausible
threat to others.

That's an extraordinarily flawed view of what public healthcare would do. Perhaps you should do a little research on Canadian healthcare and see what you can derive from how our healthcare system works. What you suggest is rather amusing, and I take it that you don't wear seatbelts when you drive (a finable offence up here in Ontario)?

What you will find about how Canadian healthcare works is that there are warning labels (big ones) on cigarette packages, and that cigarettes are taxed in order to cover the health problems they cause. You'll also no doubt read that out in western Canada, the provinces have successfully sued tobacco companies for health care money.

Public healthcare doesn't mean your liberties are taken away, just the opposite in fact. You are free to see a doctor when you like, and you're free to walk into a hospital when you like without being charged for it. Personally, as an asthmatic, I find that comforting.

Originally posted by stflook:
Please elaborate on this a little. Exactly what did it do to him? There are some side-effects that come with marijuana usage, as with any other drug. Are the things it did consistent with what pot is known to do to people? Also, there are some other chemicals in the smoke, some of them carcinogens, that aren't good for you. Maybe he reacted to one or more of those?

Essentially he blew $2000 in one month on pot, was high the whole time, and then crashed hard. He began to have delusions about things, and was generally speaking mentally unwell. Before he smoked pot, he was perfectly fine, and he's on track to recover right now, but it was rough on him and his parents.

I never said marijuana wasn't addictive. There are ways in which it is addictive. I said it's not physically addictive, which is true. However, I also said that it's habit-forming, which is the same thing as a psychological addiction. Anybody who says it's not addictive at all is either horribly misinformed, or is just trying to justify it to themselves. I find it interesting that you said he became addicted to the high it provided, instead of simply saying he bacame addicted to it. It sounds to me like he is a perfect example of what I'm saying.

We could argue about semantics about what the term 'physically addictive' might entail (chemically addictive might be a better term), but that's for another day. I don't disagree, I've seen the scientific evidence to base that statement on, and it' pretty convincing. I still don't think that it's mentally easygoing on someone to be high all the time, which is why I'd say tax the hell out of it. Cost is a very effective deterrent from my observations.

[Therealmaster]

I would hope that governments doing this kind of thing would tax the hell out of pot and make their buck off it. Drug use is something that shouldn't be encouraged.

My thoughts exactly, it might even be enough (in the UK), to restore the NHS,whcih would mean drug use helping us all.

[rcgreen]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post461263) by chsh


That's an extraordinarily flawed view of what public healthcare would do. Perhaps you should do a little research on Canadian healthcare and see what you can derive from how our healthcare system works. What you suggest is rather amusing, and I take it that you don't wear seatbelts when you drive (a finable offence up here in Ontario)?



What I disagree with is the idea that the government is
responsible for health care, and the inevitable logical
connection with their control of things that historically
were in the realm of personal liberty.
The fact is, that those who pay the bills will have control.
If this control is exercized in a mild and reasonable way
in Canada, that's good.

Liberty is a harsh regime. It means that you cannot reach
out and claim other peoples' resources to meet your needs.
The welfare state is such a warm sounding promise, but once you
have accepted the principle that the government has sovereignty,
you no longer have the right to smoke dope, which existed in the 1800s.
Maybe the majority of people favor the prohibition of drugs.
Obviously there are health consequences of being an addict.

Next they will outlaw tobacco.
The idealists and utopians will cheer.
We are engaged in a great civil war over drug use.
Much of the misery associated with drug use should really
be attributed to drug prohibition.

The only consequence of legalizing drugs would be that a lot of snotty
little fascists would have to get real jobs instead of being employed torturing
drug addicts.
:cool:

[BERBURT]

that was a hell of a post rcgreen
also the vampiristic drug dealers will also suffer and in turn have to get real jobs

[stflook]

Not all of the drug dealers will be able to get real jobs. There are some dealers out there that will be able to, but for the most part, dealers are people who were raised on the streets and whose primary education was on the streets. They lived in the ghettos, and in a culture of violence, gangs, drug abuse, and tension. These people will have a hard time adjusting, and will likely go on to something else of that nature. It's all they know.

Where legalizing drugs will hurt organized crime is in the high-level areas, like the importers and manufacturers. This may not seem like a whole lot of the population of dealers, but the rest of the dealers will be without business, and most of them will be left without product.

[Negative]

Originally posted by Rcgreen
What I disagree with is the idea that the government is
responsible for health care, and the inevitable logical
connection with their control of things that historically
were in the realm of personal liberty.
The fact is, that those who pay the bills will have control.
If this control is exercized in a mild and reasonable way
in Canada, that's good.

As in Canada, we Belgians have free healthcare...but it's not as simple as that... Belgium is a democracy, meaning the people make the laws. We live in a welfare state, but our government isn't sovereign at all. We pay taxes, and the government uses those taxes (i.e. for free healthcare). You might argue that that ain't free healthcare at all, but imo it certainly does beat the American system... Does this mean the Belgian government controls our lifes? Not at all... In fact, marihuana is legal in Belgium. As in Canada, we have those big warning labels on cigarette packages, and cigarettes are taxed (heavily) in order to help cover the health problems they cause, but - and this is what is important - you are free to smoke, free to drink as much as you want.

I began to be concerned along these lines a few years
back when Hillary Clinton wanted to give the USA
free health care.
Think about it. If they pay the doctor bills, then they have
a right to see to it that you don't waste their money
by making unhealthy choices, like smoking tobacco, drinking
coffee, eating bacon and eggs.

Imo, chsh is right when he says your argumentation is flawed. It's not them who pay the doctor's bills (where would they get the money?), it's the citizens who pay them by paying taxes...

[umbobo1]

Where I live drugs are everywhere. Along with the drugs comes crime, violence, unhappiness, and desperation. It does not end. Our pain will indeed last forever, and the addictions will truly never die. I have fallen to their power but found no release from my pain in these chemicals. I sit here wondering why. It seems pain is the only thing that I am truly addicted to. Perhaps death will bring about the end of my pain.....perhaps not.

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post461510) by rcgreen
What I disagree with is the idea that the government is
responsible for health care, and the inevitable logical
connection with their control of things that historically
were in the realm of personal liberty.
The fact is, that those who pay the bills will have control.
If this control is exercized in a mild and reasonable way
in Canada, that's good.

Yup, and in Canada, we pay the bills. The citizens in a democracy are the ones in control. If you feel America operates otherwise, perhaps moving to another country where you don't have those kinds of worries in order. From what your post reads, it sounds like you're in a Democratic Dictatorship, wherein you vote your dictatorship government in every four years.

After the last elections, I think the American democracy is a rather bad example of a democracy. If a president wins but had lots the popular vote, I fail to see how that makes him a president. More of your country voted for the other guy. So perhaps you have reason to see it that way.

Next they will outlaw tobacco.
The idealists and utopians will cheer.
We are engaged in a great civil war over drug use.
Much of the misery associated with drug use should really
be attributed to drug prohibition.

The only consequence of legalizing drugs would be that a lot of snotty
little fascists would have to get real jobs instead of being employed torturing
drug addicts.

No, they'd just get jobs for the government.

[rcgreen]

The Health care plan proposed by hillary clinton's
comittee wasn't a national health plan on the
European model. It was actually a law making
it mandatory for people to purchase health
insurance, and it would have been administered
by the health insurance industry.

Under a true national health plan, government
makes the rules, controllong physician compensation,
what health conditions are covered, how much specialty
or exotic care you are entitled to etc.

If it is a democracy, these are "public policy" matters.
Hillary's plan was a hybrid, what I like to call "the worst
of both worlds".
Employers would have been mandated to buy health
insurance for all employees. The insurance companies
would have continued to decide the standards of care.

As you can see, we never do anything simple in the USA.
BTW, our system of gov't reflects the fact that it is a large
population of rancorous interest groups who want to
capture control of gov't for private gain.
Actually, it is a good system, designed to de-centralise
the power. Congress consists of two houses, one is a
"popular" institution like British house of commons, with members
representing small districts
Members of the Senate, on the other hand, represent the States,
and President is not responsible to the legislature
since he is elected separately.
Hopefully, their interests will cancel each other and they won't
get any utopian laws passed.
:cool:

[Cohiba227]

hell yah! i feel ya on this one...though personally i believe that if any current illegal drug be legalized it should be a close friend of mine, MARJUANA!! although people would end up being stupid bout it...stayin high all the time and turn out to have no life, causing it to be illegal again! gotta juss use it responsinably and get the shit that needs to be done, done....maybe someday....hopefully, hehe.

[Dr Toker]

Smoke weed

[E5C4P3]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=219554#post462404) by Cohiba227
hell yah! i feel ya on this one...though personally i believe that if any current illegal drug be legalized it should be a close friend of mine, MARJUANA!! although people would end up being stupid bout it...stayin high all the time and turn out to have no life, causing it to be illegal again! gotta juss use it responsinably and get the shit that needs to be done, done....maybe someday....hopefully, hehe.


oh i thought u were talking about beer. what a coincedence.
I smoke and I dont do stupid shit. I do know people who drink and do do stupid shit.
I think if weed were legal dont be supprised to see a fat article and landscape in better homes and gardens. the government would sell some but people would just grow it.
time to rip out those rose bushes and make way for the weed.
you be supprised on how many people smoke, I'm talking about the people you never would suspect. I bet if we had some kind of representation. we could take a poll, a national poll.
forget representation lets start an Email poll and see how many people would agree.
weed is no demon by any means.
I myself am 1/4 american indian. My ancestors smoked it ... did u think that was tobacco in the peace pipe? hell no it was good old Mary Jane.

[SarinMage]

i havent had a problem with it either..... usually helps me program better, if im in the mood, lol

[jared_c]

The government will NEVER legalize drugs simply because there is NO way that they could control 100% of the creation and distribution of the drug. They would not be able to tax marijuana like they tax cigarettes. Anyone can grow marijuana by spending a little cash on the supplies needed. The people could and would grow it a hundred times stronger than the government would. Hence why would the people buy government grown pot? Which means the government wouldn't make any money off of it. Try growing a tabacco plant in your closet. doesn't work too well does it? That is why cigarettes are legal, and pot isn't. In America in order for the government to give the people something, it has to benefit the powers that be in some way.

In my opinion, yes marijuana should be legal with the exact same restrictions as cigarettes. It won't happen anytime soon with the leaders we have now.

Other drugs... That is a whole nother story. If I ran the world people could do whatever they wanted to their own body as long as they didn't hurt anyone else. If they hurt someone else because of decisions they made whether it be drug related or not, then they would face the consiquences.

I feel that every drug should at least be legal for medical reasons. When it comes to medicine, I feel that if it helps someone who is sick, then it should be used.

Over all, I agree drugs should be legal, but there should be certain restrictions. I won't get into it too much now because I am at work.

Good topic. I love talking about this stuff. :)