Why Drugs Should Be Legal! - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Why Drugs Should Be Legal!

  1. #11
    Senior Member Ouroboros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Superior, WI USA
    Posts
    628

    Post Addiction

    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 **** 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
    "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

    "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

    -Occam's Razor


  2. #12
    Flash M0nkey
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,447
    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

  3. #13
    AntiOnline Jr. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    110
    Originally posted here 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
    just next time justify them!

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted here 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
    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.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  5. #15
    AntiOnline Jr. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    110
    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?

  6. #16
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716

    Thumbs up

    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.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    752
    Originally posted here 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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted here 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.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    118
    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.
    There\'s no sense in being Pessimistic...it would never work anyway.

  10. #20
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Originally posted here 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.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •